A Political Ad Filled With Holes

[pegwinn]

John Kerry committed treason?
What an idiotic thing to say.
I guess you have little faith in your government.

Jaymes isn't it? You woke up on the stupid side of the bed today? I don't care about his medals. What he did after his time in VN was criminal at best or treason at worst. Not my fault that the government of the time failed to prosecute him and others like him. I really don't mind your obvious liberal sentiments, after all you are a young man. But, at least figure out who it is you are supporting. AS to faith, nah, I got very little faith left in our government.

 

[Comrade]

Just to raise another issue... I vaugely recall that public figures cannot sue for libel, in any case.

Is this still a legal reality?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

If Bush were to "tell" them to take it down and they did, that would show collusion between the 527 and the Bush campaign. That is ILLEGAL. The libs are just trying to entrap the president. Too bad for you guys, he is too SMART to fall for it.

Exactly. Why don't people understand this? Kerry, Edwards, and others who keep saying "Stop these ads!" must realize this and they just don't care because they know that many of their supporters don't realize that the Bush campaign can't stop the ads. It's also funny because there are former Kerry campaign staffers who now work for various liberal 527 groups (and vice versa) not to mention Teresa Kerry's donations to the Tides foundation (which is connected to MoveOn.org), and nothing is said about that.

 

[tpahl]

I think I've had enough with law suits being involved in presidential elections.

I just think campaign ads should come from the candidates themselves, or at least be publicly approved by them. There are plenty of ways to express freedom of speech other than tv ads.

I know you think that, but there are plenty of problem with that, that I already pointed out. Are you still going to ignore them?

here they are again...

Let us suppose there are two candidates A and B and common citizen C. Now lets suppose Candidate A did some horrible thing that citizen C saw. Citizen C wants everyone to know about this horrible thing. You and Bush are suggesting that the only way he should be able to do this is to give money to candiate B and hope that candidate B does something about it.

Now for the problems...

1. What if candidate B also did the same act and does not want to bring up the issue.
2. What if candidate B feels other issues are more important?
3. What if citizen C wants to give more money? He can't because of campaign finance laws.
4. What if citizen C does not like candidate B either and does not want to support his campaign?
5. What if Citizen C does not like the way candidate B runs the ads even though they are on the act that C is mad about?
6. What if bringing up the act by the opposing candidate makes it less beleiveable than if brought up by a seperate organization?





Travis

 

[Yurt]

NYC,

Why hasn't kerry called on 527 ads to stop???? Instead he enjoys their "success" while critizing bush. If he was a real man, he would stop complaining about the very thing that he has taken advantage of for over a year. If he was real man, he wouldn't need to quote MM. Further, if he was a real man, why does he not condem MM movie. It is filled with so much lies that it on a good day far outweighs any potential misstatement of the facts from the swift vets. Come kerry, stop whining.... whaaaaaaaa

 

[tpahl]

NYC,

Why hasn't kerry called on 527 ads to stop???? Instead he enjoys their "success" while critizing bush. If he was a real man, he would stop complaining about the very thing that he has taken advantage of for over a year. If he was real man, he wouldn't need to quote MM. Further, if he was a real man, why does he not condem MM movie. It is filled with so much lies that it on a good day far outweighs any potential misstatement of the facts from the swift vets. Come kerry, stop whining.... whaaaaaaaa

I have little respect for Kerry but if he calls for the end of 527 ads (one of the few ways we can still express ourselves to a mass audience regarding politics, I would lose even more respect for him. The same way I lost a little more respect for Bush a yesterday when I learned he called for their end.

Travis

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I know you think that, but there are plenty of problem with that, that I already pointed out. Are you still going to ignore them?

here they are again...

Let us suppose there are two candidates A and B and common citizen C. Now lets suppose Candidate A did some horrible thing that citizen C saw. Citizen C wants everyone to know about this horrible thing. You and Bush are suggesting that the only way he should be able to do this is to give money to candiate B and hope that candidate B does something about it.

Now for the problems...

1. What if candidate B also did the same act and does not want to bring up the issue.
2. What if candidate B feels other issues are more important?
3. What if citizen C wants to give more money? He can't because of campaign finance laws.
4. What if citizen C does not like candidate B either and does not want to support his campaign?
5. What if Citizen C does not like the way candidate B runs the ads even though they are on the act that C is mad about?
6. What if bringing up the act by the opposing candidate makes it less beleiveable than if brought up by a seperate organization?





Travis

I've already responded to this, you're the one that's ignoring it.

If someone sees something and they have PROOF that it happened, why is it necessary to run a tv ad? As I have pointed out time and again, the bulk of these ads offer no proof of anything, and others are just hateful and serve no purpose other than being hateful.

As it seems I have to remind you of everything that's been said before, I will remind you that I have also said that the swift boat vets are a different story because they were there and involved in the story itself. This is a case of one group of Vietnam vets saying one thing and another group of Vietnam vets saying another. It's this groups word against another groups, and there really is no proof for either side.

If people want to gather money through an organization outside the campaign, fine, but they should be held to the same criteria as the candidates themselves. There should be some line drawn for what they can put out there.

 

[tpahl]

I've already responded to this, you're the one that's ignoring it.

If someone sees something and they have PROOF that it happened, why is it necessary to run a tv ad? As I have pointed out time and again, the bulk of these ads offer no proof of anything, and others are just hateful and serve no purpose other than being hateful.

They want to run ads. Perhaps the media is ignoring their message. The point is not why they need to, it is that if we follow what you and bush are propising they would not be able to get their message. And even if people want to run a hateful ad, why should they be stopped? Perhaps their hate is justified.

As it seems I have to remind you of everything that's been said before, I will remind you that I have also said that the swift boat vets are a different story because they were there and involved in the story itself. This is a case of one group of Vietnam vets saying one thing and another group of Vietnam vets saying another. It's this groups word against another groups, and there really is no proof for either side.

Yet if we follow what you and bush support (the end of 527's) we would not hear one side of the story.

If people want to gather money through an organization outside the campaign, fine, but they should be held to the same criteria as the candidates themselves. There should be some line drawn for what they can put out there.

That is not what Bush was saying and you were supporting earlier. But if you want is lines, then I have to ask, what is wrong with the lines we have now?

Travis

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I never intended to say that ads should be stopped and nobody could ever run ads ever again. I don't think that's what the President was saying either. My personal belief is that campaign ads should come from the candidates, but if outside parties are going to run ads they shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they are now by spreading lies, promoting conspiracy, and making baseless allegations. The way the ads are done NOW should not be allowed. They should be held accountable for what they put out there. The more I think about it, the swift boat vet ad is a good example of what one of these ads should be. They have the actual people, showing their faces and showing their names, saying "I was there and this is my account of what happened."
If MoveOn.org put out an ad with someone saying, "I'm Joe Blow, executive director of MoveOn.org and I speak for the X amount of members in our organization. We believe..." Instead, these groups put out ads with some faceless, disgruntled voice and spooky music, then continue to make baseless allegations.
Actually, MoveOn.org has come out with something. Ads with people like Rebecca Romijn giving their opinions. That's fine. That's the way it should be.

Earlier, you said freedom of speech gives people the right to say whatever they want, but then said someone could take them to court. That's contradictory. If I am exercising my right as an American citizen, nobody has the right to take me to court for exercising that freedom. Freedom of speech was intended to give people the right to stand up and say they think something has been done wrong in the government. If someone feels the government is unfairly taxing the people, that person has the right to say so. If someone wants to protest the war, they have the right to do it. Freedom of speech DOES NOT give a person the right to lie or just be flat out hateful toward an individual. So, if I say something slanderous and untrue, I am not exercising my right, I am abusing it by trying to hide behind it. That's a problem I have with some of these ads and, frankly, a lot of people.

Now, to clarify about the ads, I think they should be stopped AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. These ads make campaign finance reform totally pointless. No matter how rich someone is, they can only donate up to $2000 to a candidate. What good does it do if they can turn around and donate $13 million to one of these soft money groups?

 

[tpahl]

I never intended to say that ads should be stopped and nobody could ever run ads ever again. I don't think that's what the President was saying either. My personal belief is that campaign ads should come from the candidates, but if outside parties are going to run ads they shouldn't be allowed to do it the way they are now by spreading lies, promoting conspiracy, and making baseless allegations. The way the ads are done NOW should not be allowed. They should be held accountable for what they put out there. The more I think about it, the swift boat vet ad is a good example of what one of these ads should be. They have the actual people, showing their faces and showing their names, saying "I was there and this is my account of what happened."

Free speech is not about people saying things the way you want them too. it is about people saying things you do not like in ways you do not like. If that means some people try to hide behind some organization and say things anonymouosly, so be it. People are smart and can see past lies. THey can judge the way they present things and decide for themselves how accurate it may or may not be. As for lies, there are already laws governing that. Bush is or at least should be aware that there are already laws restricting that. That is why i think he is actually pushing for more than just changing the way people presnet ads. Judging from his past actions I am pretty sure he is opposed to 527s in general.

If MoveOn.org put out an ad with someone saying, "I'm Joe Blow, executive director of MoveOn.org and I speak for the X amount of members in our organization. We believe..." Instead, these groups put out ads with some faceless, disgruntled voice and spooky music, then continue to make baseless allegations.
Actually, MoveOn.org has come out with something. Ads with people like Rebecca Romijn giving their opinions. That's fine. That's the way it should be.

Earlier, you said freedom of speech gives people the right to say whatever they want, but then said someone could take them to court. That's contradictory. If I am exercising my right as an American citizen, nobody has the right to take me to court for exercising that freedom. Freedom of speech was intended to give people the right to stand up and say they think something has been done wrong in the government. If someone feels the government is unfairly taxing the people, that person has the right to say so. If someone wants to protest the war, they have the right to do it. Freedom of speech DOES NOT give a person the right to lie or just be flat out hateful toward an individual. So, if I say something slanderous and untrue, I am not exercising my right, I am abusing it by trying to hide behind it. That's a problem I have with some of these ads and, frankly, a lot of people.

You have a right to speak freely. You do not have a right to cause harm.

Now, to clarify about the ads, I think they should be stopped AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. These ads make campaign finance reform totally pointless.

Campaign finance reform IS pointless. That does not mean the ads should stop. The ads should continue and campaign finance reform should be repealed. The ads are not bad, it is campaign finance reform that is bad.

No matter how rich someone is, they can only donate up to $2000 to a candidate. What good does it do if they can turn around and donate $13 million to one of these soft money groups?

Nothing. that is why most people that value free speech are opposed to campaign finance reform.