These are the stakes - Page 3

**Apophis** · 10-25-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Book

because were talking about an advertisement that has the same goal as the terrorists. To scare people. No one in this thread other then you as far as I can tell is suggesting this has anything at all to do with policy making.

I know I just said this, but here's a different way to look at it:

You WANT the ad to be about scaring people. If you can convince yourself the purpose of the ad is to frighten and terrorize people, it reinforces your existing desire to dislike the conservative/republican party. Because you dislike the conservative/republican party and/or the current administration, you NEED the ad to be about terrorizing people.

When the opposing party comes out with an ad campaign, or a speech, or performs ANY action, our first reactions should not be "how can I make sure I'm offended by this? How can I twist it to something that I'll find reprehensable since I've been pre-programmed to dislike the 'x' party".

Rick_the_new_guy · 10-25-2006, 08:02 AM

After watching the video, I'd say it is not so bad.

I like the ticking bomb sounds. Makes me think that time is running and I actually got a little tense there.

I can respect it for its purpose to get people to the polls and vote a certain way.
It should help out with the mom voters.

With that said.

I would wager there are cells in Amercia waiting for the right time.
I would wager there are cells around the world waiting for the right time.

I belive that the GOP being in the white house and in congress cornered the market on terrerism because they were in power first.

However, I am really confused the American people gave Bush a second term in 2004 after the failures in Iraq. This faliure pushed back the end of the war on terror. Oh wait, now i remember, John Kerry sucked in his campaing. /Rick trys to do his best Senfeld impression: And what is the deal with the war on terror. I mean can you ever get rid of terror? Can you ever kill, neutralize people who bring terror on people? I mean come on, I need some help here./
I am not giving the GOP down the road, I am pretty sure both parties came up with that name.

I never bought that fighting terrerist over there will stop them from coming over here. It is not like that bad guys in Iraq who had their gear packed up to start a cell in Americia and said, "Oh man the infidals are fixing to attack the country, lets not catch the plane flight, lets stay here and fight them."
No, this is what would happen. The guys would get on the plane, come to America, start their cell, do their dirty work, cause huge economical, physical, pschycological damage. At the end of the day, they weigh out the advantages. "On one hand, we could of stayed in Iraq and had a bomb drop on us and get maybe 1 or 2 virgins. On the other hand we could of went to America and did damage that was close to 9/11 and got 40 virgins. I think we made the right call."

Those who are doing these cells, although not super spys have a lot of training and are seperate from the rebel/militia person who is protecting his home land from invaders.

I find it interesting that most people believe the GOP are better than the Dems on fighting terror. Sadly, the up coming Dem Congress will inherant Iraq and will have little to work with. Plus they will inherant Afghan so that sucks for them also.

I really confusses me that people believe that the GOP is the best party for the job on the war on terror and we are losing ground on it daily! And they have been in power of the White House and Congress for years!!!!

Granted, I believe both partys are lousy in every regard.

P.S. I will give up that a potintial cell network got trapped in Iraq during the war and could not get out. However, I would like to thing, being an expensive piece of the war effort, they would have been smugled out and then taken a plane to America and did their work.

Steeler · 10-25-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

When the opposing party comes out with an ad campaign, or a speech, or performs ANY action, our first reactions should not be "how can I make sure I'm offended by this? How can I twist it to something that I'll find reprehensable since I've been pre-programmed to dislike the 'x' party".

You could flip that around by saying "my party has released an ad. How can I spin it so that it sounds noble and just and not base and exploitative since I've been pre-programmed to support the 'x' party?"

I'm not saying that's what you are doing, but if you're going to start undermining the very independence of someone's opinions, then you have to accept that your own are subject to manipulation and self-delusion as well.

SmokingTarpan · 10-25-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I think you're being quite liberal (heh) with your interpretation of the purpose of the ad. The more I think about it the more I realize that the purpose of this ad isn't to frighten people, but to make sure people are aware and remember what we're facing. Something a large percentage of America seems to have forgotten.

Could the message of what we're fighting for not have been displayed by showing children and families living in peace and safety? Or hell, even Iraqi people going to work and children sitting in school? I personally think that would have been a better message; the, "Hey, we're fighting terrorists so that people can live in peace and happiness like the ones you're seeing here," message. But, at the end of the day, what phrase seems to be more successful at motivating people to take action or make a decision: do something because it'll help others, or do something because if you don't you'll get blown up? It's far easier to make the masses take action because of fear than altruism.

I'm sure I've been lumped in with the democrat/liberal crowd, but I don't really associate one way of the other. Many of my views may coincide with the democrats, but I have some conservative views and in the past have been supportive of old Bush and Reagan. I try to avoid going the route of "oh, those wacky democrats/republicans/prairie dogs." If this video had come from democrats, I would have thought the exact same thing: fear mongering. I find it slightly amusing that the crowd here that typically desires us to attempt a focus on the more positive things in these times seems to be pushing a video that narrows in on the negative. Perhaps you don't think the images and quotes in the clip are negative, though.

The Olberman video could have done without the "omg republicans sux" tone, and without the part about finding the WTC remains. I agreed with most of the remaining thoughts, though.

**Apophis** · 10-25-2006, 11:25 AM

I do agree that it does conjure up fear, but saying that it's purpose is the same as the terorrists, or that the ad is terroristic in nature, involves a bit of spin.

Just my opinion, of course. I'm just not one to take ANY partisan ad and twist it into the most evil concept imaginable for the purpose of reinforcing my own beliefs. I don't feel that reacting like that is beneficial to me, others, or our country.

SmokingTarpan · 10-25-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I do agree that it does conjure up fear, but saying that it's purpose is the same as the terorrists, or that the ad is terroristic in nature, involves a bit of spin.

My initial comment that it was a silly ad was directed toward the fact that it was fear-mongering. Frankly, I think the people who are saying this ad aids the terrorists (or does their job for them) can be put in the same wagon with those who say I aid terrorists by expressing my opinion we're screwing up majorly in Iraq. That would be the Silly Wagon, to be clear. Swagon for short.

The ad is using a political tactic, albeit one that's sad and (sadly) likely to sway opinion easily.

**Apophis** · 10-25-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

My initial comment that it was a silly ad was directed toward the fact that it was fear-mongering. Frankly, I think the people who are saying this ad aids the terrorists (or does their job for them) can be put in the same wagon with those who say I aid terrorists by expressing my opinion we're screwing up majorly in Iraq. That would be the Silly Wagon, to be clear. Swagon for short.

The ad is using a political tactic, albeit one that's sad and (sadly) likely to sway opinion easily.

I agree with you here. I feel that neither you expressing your opinion that we're screwing up or this ad that reminds us of what is at stake helps the terrorists. Silly Wagon all the way on both counts.

TheFatKidDeath · 10-25-2006, 05:10 PM

One does not expect to learn anything from a political ad, they just delude you with images. I mean, the images in this ad could not be clearer: Vote Republican or you will die.

Private Book · 10-25-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I know I just said this, but here's a different way to look at it:

You WANT the ad to be about scaring people. If you can convince yourself the purpose of the ad is to frighten and terrorize people, it reinforces your existing desire to dislike the conservative/republican party. Because you dislike the conservative/republican party and/or the current administration, you NEED the ad to be about terrorizing people.

When the opposing party comes out with an ad campaign, or a speech, or performs ANY action, our first reactions should not be "how can I make sure I'm offended by this? How can I twist it to something that I'll find reprehensable since I've been pre-programmed to dislike the 'x' party".

Interesting theory that I (and all the people who have have labeled this as yet another scare tactic) am merely projecting my views onto the video but no, the ad is clearly designed to scare people. Notice how the words "to kill Americans" come floating out at us? It would actually be a massive bit of spin to imagine anyones forgotten terrorists want to kill Americans (and brits and italians and spaniards and everyone who wants a permanent military presense in their holy land etc..) . In fact I think it's a pretty high level of spin to suggest this ad is just a friendly reminder. I haven't kept up with the right wing radio lately but I wouldnt be surprised if that's what they are saying now that the thing has proved to be a very expensive flop. From a film studies perspective it's literally edited texas chain saw massacre style. Almost every element, from the grainy black and white masked figures to the coloring are elements borrowed from horror film mise en scene. Besides. I'm a libertarian. We tend to vote for the people who prove they arent incompetents or bent on taking away our civil liberties. I don't think of it as pre programming. I'm curious, do you actually feel like it's just a reminder of the threat in case we've somehow forgotten that they let Osama get away or is this just a way of looking at it hypothetically?

Oh and for the record I did not say the ad aids terrorists I said it has the same goal as terrorists do. To terrorize. to cause fear. the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. is the traditional definition of terrorism.

**Rincewind** · 10-25-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

The Olberman video could have done without the "omg republicans sux" tone, and without the part about finding the WTC remains.

But where would his viewers go without it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Frankly, I think the people who are saying this ad aids the terrorists (or does their job for them) can be put in the same wagon with those who say I aid terrorists by expressing my opinion we're screwing up majorly in Iraq. That would be the Silly Wagon, to be clear. Swagon for short.

LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The stingy rep system

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SmokingTarpan/Apophis again

**Apophis** · 10-25-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Book

Interesting theory that I (and all the people who have have labeled this as yet another scare tactic) am merely projecting my views onto the video but no, the ad is clearly designed to scare people. Notice how the words "to kill Americans" come floating out at us? It would actually be a massive bit of spin to imagine anyones forgotten terrorists want to kill Americans (and brits and italians and spaniards and everyone who wants a permanent military presense in their holy land etc..) . In fact I think it's a pretty high level of spin to suggest this ad is just a friendly reminder. I haven't kept up with the right wing radio lately but I wouldnt be surprised if that's what they are saying now that the thing has proved to be a very expensive flop. From a film studies perspective it's literally edited texas chain saw massacre style. Almost every element, from the grainy black and white masked figures to the coloring are elements borrowed from horror film mise en scene. Besides. I'm a libertarian. We tend to vote for the people who prove they arent incompetents or bent on taking away our civil liberties. I don't think of it as pre programming. I'm curious, do you actually feel like it's just a reminder of the threat in case we've somehow forgotten that they let Osama get away or is this just a way of looking at it hypothetically?

Very interesting reply.

I don't think that the ad is just a friendly reminder. I think it's purpose is to remind Americans what we're facing and that they need to keep this in mind come election day. But I still say the ad doesn't warrant being lumped into the "terrorist" objective pool.

I don't think it got anything to do with reminding us that "Osama got away". I think it's reminding us that there still IS a threat out there and that these terrorists still want to do us harm.

**Rincewind** · 10-25-2006, 05:45 PM

Book, I think Apophis was just pointing out the absurdity of (Olbermann) saying this ad aids the terrorists.

**Apophis** · 10-25-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I think Apophis was just pointing out the absurdity of (Olbermann) saying this ad aids the terrorists.

I think it's absurd for anyone to say the ad aids the terrorists.

I've never really seen a political ad that I liked. I'm not saying this ad is worth the magnetic media it's distributed on. But I certainly don't think it's aiding any terrorist organizations or their agenda.

**leejo** · 10-25-2006, 06:02 PM

omg where are the jibjab guys?

Rick_the_new_guy · 10-25-2006, 07:24 PM

Sadly at the end of the day politics will be played to the hilt.
Here is a demo.

Major terror attack on the U.S. and the GOP is in the White House and Congress.

Dems say: See guys, we told you those guys are over rated. let us in office and we will take care of you.

If the Dems are in the White House and Congress and a major attack happens.

GOP says: See guys, we told you guys not to put these guys in office. Put us back in and we will protect you like we did before.

It is just a matter of time before another major attack happens. It is sort of like russion rulelet. Who will gain politically.

With that said, If the Commander in chief and the GOP Congress were graded on keeping the U.S. safe on domestic terror attacks they get an 100% A+. Because not one attack has happen.

However, foreign relations related gets a 0 F-.
I cannot stress how Iraq has played right into the O.B.L. orginal plans.

When you average this out it is still a F.

Perhaps this explains why Bushes approval polls is at 41%! Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
and the Congress approval numbers are at 32%!! Good night! Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100900868.html
NOte the Congress intel is dated 10-10-06 so that is old. I tired finding fresh data, but man I'v got other threads to post in.

10-25-2006, 08:02 AM	#32 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: These are the stakes After watching the video, I'd say it is not so bad. I like the ticking bomb sounds. Makes me think that time is running and I actually got a little tense there. I can respect it for its purpose to get people to the polls and vote a certain way. It should help out with the mom voters. With that said. I would wager there are cells in Amercia waiting for the right time. I would wager there are cells around the world waiting for the right time. I belive that the GOP being in the white house and in congress cornered the market on terrerism because they were in power first. However, I am really confused the American people gave Bush a second term in 2004 after the failures in Iraq. This faliure pushed back the end of the war on terror. Oh wait, now i remember, John Kerry sucked in his campaing. /Rick trys to do his best Senfeld impression: And what is the deal with the war on terror. I mean can you ever get rid of terror? Can you ever kill, neutralize people who bring terror on people? I mean come on, I need some help here./ I am not giving the GOP down the road, I am pretty sure both parties came up with that name. I never bought that fighting terrerist over there will stop them from coming over here. It is not like that bad guys in Iraq who had their gear packed up to start a cell in Americia and said, "Oh man the infidals are fixing to attack the country, lets not catch the plane flight, lets stay here and fight them." No, this is what would happen. The guys would get on the plane, come to America, start their cell, do their dirty work, cause huge economical, physical, pschycological damage. At the end of the day, they weigh out the advantages. "On one hand, we could of stayed in Iraq and had a bomb drop on us and get maybe 1 or 2 virgins. On the other hand we could of went to America and did damage that was close to 9/11 and got 40 virgins. I think we made the right call." Those who are doing these cells, although not super spys have a lot of training and are seperate from the rebel/militia person who is protecting his home land from invaders. I find it interesting that most people believe the GOP are better than the Dems on fighting terror. Sadly, the up coming Dem Congress will inherant Iraq and will have little to work with. Plus they will inherant Afghan so that sucks for them also. I really confusses me that people believe that the GOP is the best party for the job on the war on terror and we are losing ground on it daily! And they have been in power of the White House and Congress for years!!!! Granted, I believe both partys are lousy in every regard. P.S. I will give up that a potintial cell network got trapped in Iraq during the war and could not get out. However, I would like to thing, being an expensive piece of the war effort, they would have been smugled out and then taken a plane to America and did their work. __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html Last edited by Rick_the_new_guy; 10-25-2006 at 08:30 AM.

10-25-2006, 11:25 AM	#35 (permalink)
Apophis Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA Age: 36 Posts: 8,917	Re: These are the stakes I do agree that it does conjure up fear, but saying that it's purpose is the same as the terorrists, or that the ad is terroristic in nature, involves a bit of spin. Just my opinion, of course. I'm just not one to take ANY partisan ad and twist it into the most evil concept imaginable for the purpose of reinforcing my own beliefs. I don't feel that reacting like that is beneficial to me, others, or our country. __________________ Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

10-25-2006, 05:10 PM	#38 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,705	Re: These are the stakes One does not expect to learn anything from a political ad, they just delude you with images. I mean, the images in this ad could not be clearer: Vote Republican or you will die. __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

10-25-2006, 05:45 PM	#42 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,783	Re: These are the stakes Book, I think Apophis was just pointing out the absurdity of (Olbermann) saying this ad aids the terrorists. __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers Last edited by Rincewind; 10-25-2006 at 05:47 PM. Reason: I love editing :(

10-25-2006, 06:02 PM	#44 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,669	Re: These are the stakes omg where are the jibjab guys?

10-25-2006, 07:24 PM	#45 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: These are the stakes Sadly at the end of the day politics will be played to the hilt. Here is a demo. Major terror attack on the U.S. and the GOP is in the White House and Congress. Dems say: See guys, we told you those guys are over rated. let us in office and we will take care of you. If the Dems are in the White House and Congress and a major attack happens. GOP says: See guys, we told you guys not to put these guys in office. Put us back in and we will protect you like we did before. It is just a matter of time before another major attack happens. It is sort of like russion rulelet. Who will gain politically. With that said, If the Commander in chief and the GOP Congress were graded on keeping the U.S. safe on domestic terror attacks they get an 100% A+. Because not one attack has happen. However, foreign relations related gets a 0 F-. I cannot stress how Iraq has played right into the O.B.L. orginal plans. When you average this out it is still a F. Perhaps this explains why Bushes approval polls is at 41%! Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm and the Congress approval numbers are at 32%!! Good night! Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100900868.html NOte the Congress intel is dated 10-10-06 so that is old. I tired finding fresh data, but man I'v got other threads to post in. __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links