VisorCentral.com - Republican or Democrat?

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Republican or Democrat? (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=27659)

Posted by Toby on 10-10-2002 07:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
I tend to agree, although I would say that attack ads that are factual, but leave out additional key facts, are irritants as well...
Lying by omission.

Which would seem to fall under "distort the truth", eh?

Posted by adderx99 on 10-10-2002 08:28 PM:

Braking News...

Well, the president has permission from the house to attack Iraq.....

__________________
I love my Treo 90.

Posted by terrysalmi on 10-10-2002 08:32 PM:

...with the permission of the United Nations - helps if you throw in the rest of the resolution

But in response...

Here Here!

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted by adderx99 on 10-10-2002 08:44 PM:

Mike Taylor(R-MT) has dropped out of the Senate race. Who next?!?!?!?
(I wonder if the Republicans will try the same things the Democrats did in New Jersey....)

__________________
I love my Treo 90.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-10-2002 09:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Which would seem to fall under "distort the truth", eh?

True, but may still qualify as technically "factual"

Posted by terrysalmi on 10-10-2002 09:13 PM:

First off, compare Toricelli and Taylor

Toricelli drops out of the race because his accepting campaign contributions from someone who is now in jail didn't show that good in the polls

Taylor drops out because the Democratic National Party and Incumbant Senator Mike Baucus ran ads claiming he was a gay hairdresser

Next, Montana Election Law forbids a new candidate within 85 days of the election, but write-ins can file up to 15 days before the election

Third, there is no point for the GOP to seek to change the law because the race is clearly lost because of Democrats stooping to the lowest levels to win a race

__________________

Friends don't let Friends vote Democrat
Victory 2002 - Republicans Win Control of the Senate
Now onto Victory 2004 - FOUR MORE YEARS

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-10-2002 09:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by terrysalmi
helps if you throw in the rest of the resolution

Hey! That was my point on commercials!

Posted by Toby on 10-10-2002 09:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
True, but may still qualify as technically "factual"

Perhaps, but the meaning should have been clear from the context of the question and the following statement, that I was asking in the context of 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', counselor. ;�~~~

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-10-2002 09:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Perhaps, but the meaning should have been clear from the context of the question and the following statement, that I was asking in the context of 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', counselor. ;�~~~

I was going mostly on your question to Volcanopete "Was it factual?"

But I agreed with your point. There is some major mudslinging going on here in South Carolina in several races. (Not as bad as a few years ago when Tommy Hartnett from Charleston tried to get our "Junior" Senator Fritz Holling's seat. Which, it's kind of sad when your Junior Senator is as old as Fritz...)

Anyway, I digress. It drives me apey when I see a TV ad quoting from an editorial or a speech by opponent and I specifically remember (or later discover) that it was taken so out of context. Unlike a debate setting, an ad forces the wronged party (meaning individual, not political party) to take out an ad to refute.

Posted by jhappel on 10-10-2002 10:05 PM:

K. Cannon said:

quote:
. . . an ad forces the wronged party (meaning individual, not political party) to take out an ad to refute.

That IS one of the points about negative/attack ads. They force your opponent to spend more of their oft-times precious campaign funds on defensive ads rather than issue ads or attack ads of their own. [BTW, I am not in any way defending negative ads here - that could be a whole other discussion on political strategy].

If you think what you are seeing now is something, just wait until just before the election. All campaigns will bring out their "big guns" of negative advertising in the 2-3 days before an election - their opponent will not have time to create a defensive/countering ad and the negative ad will be what the electorate remembers when going to the polls. Just remember, the vast majority of the electorate is not as intelligent as the members of this forum.

P.S. To K. Cannon - Is your avatar a picture of the new property you bought for your house?

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-10-2002 10:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel
[I]Just remember, the vast majority of the electorate is not as intelligent as the members of this forum.

Which is why I benefit greatly from the majority of the discussions we have on here; with a few exceptions, most people attempt to respond honestly and respectfully to every one else.

quote:
P.S. To K. Cannon - Is your avatar a picture of the new property you bought for your house?

Man, I wish!! That is the Cliffs of Glassy, in South Carolina's upstate. Isn't it georgeous!!?? Previously, I was showing Edisto Beach, SC.

Posted by volcanopele on 10-10-2002 10:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Is it factual? I'm more disturbed by attack ads which distort the truth rather than attack ads in general.

No it is not true.

This same candidate, Mahoney I think his name is, has an ad airing now attacking the Republican candidate, Matt Salmon, because he is Morman. Essentially, it says that because he is morman, he might make polygomy legal and change other marriage laws. Again, these ads that Mahoney puts only appeal to the worst in society. I am happy to see a third-party candidate have ads on the air but it's not worth it if this is the kind of garbage we are subjected to.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by Toby on 10-10-2002 10:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
I was going mostly on your question to Volcanopete "Was it factual?"

But that question was only part of it, and your response seems to take it out of the context.

quote:
But I agreed with your point.

You sure you don't still 'tend...although'?

Posted by Toby on 10-10-2002 10:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
No it is not true.

From what I've heard about it, it seems to be debatable. She doesn't deny what's claimed that she did, but states that her reason was lack of evidence. Regardless, Mahoney sounds a bit whacko and not much like a Libertarian.

quote:
This same candidate, Mahoney I think his name is, has an ad airing now attacking the Republican candidate, Matt Salmon, because he is Morman. Essentially, it says that because he is morman, he might make polygomy legal and change other marriage laws.

He must not follow the national party much.

quote:
Again, these ads that Mahoney puts only appeal to the worst in society. I am happy to see a third-party candidate have ads on the air but it's not worth it if this is the kind of garbage we are subjected to.

You think that's new? You'd be surprised at some of the campaigning techniques of some of the most respected politicians in our history.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-11-2002 02:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
But that question was only part of it, and your response seems to take it out of the context.

It probably did.

quote:
You sure you don't still 'tend...although'?

That's just one of my "charming" Southernisms that you fellows have to put up with. Not unlike "Fixin' to"; "I reckon"; and "y'all." Agree/ tend to agree it's all the same!

Posted by Toby on 10-11-2002 03:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
It probably did.

The prosecution rests...well, needs some rest actually, but two storms in two weeks and a week of training throwing off a toddler's balance will do that.

quote:
That's just one of my "charming" Southernisms that you fellows have to put up with. Not unlike "Fixin' to"; "I reckon"; and "y'all." Agree/ tend to agree it's all the same!

Actually, the 'although' was what made it sound more like you weren't really agreeing.

On a side note, the text of the resolution (it was the House resolution - haven't seen the Senate one yet) I saw did not require _permission_ from the United Nations. It was more to the effect of 'give them a shot, but if they won't deal with the situation, then I guess we'll have to'.

Posted by jhappel on 10-11-2002 06:02 PM:

Terrysalmi said:

quote:
Taylor drops out because the Democratic National Party and Incumbant Senator Mike Baucus ran ads claiming he was a gay hairdresser

Please get your facts straight before engaging in misinformation. Firstly the ad (one ad not ads ) was run by the Montana State Democratic Party, not the national party and not Baucus' campaign committee. Secondly the ad never said that Taylor was either gay or a hairdresser. Taylor, through his spokespeople said that he though other people would think that he was after seeing the ad. The ad very plainly and clearly stated that a beauty school Taylor owned and operated, The Mike Taylor School of Beauty, had gotten government scholarships (which went to the school and therefore to Taylor) for people who were not eligible for them and that when some of the students on scholarship left the school early he did not return the scholarships as required by law. The ad ran a tape of part of one of the many infomercials that Taylor had made and aired hinself.

Please note that not only didn't Taylor say that any of the ad was incorrect it was admitted by his wife that all of the facts in the ad were correct.

IMHO he was looking for a reason to drop out because he had dropped in the polls so precipitously (sp?) that he didn't want to spend any more of his money on an unwinnable race. This summer he was within a few percentage points of Baucus and went to 15% down before the ad and 30% down after the ad. In addition, the chair of the Montana State Republican Party has stated that he would like to replace Taylor on the ballot.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by DingoFish on 10-12-2002 02:30 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by NeilMcD
On the other hand, I do agree with the Court's ruling: that the primary intent of the election is to provide the voting public with a fair choice of candidates.

This is what doesn't make sense to me: Are the Dems saying that there never have been or never should be, elections in which candidates run unopposed?

There have been unopposed elections probably since we began holding elections, and there will be again. Why Does there "have" to be a Dem and Rep candidate? It is up to the Parties to put up a strong candidate, if they don't it is their fault and they need to answer to their constituants.

Posted by adderx99 on 10-12-2002 09:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish

Why Does there "have" to be a Dem and Rep candidate? It is up to the Parties to put up a strong candidate, if they don't it is their fault and they need to answer to their constituants.

Don�t they have third parties there in New Jersey? (J

KE)

The Democrats idea of a 'fair' election, is one in which they can win with the strongest candidate. By there recent actions, one could assume they�re in the business of doing just that - - �designing� an election that they can win.

__________________
I love my Treo 90.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page