At the risk of getting political yet again, a good example would be the Iraq war. Two people can look at this same "heap of facts" and one can think (logically) that it was a foolish unethical endeavour unlikely to do anything but make things worse, whereas the other can look at it and see it as a great idea because they are basing their assessment on subjective immaterial things like religion, country, etc.
Sorry, it's not nearly as cut and dry as you'd like to think. In fact you're already applying your built in bias to your statement and your claims of it being "foolish" and "unethical" are, in fact, still opinions. Also, the claim of making things "worse" is comical at best, depressing at worst. 1) You have no idea what the world would be like if we hadn't gone over so to claim it would be worse is you claiming to know what things exist in an alternate universe (if there is such a thing) and 2) how would you define "worse"? There haven't been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 7 years and 1 day ago so "factually" speaking it's "better."
As far as the ads go - It's like a rejected scene from Seinfeld which, I guess means it's still kinda funny (to me) but it's a few years too late. I think this entire campaign is just about trying to clean up the image of MS - hence why they aren't actually pushing Vista, or anything else for that matter. They just want people to think MS isn't that bad of a company.