I thought it was clever.


(might be old)


"I've never fought a war on drugs.

I've never done shit on drugs


except play halo 2."

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason : lulz]

10/2/2008 12:04:39 PM

Is this Post Really Gay Shit in the Soapbox Day?

10/2/2008 12:11:13 PM

Could be worse.

10/2/2008 12:12:30 PM

What's funny is those folks probably think that video was unbiased, when in fact it was heavily slanted.

And the obligatory - why should we care what famous people think?

10/2/2008 12:33:55 PM

I do anything Natalie Portman tells me to (except vote for Hillary).

10/2/2008 12:34:21 PM

heavily slanted?


wtf?

10/2/2008 12:52:03 PM

When you say 'don't vote unless you care about X"

and X is your child's literacy, Darfur, global warming, gay rights, civil rights, abortion rights, et al - this ad, whether they know it or not, is designed to increase Democratic voter turnout and nothing else.

They don't care if I vote. They don't want me to vote. Because I'm an ignorant, selfish, unelightened rural sonofabitch who doesn't want to join their movement to save the world by big government.

In fact, my vote is dictated by whoever will do the least in office for all of those issues, assuming this is mostly about national politics (and it is).

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM. Reason : a]

10/2/2008 1:01:49 PM

That's awfully defensive.


are there not two sides to all of the topics they mentioned?

10/2/2008 1:03:19 PM

No, there are not.

"If you don't care about Darfur - don't vote."

Translation: Only vote if you want a President who will be active in the Darfur situation, and not turn a blind eye.

Well, what if I'm a non-interventionist and want my president to ignore Darfur? I support many private organizations doing good there with my own money voluntarily, but I want the President to not even have a policy on Darfur.

"If you don't care about your child's literacy, don't vote."

Translation: Elect politicians that will increase education funding and size of the federal and state departments of education. What if I don't want that? I care about my child's literacy, and so therefore I take responsibility for making sure he's ahead of the curve in education. What a novel idea - if you care about education - teach your kid something.

"Don't vote if you don't care about gay rights, abortion rights, etc."

Do I even need to comment here?

10/2/2008 1:10:45 PM

FEEL IMPORTANT

BUT DON'T MATTER

VOTE!

10/2/2008 1:32:44 PM

Quote :

" Well, what if I'm a non-interventionist and want my president to ignore Darfur?"

If you're non interventionist, then there's no candidate for you in this race, in which case the ad would be biased, but against you, and not any of the candidates.

And they did talk about "war on terror" in there too.

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2008 1:59:48 PM

Ironically, most of these folks in the video are filthy rich. Meaning, they're filthy and they're rich. Just like our politicians. Not to say that some of them don't have good hearts/intentions. And not to say that our politicians don't have good hearts/intentions. It's just something I noticed.

10/2/2008 2:15:26 PM

Quote :

"If you're non interventionist, then there's no candidate for you in this race, in which case the ad would be biased, but against you, and not any of the candidates."

Which doesn't contradict my point at all - they don't care if I vote or not, so they should quit the charade. These same folks will be ranting about the lunatics in flyover country if they don't get their way in this election. They don't care if those folks vote - and they're not even trying to reach them people with this ad.

Do you think these same folks would have put this ad out if there was an incumbent Democratic president? If so, would they have framed the economic issues so badly, or would they use phrases and tones that say gay/abortion/civil rights are massively important (hint: because they are currently under attack).

The ad would have been very, very different with a Democratic incumbent, and that is part of the evidence for the bias.

It's all somewhat irrelevant to me, as I'll be just as disappointed if the R's or the D's pull it out. Different lanes, same highway to perpetual war, ever-more trillions in government coffers, and a longer reach for all its agencies and departments. The Dems are in the fast lane on some of those, and the Reps take the lead on others - but there are no substantial differences in any element. That's why I think I can speak more objectively than most on these things - I don't have a horse in the race. Not even a small feeling of one party being a little less evil than the other.

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : a]

10/2/2008 2:19:15 PM

I'm gonna have to disagree with you TULIPlovr.



The only arguement that could be made about that video is that all those actors are democrat. (im not sure if they are, but for arguement's sake we'll say they are all registered democrats.)


But you can still get a non-partisan PSA out of a group of "liberals".


Moron is right, it may be biased against you, who chooses to act by not acting (in terms of voting this season. specifically. I realize that you choose to take matters like education into your own hands). This, however, is the point.

10/2/2008 2:21:12 PM

ghost dog says you got to vote.

10/2/2008 2:21:19 PM

Quote :

"But you can still get a non-partisan PSA out of a group of "liberals"."

Yes, you can. This ain't it.

10/2/2008 2:24:41 PM

Quote :

"Which doesn't contradict my point at all - they don't care if I vote or not, so they should quit the charade. These same folks will be ranting about the lunatics in flyover country if they don't get their way in this election. They don't care if those folks vote - and they're not even trying to reach them people with this ad."

It doesn't contradict it, just significantly marginalizes it. NO one cares if a non interventionist votes or not. There's plenty of people that hold beliefs so small, it's irrelevant if they vote. Their target clearly is younger voters, who historically vote at lower rates.

10/2/2008 2:24:59 PM

If young people voted decidedly Republican instead of Democrat, would they make an ad urging them to vote? Nope.

Quote :

"It doesn't contradict it, just significantly marginalizes it. NO one cares if a non interventionist votes or not. There's plenty of people that hold beliefs so small, it's irrelevant if they vote. Their target clearly is younger voters, who historically vote at lower rates."

I know they don't care about non-interventionists. That's politically understandable. But the others still apply.

"Don't you think everyone deserves to be taken care of when you're sick?"

Not so subtle message: one candidate believes they don't, and that's bad.

"Welfare, minimum wage, the economy...."

Not so subtle message: one candidate doesn't like welfare, the minimum wage, and will be bad for the economy. (I wonder who they're talking about?)

By even saying "gay rights," "women's rights," "abortion rights," "social security" - they all frame the issue that these things are good, and one candidate endangers them.

And on the war, I listened again and only heard "the war." A Republican-bias would have called it The War on Terror, or something similar.

I cannot possibly see how anyone doesn't view this as an openly Democratic get-out-the-vote message.

10/2/2008 2:37:26 PM

Quote :

"If young people voted decidedly Republican instead of Democrat, would they make an ad urging them to vote? Nope. "

speculation.


and they're called "gay rights" whether you support them or not.

and every political candidate would say "everyone deserves to be taken care of when you're sick"


they just have different ideas on how to do it.

10/2/2008 2:41:11 PM

Quote :

"speculation."

And good speculation it is.

These people are all Democrats. They put out a message to a population that primarily votes Democratic, and yet somehow they will not frame issues to appeal to and motivate that mindset? Now that's speculation.

Quote :

"and they're called "gay rights" whether you support them or not. and every political candidate would say "everyone deserves to be taken care of when you're sick" they just have different ideas on how to do it."

They are called 'gay rights' whether you support them or not. But remember, there is a fine difference between saying that the issue of gay rights is important, and gay rights are important and should affect your vote.

Every political candidate would say that everyone deserves to be taken care of when they are sick. But, which candidate does that sentence bring to mind? It is not McCain. In fact, there is no purpose in the sentence if the actors believe that both agree with the sentence. Then, it's no motivation to vote! It is only a motivation to vote if they are implying that one candidate does not believe it.

Sure, McCain would say that sentence, but the whole point of the ad is to tell folks that he doesn't believe it. Again, if they are saying both candidates agree that all sick people deserved to be taken care of, then this doesn't exactly help them get out the vote.

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM. Reason : a]

10/2/2008 2:49:44 PM

Ahhhh condescending celebrities....Leonardo DiCaprio looks like hell now.

10/2/2008 3:08:13 PM

Quote :

"And on the war, I listened again and only heard "the war." A Republican-bias would have called it The War on Terror, or something similar."

wow, this is pretty retarded. If you don't use the neo-con jargon, you must hate the country....

Quote :

"By even saying "gay rights," "women's rights," "abortion rights," "social security""

even if you hate all of these things, that means you still CARE about them. and if you really don't give a shit one way or another, well, then they're right: don't vote.

10/2/2008 3:16:36 PM

^You are almost too stupid to merit a response, but I'm feeling generous.

Quote :

"wow, this is pretty retarded. If you don't use the neo-con jargon, you must hate the country...."

No, I said if you don't use Republican jargon, then odds are you're not making a pro-Republican ad. Referring to 'the war' in this sense most often shows a person is either an independent or Democrat, but almost definitely shows they are against it.

You drew conclusions about me in a completely illogical fashion. I didn't even come close to saying that to refuse neo-con jargon is to hate the country. There is no one here more against that awful Republican rhetoric than myself.

Quote :

"even if you hate all of these things, that means you still CARE about them. and if you really don't give a shit one way or another, well, then they're right: don't vote."

You really can't be serious. The whole point of calling it 'abortion rights' is to use rhetoric that puts positive light on pro-choice policies, and frames the opposition as being opposed to those rights. The pro-life side does the same thing by calling it 'pro-life,' thus effectively demonizing their opposition as being against life. I'm not judging them for using that rhetoric or framing it that way - I'm judging them for believing they are unbiased, when they are not. These terms are not neutral.

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM. Reason : a]

10/2/2008 3:44:16 PM

I'm with you, TULIP. Fucking Blatant.

10/2/2008 4:07:24 PM

Quote :

"No, there are not. "If you don't care about Darfur - don't vote." Translation: Only vote if you want a President who will be active in the Darfur situation, and not turn a blind eye. Well, what if I'm a non-interventionist and want my president to ignore Darfur? I support many private organizations doing good there with my own money voluntarily, but I want the President to not even have a policy on Darfur. "If you don't care about your child's literacy, don't vote." Translation: Elect politicians that will increase education funding and size of the federal and state departments of education. What if I don't want that? I care about my child's literacy, and so therefore I take responsibility for making sure he's ahead of the curve in education. What a novel idea - if you care about education - teach your kid something. "Don't vote if you don't care about gay rights, abortion rights, etc.""

True that. This ad was about as unbiased as the New York Times is.

Someone needs to make another ad that says "please vote so the crap those people want to pass will fail".

10/2/2008 4:57:17 PM

Quote :

""Don't you think everyone deserves to be taken care of when you're sick?" Not so subtle message: one candidate believes they don't, and that's bad. "Welfare, minimum wage, the economy...." Not so subtle message: one candidate doesn't like welfare, the minimum wage, and will be bad for the economy. (I wonder who they're talking about?) By even saying "gay rights," "women's rights," "abortion rights," "social security" - they all frame the issue that these things are good, and one candidate endangers them. And on the war, I listened again and only heard "the war." A Republican-bias would have called it The War on Terror, or something similar. "

That fact that you're so upset about it probably makes you more likely to make sure you'll vote, which is the intended effect of the ad. I do agree, purely by the choice of actors, it's clearly biased left, but I also don't think they care whether you vote or not. I think they'd be glad you are pissed at the ad, if it energizes you to vote.

Maybe it's the grade-school brainwashing, but voting and politics have always seemed separate to me. The ability to vote is kind of taken for granted here, and just the fact that you choose to partake reflects well on America, regardless of who you vote for.

10/2/2008 6:00:45 PM

Quote :

"why should we care what famous people think?"

That commercial just pissed me off. You know what actors? You're paid to say what other people tell you to say, I'm not in awe of your critical thinking skills.

10/2/2008 7:03:51 PM

Quote :

"You really can't be serious. The whole point of calling it 'abortion rights' is to use rhetoric that puts positive light on pro-choice policies, and frames the opposition as being opposed to those rights. The pro-life side does the same thing by calling it 'pro-life,' thus effectively demonizing their opposition as being against life. I'm not judging them for using that rhetoric or framing it that way - I'm judging them for believing they are unbiased, when they are not. These terms are not neutral."

Sure, "abortion rights", I agree that comes with a biased connotation.

"The war"... no, I'm sorry. I take issue with that. It is a fucking war, is it not? "The war on terror" is an invented term that definitely shows bias. The absence of a biased term in this ad does not show bias in itself.

[Edited on October 2, 2008 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2008 7:28:09 PM

I got through about 10 seconds of that video before it was blatantly obvious that it was heavily slanted, how anyone can't see that I'm not sure

10/2/2008 7:28:55 PM

^ and

Quote :

"I cannot possibly see how anyone doesn't view this as an openly Democratic get-out-the-vote message."

10/2/2008 7:33:53 PM

"I've got 19 kids, never used abortion once"

Translation: If you don't vote (Democrat) you might lose your right to have an abortion

"If you think that everyone deserves to be taken care of when they're sick"

Translation: If you're pro universal health care (hmmm which candidate is that?)

10/2/2008 7:58:34 PM

some whiny bitches in this thread

even if this video was biased, why do you even care? why does it piss you off? it's a video on the internet. chill the fuck out

10/2/2008 7:59:21 PM

why do you care what I post in this thread? why does it piss you off? it's a comment on the internet. chill the fuck out

10/2/2008 8:11:58 PM

I voted already.

10/2/2008 8:18:13 PM

Let me dumb down the whole voting situation (not talking about the ad)

IF YOU CARE ABOUT ISSUES: VOTE DEMOCRAT

IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR BIG PAYCHECK STAYING HUGE: VOTE REPUBLICAN

10/2/2008 8:18:27 PM

This commercial sucked.

Not really that biased, other than the fact that most of the people featured would be more appealing to democrats (I didn't see Drew Carey, Ben Stein, or Chuck Norris on there, did you?).

10/3/2008 4:05:43 AM

I'm voting for Ron Paul

10/3/2008 4:28:09 AM

at least some of it was humorous.

10/3/2008 8:47:25 AM

another thing that bothers me:

It does not take a few seconds. There is no uniform system for registering to vote.

And the google maps site seriously seriously seriously does not help.

NOT HELPFUL.

In fact - entire thing is pretty not helpful.

10/3/2008 3:47:00 PM

motovoter baby.

you can get the forms online, mail them in or fax them.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 3:51:32 PM

So what you're saying is that it can't be done online.

10/3/2008 4:10:35 PM

Quote :

"Let me dumb down the whole voting situation (not talking about the ad) IF YOU CARE ABOUT ISSUES: VOTE DEMOCRAT IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR BIG PAYCHECK STAYING HUGE: VOTE REPUBLICAN"

liberal class-warfare at its best.

player-hater.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2008 4:49:00 PM

fairness="player hating"

10/3/2008 4:53:00 PM

what exactly is fairness?

10/3/2008 5:51:52 PM

Quote :

"what exactly is fairness?"

not life, thats for sure...the sooner you learn that (this is directed at anyone) the better off you'll be

10/3/2008 5:54:42 PM

I voted last week.

10/4/2008 6:56:36 PM

Fairness is taxing the rich few and providing relief to the vast majority of people in this country whom also happen to make the rich, rich in what is a dyer time for them.

Fairness is the ability for anyone to be taken care of when they are sick

Fairness is the ability to get an education without being turned upside down

Fairness is not being charged more for a mortgage just because you already would have a harder time paying for it

Fairness is getting big oils cock out of your mouth and pushing towards a modern energy source.

Fairness is change to policy that feeds the rich, ignores the middle class and suppresses the poor and that change is in reach.

10/4/2008 8:00:43 PM

Quote :

"dyer"

10/4/2008 8:33:52 PM

i'm seriously considering not voting. I want the Republican party to know that I voted in the primaries and didn't vote in the general election. they should know that they have put up such a shitty candidate that I will not vote for him, despite satan incarnate being the opposition.

10/5/2008 3:36:50 PM

set em up

10/6/2008 1:49:08 PM