• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most Dishonest 2010 Campaign Ads

Freddy

Graduate Poster
Freddy
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,205
Location
USA
This thread is dedicated to discussing the sleaziest, most dishonest, and most unfair campaign ads of this election season. I'm especially interested in exploring the relative (dis)honesty of third party ads made possible by Citizens United, compared to ads by candidates and PACs, which have always been allowed. This isn't a scientific study, obviously, but a little empirical data would be nice to have.

All submissions are welcome. I'm hoping that the geographical and political diversity of this board will alert all of us to sleazy ads we otherwise might not have seen.
 
Sad to say, but apparently democrat Alan Grayson has a dishonest one.

Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible.
Click to expand...

The full quote however:
Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.
Click to expand...
 
quixotecoyote said:
That's one of the one's that's just puzzling. Why quote mine like that when the unedited quote would make the point? As LGF said, saying that it's biblical required for women to submit, but that men shouldn't make them, isn't a whole lot better.
Click to expand...

Well, saying it's in the Bible is an objective fact. I could say that.

If a woman wants to submit to her husband, I have no problem with that. It's him forcing her to do that rubs me the wrong way.

ETA:
She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Well, saying it's in the Bible is an objective fact. I could say that.

If a woman wants to submit to her husband, I have no problem with that. It's him forcing her to that rubs me the wrong way.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but this isn't the thread for it.
 
This one might be technically honest, but its intent is to deceive, so I call it dishonest:

[/QUOTE]

Note how the radio clip at :17 has zero context, and without context, zero meaning. Then at :20, instead of telling us that Schauer voted to cut Medicare, we are asked a question, "Did Schauer really vote to cut Medicare?" And then the same contextless meaningless radio clip.

If this ad is not dishonest, then it's plain stupid. When I hear the contextless meaningless radio clip, and then hear the accusation phrased as an interrogative, I immediately assume that the reason the ad's sponsor doesn't frame its accusation in a simple declarative is because the accusation is false and it wants to avoid straight-out lying. Which means if the accusation is true, they've really ended up hurting their message.

Whether it's true really just depends on how you define "cut."
 
Puppycow said:
Sad to say, but apparently democrat Alan Grayson has a dishonest one.



The full quote however:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well, I hardly ever watch TV.

On one Sunday, I decided to watch a SF49ers game. Every commercial break shown there were these ads between Sharron and Reid. The ads went back and forth attacking each other, no surprise. What really made me "lol" was that they kept claiming their rival was "another crooked politician." I then waited for the water is wet ad.

It never came. :(
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Well, it's not a TV ad, but the mailer described in this article is really low.
Click to expand...


Just a reminder to people that if you'd like to have subjects of your posts included in the tags for the thread (so that people in the future will be able to find threads about that subject), you need to include a summary in your post of whatever it is you are talking about.

Links alone won't do it. Tags are based on thread content, not on link content.

So far in this thread, Alan Grayson has been discussed specifically enough to justify a tag. Sharron Angle and Harry Reid squeak in as well. People doing tag searches on any of those people in the future will turn up this thread as one of the hits and be able to see these candidates were associated with scuzzy ads.

I have no idea whose mailer is referred to in the item linked to in this post. Nor, if/when the link expires (as many links do) will future readers of this thread. So if there is anything worth sharing at a link -- anything which you think it might be good for people to be able to locate via a tag search -- it's a good idea to take the time to quote or summarize whatever the relevant information at the link is.
 
Puppycow said:
And another one by Grayson.

This one is pretty bad too.
Click to expand...

Derrrr....

There was a war on and kids without the money or family pull to get into college were being snatched up to serve. I remember a lot of smarmy Republican dorks hanging around the student lounge whining about hippies protesting the war and yabbeda-yabbeda, and when I asked them when they were going to serve, they "had more important things to do." Sorry, the Republican dork gets no pass from me on that one.

He obviously had no moral compunctions about serving, so he should have either done the ROTC, or tried to and gotten his 1-Y back then.

And don't rag on Grayson. The war was over when he came of age.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Ooof-da. Grayson seems like a slimy guy alright. Sheds light on the choice of the other ad: it's just how he operates.
Click to expand...

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.

(BTW, I hope you realize that the passage about "submit to your husband" is about sex, not authority. Context matters.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom