I think this has been brought up before though. Aren't most ads supplied by an aggregator... meaning liberal/conservative bents asides, AI really probably doesn't have much control what gets thrown up there.
Wait...where's SDW or Trumpt complaining that the RNC ads only push "negativitiy" and no president has ever won the whitehouse pushing nagativity. Only "positive" messages.
Oh, wait. That's an RNC ad. Oops.
Only Republicans are allowed to go negative while complaininig about negative ads simultaneously. I forgot.
The script goes kinda like this:
INT. CLASSROOM - DAY
A young student, RED, sits in his desk directly behind another student, BLUE. Red coyly looks around the room, waiting for the perfect moment...and then WHACK!...Red smacks Blue in the back of the head with a ruler.
BLUE
Ouch!
RED
Sissy.
BLUE
You hit me.
RED
So.
Blue smolders for a moment, contemplating his options. Does he tell the teacher or retaliate? Blue waits for the right moment, turns and smacks Red across the knuckles with his pencil.
Red's right hand goes straight into the air eagerly trying to gain the teacher's attention.
TEACHER
Yes, Red.
RED
Blue just punched me.
BLUE
No I didn't.
RED
Yes he did.
Teacher looks exasperated.
TEACHER
Blue, I expected better from you.
BLUE
But...
TEACHER
No, buts. This type of behavior is deplorable. You just earned yourself detention.
Red smiles devilishly behind Blue. Blue can't believe what just happened. The teacher turns back toward the chalk board.
Red smacks Blue in the back of the head with his ruler again. Blue cries out loud this time.
I find this fine, anyone can buy ads anywhere, i saw HP ads here before, it is nothing more than bad placement.
While i disagree with the whole thing, the one result of campeign finance reform that i dont understand is why a polatician must say something like "I AM X CANDADATE AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE" after the 30 second monolouge given by the candidate themeselves.
for disclosure:I have no technical offiliation with either party, but i do support bush/cheany
Gee this seems familiar doesn't it? Surpisingly he actually made it in to vote!
Quote:
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]
I find this fine, anyone can buy ads anywhere, i saw HP ads here before, it is nothing more than bad placement.
While i disagree with the whole thing, the one result of campeign finance reform that i dont understand is why a polatician must say something like "I AM X CANDADATE AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE" after the 30 second monolouge given by the candidate themeselves.
for disclosure:I have no technical offiliation with either party, but i do support bush/cheany
Didn't there used to be a regular on these boards who spelled as badly as you? (besides myself). . . are you that person?
HERE is an interesting article about the same vast interconnected media group (in seperate groups) that attacked Clinton non-stop about all sorts of fictitious stuff, made advertisements, and generally attacked attacked attacked in a behind the scenes but highly concerted method
they are also responsible for the famous Willie Horton adds among other things . .
(to read the whole thing just go through the Day-pass . . . no emails and only takes a split second)
Oh you mean like how Bush campaigned on a humble US Foreign Policy and now gives the middle finger to the rest of the world and it's concerns.
The same guy who said he would protect social security.... and now he's looking for new ways to raid those funds and dismantle it.
He was for ID's and fingerprinting of Mexican workers... but now is against it.
Was for working with the UN to force Saddam to disarm then said screw it we'll do it ourselves.
Was against negotiating with North Korea... but now is...
Wasn't going to use 9/11 fpr politcal gain... but has anyway.
Those Kerry form letter responses are consistent with each other... but they're are very well worded for the intended audience. You don't want to offend who's writing you... whether they are for or against you. You can agree with the ends but not the means. But maybe the nuances are what you don't get.
Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
Comments
But guys... Bush is ready for prime time... BWAHAHAHA
[email protected]
So you think Kerry is "ready for prime time"? lol it took Dean to make him look votable.
EEEEEEYYYYYAAAAAAHHHH!!! :P
Originally posted by dviant
AI really probably doesn't have much control what gets thrown up there.
Right. We can only request that specific ads be removed; that's about the extent of our control.
I wasn't assuming anything.
The RNC's money could be better spent elsewhere... but I'm happy if they waste it in as many places as possible.
Of course Kerry is ready for primetime. Next to marble mouth Bush... Dean was ready for primetime too.
Of course, the wolves here at AO couldn't let it go without ripping it and each other apart over the content of the ad.
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/000820.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954
Who's your daddy?
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Brad, just so you know, I know that you have no control over what ads are put here. I just thought this was funny so I posted it.
Yes, I fugured as much.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to post Kasper's e-mail address so people can send him more spam *cough* I mean... complaints about the ads.
Oh, wait. That's an RNC ad. Oops.
Only Republicans are allowed to go negative while complaininig about negative ads simultaneously. I forgot.
The script goes kinda like this:
INT. CLASSROOM - DAY
A young student, RED, sits in his desk directly behind another student, BLUE. Red coyly looks around the room, waiting for the perfect moment...and then WHACK!...Red smacks Blue in the back of the head with a ruler.
BLUE
Ouch!
RED
Sissy.
BLUE
You hit me.
RED
So.
Blue smolders for a moment, contemplating his options. Does he tell the teacher or retaliate? Blue waits for the right moment, turns and smacks Red across the knuckles with his pencil.
Red's right hand goes straight into the air eagerly trying to gain the teacher's attention.
TEACHER
Yes, Red.
RED
Blue just punched me.
BLUE
No I didn't.
RED
Yes he did.
Teacher looks exasperated.
TEACHER
Blue, I expected better from you.
BLUE
But...
TEACHER
No, buts. This type of behavior is deplorable. You just earned yourself detention.
Red smiles devilishly behind Blue. Blue can't believe what just happened. The teacher turns back toward the chalk board.
Red smacks Blue in the back of the head with his ruler again. Blue cries out loud this time.
TEACHER
That's it Blue! Go to the principals office!
While i disagree with the whole thing, the one result of campeign finance reform that i dont understand is why a polatician must say something like "I AM X CANDADATE AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE" after the 30 second monolouge given by the candidate themeselves.
for disclosure:I have no technical offiliation with either party, but i do support bush/cheany
Who's a flip flopper?
Gee this seems familiar doesn't it? Surpisingly he actually made it in to vote!
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]
Originally posted by a_greer
I find this fine, anyone can buy ads anywhere, i saw HP ads here before, it is nothing more than bad placement.
While i disagree with the whole thing, the one result of campeign finance reform that i dont understand is why a polatician must say something like "I AM X CANDADATE AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE" after the 30 second monolouge given by the candidate themeselves.
for disclosure:I have no technical offiliation with either party, but i do support bush/cheany
Didn't there used to be a regular on these boards who spelled as badly as you? (besides myself). . . are you that person?
HERE is an interesting article about the same vast interconnected media group (in seperate groups) that attacked Clinton non-stop about all sorts of fictitious stuff, made advertisements, and generally attacked attacked attacked in a behind the scenes but highly concerted method
they are also responsible for the famous Willie Horton adds among other things . .
(to read the whole thing just go through the Day-pass . . . no emails and only takes a split second)
The same guy who said he would protect social security.... and now he's looking for new ways to raid those funds and dismantle it.
He was for ID's and fingerprinting of Mexican workers... but now is against it.
Was for working with the UN to force Saddam to disarm then said screw it we'll do it ourselves.
Was against negotiating with North Korea... but now is...
Wasn't going to use 9/11 fpr politcal gain... but has anyway.
Those Kerry form letter responses are consistent with each other... but they're are very well worded for the intended audience. You don't want to offend who's writing you... whether they are for or against you. You can agree with the ends but not the means. But maybe the nuances are what you don't get.
Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Thursday proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with the authority and resources to carry out its mission effectively, while still being accountable to the public.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
October 11th, 2001
Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a department of homeland security, as may lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of homeland security?
MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies or more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another, I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under homeland security. So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet-level office of homeland security, the White House would still need, in the president's estimation, an adviser on how to coordinate all the myriad of activities the federal government's involved in. So, creating a cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies wherever they are.
Q So why, then, is the Lieberman bill a bad idea, in your estimation?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Lieberman bill. I don't -- (inaudible) -- specifics. Do you want to define the Lieberman bill?
Ari Fleischer
White House Briefing
March 19th, 2002
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., Thursday called for a new structure within the executive branch to help fight the war against terrorism within United States borders. The proposal, building upon a bill introduced by Lieberman and Specter last year, would create a National Department for Homeland Defense to focus federal attention and resources on securing our borders and protecting the critical infrastructure.
Sen. Committee on Governmental Affairs
Press Release
April 11th, 2002
The Cabinet post idea has political appeal. For instance, a major sponsor is freshman Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who sees it as enhancing his credentials on terrorism-related issues in a tough re-election fight with the expected GOP primary winner, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, chairman of the House subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Yet creating the 16th Cabinet department would represent an expansion of big government, a concept that the president makes a point of opposing.
Marianne Means
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
May 14, 2002
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said today he would advise President Bush to veto any legislation creating a congressionally authorized Office of Homeland Security if Congress approves a bill this year. "I'd probably recommend he veto it," Ridge told a National Journal Group editorial board meeting.
CongressDaily
May 30, 2002
So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
June 6th, 2002
Hundreds of lawmakers attending the White House barbecue Wednesday night had no idea what was unfolding. The only two believed to have been briefed, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), were told during the picnic. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), author of legislation much like the White House's proposal, got a call from Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge Wednesday night asking about details of his bill -- but Ridge didn't give a hint of what was coming in the morning.
Washington Post
June 7th, 2002
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security to make sure that not only can this administration function better but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century, a Homeland Security Department which takes over the 100 different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats ... The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President and future Presidents to better keep the American people secure.
George W. Bush
Trenton, New Jersey
September 23rd, 2002
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...07.html#002677
"I stand by my economic strategy"
"I'm not a numbers cruncher"