Most Dishonest 2010 Campaign Ads

I suppose it's an interesting comment on our political scene that one must resort to surfing Fact-Check and similar sites to try to sift out what's going on.

Of course, this is nothing new, I recall campaigning during the 1800s that made our contemporary stuff seem rather tame.

Our local Blunt vs. Carnahan race is a good example; Blunt is trying to paint Carnahan as being in league with the "Obama-Pelosi Agenda"....You should hear the contempt in the voice-over when the fellow says "stimulus".
Carnahan, who's people have picked photos of Blunt that make him look like Satan incarnate, is portraying him as The Most Corrupt congressman, enriching himself and his family on the taxpayer's dollar.
Fact-check indicates both sets of ads are full of half-truths and innuendos.
 
leftysergeant said:
Hold on, now. Let's find out why the subject came up in the first place. Is that weasel Webster inserting religion into the race?

I notice he is chummy with another major Bible-thumping politico, Mike Hickabee.
Click to expand...
None of this changes the fact that he didn't say what Grayson implies he said.

(BTW, I hope you realize that the passage about "submit to your husband" is about sex, not authority. Context matters.)
Click to expand...
This changes nothing either.
 
Nova Land said:
If you think this YouTube ad is worth people knowing knowing about, it would be good to include a brief summary about whose ad it is and what you find dishonest about it.
Click to expand...


Puppycow said:
It would kind of defeat the purpose though.
Click to expand...


It depends on what the purpose is.

(a) If the purpose is to inform people of examples of dishonest political ads, then identifying such ads by stating who put out the ad and summarizing what the content of the ad is (including a brief explanation of why the content is dishonest) is helpful. As a skeptic, that would be my purpose.

(b) If the purpose is to get people to watch the video, then providing a straightforward summary might hinder the purpose. Some people may not be inclined to watch the video once they feel they have a reasonably good understanding of what it contains. That is their choice -- as it should be. People should be free to make their own choices, rather than be manipulated into making the choices we might want them to make.

But not all people will be less inclined to watch the video. For some of us, it works just the opposite way. I make it a general principle not to click on links if the person posting the link doesn't provide an explanation of what the link contains -- and to click links only if the person presenting the link first gives a decent summary of what is to be found at the link.

Clicking on naked links encourages people to withhold information. If someone wants to present evidence to support a point they are making, they should take the time to excerpt out the relevant information from the source they are relying on -- not simply wave a book (or link) in people's faces and say, Here! Read this! It proves I'm right!

Waving books or links around in that fashion is what paranormalists and conspiracy theorists do. It's a useful technique for people who don't really have anything substantial to put forward. If they had to summarize what it is they are putting forward, they'd need to strip off the rhetorical flourishes and get to the core of what it is they think is worth sharing. Often, though, rhetoric is all that the source they are relying on really has to offer . When the fancy wordplay is removed, what's left doesn't add up to anything.

Getting people to summarize what it is they are putting forward is helpful to the cause of skepticism and rational thinking. That's why it's a good habit to get into ourselves, and why I am surprised by how many people on a skeptical forum behave in just the opposite fashion.

If someone summarizes what it is they are putting forward, and it's something I am interested, then I am inclined to read the material they are citing or to click the links they provide. I don't know how many other people on this site follow this principle, but I certainly hope I'm not alone in it. So in the case of me and people like me, you are making it less likely we will view what you are presenting if you fail to provide a summary -- and more likely we will view it if you do provide a summary.

Do you still feel that providing a summary of what was at the link you provided would defeat your purpose in posting it? If so, I'd be interested in an explanation of what your purpose was.
 
Nova Land said:
It depends on what the purpose is.

(a) If the purpose is to inform people of examples of dishonest political ads, then identifying such ads by stating who put out the ad and summarizing what the content of the ad is (including a brief explanation of why the content is dishonest) is helpful. As a skeptic, that would be my purpose.

(b) If the purpose is to get people to watch the video, then providing a straightforward summary might hinder the purpose. Some people may not be inclined to watch the video once they feel they have a reasonably good understanding of what it contains. That is their choice -- as it should be. People should be free to make their own choices, rather than be manipulated into making the choices we might want them to make.

But not all people will be less inclined to watch the video. For some of us, it works just the opposite way. I make it a general principle not to click on links if the person posting the link doesn't provide an explanation of what the link contains -- and to click links only if the person presenting the link first gives a decent summary of what is to be found at the link.

Clicking on naked links encourages people to withhold information. If someone wants to present evidence to support a point they are making, they should take the time to excerpt out the relevant information from the source they are relying on -- not simply wave a book (or link) in people's faces and say, Here! Read this! It proves I'm right!

Waving books or links around in that fashion is what paranormalists and conspiracy theorists do. It's a useful technique for people who don't really have anything substantial to put forward. If they had to summarize what it is they are putting forward, they'd need to strip off the rhetorical flourishes and get to the core of what it is they think is worth sharing. Often, though, rhetoric is all that the source they are relying on really has to offer . When the fancy wordplay is removed, what's left doesn't add up to anything.

Getting people to summarize what it is they are putting forward is helpful to the cause of skepticism and rational thinking. That's why it's a good habit to get into ourselves, and why I am surprised by how many people on a skeptical forum behave in just the opposite fashion.

If someone summarizes what it is they are putting forward, and it's something I am interested, then I am inclined to read the material they are citing or to click the links they provide. I don't know how many other people on this site follow this principle, but I certainly hope I'm not alone in it. So in the case of me and people like me, you are making it less likely we will view what you are presenting if you fail to provide a summary -- and more likely we will view it if you do provide a summary.

Do you still feel that providing a summary of what was at the link you provided would defeat your purpose in posting it? If so, I'd be interested in an explanation of what your purpose was.
Click to expand...

Lulz.
 
Puppycow said:
It would kind of defeat the purpose though.
Click to expand...


Oops. In writing my post, I treated what you said as if you were the one who had posted the link. Just now I looked back and noticed that XBoxWarrior is the one who posted the naked link in question.

I assumed, when I read your post, that you were referring to your purpose in posting a link. If I had simply bothered to check upthread I would have seen that was not the case.

I stand by the basic point I was trying to make -- that it is a good practice when posting a link to summarize what is to be found at the link, and to quote or paraphrase anything relevant to the thread discussion which is to be found there -- but I should have re-read the thread more carefully before replying to your post. My apologies for implying in my post that you were the one who had posted the link. Obviously you can't explain what your purpose in posting the link was, since you weren't the one who posted it.
 
Sharon Angle claims that Harry Reid voted to give Viagra to child molesters.

Sharron Angle Resorts to Blatant Dishonesty

The ad asserts that Harry Reid voted to pay for “Viagra for convicted child molesters.” But in reality, what Reid voted against was one of many silly obstructionist amendments to the health care reform bill introduced by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, banning insurance coverage for Viagra for convicted sex offenders.
Click to expand...
 
Beerina said:
What's up with Little Green Footballs? Last time I heard it mentioned around here, it was a toxic, right-wing site given to conspiracy theories. Scanning their front page just now, they're closer to a leftist clearing house for anything to attack the GOP.
Click to expand...

Basicaly the author was one of those left wing people who's, oh lets put it politely, politics underwent a radical shift after 9/11. They appear to have shifted back during 2008 which would be about the time the last wheels were falling off the GWB wagon.
 
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/10/democrats_hit_new_low_with_tho.html

Here is what's so appalling to me: The ad makes the totally unsubstantiated charge that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from foreign interests and using it to "steal our democracy." And worse, President Obama is out on the campaign trail, according to the New York Times, creating an echo chamber by making the same reckless claims just as the ad hits the airwaves. And when CBS newsman Bob Schieffer Sunday asks David Axelrod if there is any proof for the claim, the senior Obama aide says they don't need proof -- it's up to the Chamber of Commerce to prove it isn't true.
Click to expand...
 
Wouldn't it be more noteworthy to report on TRUTHFUL campaign ads (assuming such a thing existed)?
 
Last edited:
GOPer: Dem Rep. Rahall (Who Is Arab-American) Is 'Good For The Middle East' (VIDEO)


Spike Maynard, the Republican candidate against Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) has a new spot up that claims Rahall is tied to terrorism and that he is "good for the Middle East." This is all quite interesting when one considers that Rahall is Arab-American, a Christian of Lebanese descent.

"Five things you deserve to know about Nick Rahall," the announcer says. "He's taken campaign cash from a group with terror ties -- and from Alamoudi, now a convicted terrorist. Rahall helped Qatar, while his sister was a registered foreign agent for them. He brags, (video clip of Rahall) 'I happen to have been an early supporter of Barack Obama.' And Rahall voted for Obamacare. Nick Rahall -- good for the Middle East, good for Obama -- bad for America."

As the Huffington Post notes: "It's worth noting, for instance, that most of the report's information appears to come from a book called 'Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America,' a controversial and notedly anti-CAIR book published by Joseph Farah, founder of ultra-conservative website WorldNetDaily."

In addition, the donation from Alamoudi, 'now a convicted terrorist,' occurred years earlier -- and Rahall gave away the money. In addition, the same Alamoudi also gave money to the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Click to expand...
 
The Republican in our local Congressional district is trying to tie his newcomer opponent to Nancy Pelosi. It is a blatant attempt to falsely equate the names.

And Rossi, running against Patty Murray our Senator, claims she is responsible for 18 years of terrible government. 18 years? That's all Republican except the good years we had under Clinton.
 
Harry Reid is worth six million dollars. :eye-poppi

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/21/angle-continues-air-attack-on-reids-wealth/

"The truth is, Reid is now worth up to six million dollars, and lives in a one million dollar Washington Ritz Carlton condo," a narrator says in the ad.

Angle has sought to make Reid's wealth a major campaign issue, hammering the Senate majority leader for living in a Washington D.C. Ritz-Carlton condo while his state has the highest foreclosure rate in the country. She first raised the issue during the candidate's contentious debate last week, asking Reid, "we would like to know, how did you become so wealthy on a government payroll?"
Reid called the accusation a "low-blow," retorting, "I was a very successful lawyer. I did a very good job of investing."
Click to expand...
Is that all he's worth? Where does six million dollars put you these days in the US rich list? His house is worth a million dollars. How many houses in the US are worth a million?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom