Obama campaign hits back with own ads

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sky Blue, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #1
    A lot of people (including myself) have wondered when the Obama campaign is going to come back with some ads of it's own. Over the last 24 hours some ads have come out, including the following:

    McCain’s Lobbying Ties:
    http://thepage.time.com/obama-ad-on-mccains-lobbying-ties/

    'Real Change' and 'Still' (Not really a fan of this one) can both be found on Obama's site:
    http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG53SH

    A couple of 527s have put out ads too:

    Abortion:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WL_MvRu6SE

    Palin and Wolf Hunting (a little graphic):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

    Childhood Sexual Abuse:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0kiLoMY1hg
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Good- Now let's hit Palin on her war with Russia comment.
     
  3. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #3
    Don't hit Palin, use the comment to hit on McCain's judgement for putting her in a place where she could conceivably be running the country.

    I'm beginning to think that they vetted Palin enough to realize she'll draw fire but not enough to sink them.

    If hitting the #2 could win or lose elections for the candidate Bush would have never won, Cheney has more than enough crap to sink that ticket and the voters managed to put Bush in twice (OK the first time was debatable but it shouldn't have been that close).

    Go after McCain and use Palin's remarks and lack of knowledge to reflect badly on his judgement. The VP position is the biggest test of a candidates judgement since they can act completely on their own with no regards to the voters' will. The judgement exercised by each candidate in their VP pick tells us a lot about their priorities. Who showed more concern with picking a VP that could win them the election versus who picked a VP who would be able to competently run things if something tragic happened on January 20th?
     
  4. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Is it time to reclaim the "pro-life" label from anti-abortionists?


    As an aside, why have the anti-abortionists been allowed to label themselves as "pro-life"? I ask this because it is pretty difficult for anyone this side of Stalin to say that they're not "pro-life", which seriously hinders the effectiveness of the pro-abortion/choice argument.
     
  5. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #5
    The first two links in the OP are the same. :)

    But man those are good ads. Especially the hunting one. That's some sick ****.
     
  6. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
  7. Sky Blue thread starter Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #7
    Fixed.
     
  8. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #8
    most intellectual response I've heard for this, and something they should do.

    VERY true.

    William Henry Harrison, election of 1840. He was getting blasted all over the place by Van Buren, who looked to win a 2nd term. But he picked Tyler, who was a Democrat who turned Whig after being offered the VP on the Whig ticket. Harrison and Tyler won, Harrison died a month later, and the argument came about as to who should assume the Presidency (no 25th amendment at the time). Tyler ended up taking it, wasn't taken seriously (he was labelled "His Accidency") because of how he got the office. Was he ready to run the country? absolutely not. But Harrison took the gamble, won, but less than a month later, lost.

    Just for history's sake. ;)

    BL.
     
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #9
    maybe because they choose life over killing the baby via abortion perhaps

    i dont understand how anyone could be prochoice

    why should the baby have to feel the consequence? he/she has done no wrong yet some people advocate for killing it under some circumstances. no circumstance justifies killing a baby


    how people who are saying the killing of wolves is sick, it is even sicker to kill innocent babies

    if i had to choose between what these ads portrayed about the republicans and democrats stance of wheather to save wolves and kill babies (what the obama ads try to illustrate) vs killing wolves and saving babies, id have to side on saving babies 100% of the time

    who is to say that the reason those animals are shot is because of
    1) population control to better serve ecosystem
    2) animal was a threat to a community and had to be put down to stop going into the community?
     
  10. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #10
    Typical right winger distracting the tone of the conversation. The ads are seperate!

    Topic 1) killing those wolves, especially in that way, is inhumane and wrong. And plain dumb

    Topic 2) Everyone agrees killing a 20 year old is wrong because everyone agrees that that person is alive. It can feel fear for its own life and knows what death means. A few hundred cells do not. Though you can argue based on moral ground whether or not that's a life, but it's not 100% for everybody like that 20 year old would be. That's the debate.

    Personally I don't give a crap if people can have abortions. If anything, I think, aside from rape incest etc, it should be a decision that BOTH parents get to make together, not just the woman. Of course it's her body but the man got the seed in there...

    Rape is debatable. Incest is not. Ever. That kid does not deserve the suffering it will likely endure being the child of incest. People who are against abortion are typically for all absistence education. Human beings are infallible and policy is best when it doesn't assume that they aren't.

    Don't try to make the argument that quote "liberals" are trying to make it between wolves are better than babies. That's stupid and ignorant.
     
  11. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #11
    Hmmm, was it a different Dukebound85 who said in a different thread (he) was in favor of abolishing all foreign aide, cutting off social security if "nuttin' in," and whatever to stop welfare? Because I'm sure you realize that to receive social security without the requisite number of quarters in, one has to be disabled, a minor child of someone who died, or a spouse of someone who died. So I don't quite get why you'd be so concerned with MY uterus and cells that could be in it that couldn't survive even with food, air and shelter out of my uterus, if you don't mind killing some actual living, breathing infants, children and adults who are would-be social security recipients? (letting people die if we have the power to save them is killing -- or do you think that these living, breathing humans don't actually need to eat?) Same goes for your concern with MY uterus when you'd let victims of US wars, famine, flood, storms, dictators, foreign wars die (i.e, kill them, if we have a chance to prevent their deaths) because the US "has a duty to take care of its own first?" Or do you think that poor people of the world are "guilty" vs. the "innocent" cells in a woman's uterus? I'd say as a country and a world we have plenty of "taking care of our own" to do before you need to concern yourself with women's uteruses.

    Somehow I don't think Sarah Palin is concerned about the ecosystem, she is pretty anti-science on every front.

    I will say this for Sarah Palin: while she is lying about many issues, on the abortion issue she apparently practices what she preaches vs. the majority of anti-choice politicians who would use their means to send their daughter (or themselves) to another country for an abortion if it were illegal here again.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    These ads are not nearly good enough. Here's what I'd like to see:

    FADE IN on Joe Biden looking directly into the camera. He speaks in one continuous shot.

    BIDEN:
    In a few weeks we're all going to be making a very important decision: who is President and Vice President of our country. For his Vice President, John McCain, who is 72, would potentially leave the United States in the hands of somebody who has almost no experience; who thinks she can handle terrorism and the Iraq war because Alaska is next to Russia; who only a few months ago said she doesn't even know what the Vice President does.
    (pause for emphasis)
    Do we really want to take that kind of risk?

    DISSOLVE TO OBAMA-BIDEN LOGO. FADE OUT.​

    And one for Barack:

    FADE IN on Barack Obama, addressing camera directly, in one shot.

    OBAMA:
    John McCain, what has happened to you? People used to look up to you because you're a veteran. But now here you are, wallowing in the mud, telling blatant lies about our campaign. We want to protect kids from sexual predators, and you twist it into sex education for toddlers. I say that YOUR policies are like putting lipstick on a pig, and you try to make it sound like an insult to your running mate. Well, John: I'm calling you a liar. After all, if your policies were any good, would you have to resort to trash like this?

    DISSOLVE TO OBAMA-BIDEN LOGO. FADE OUT.​
     
  13. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #13
    Absurd.

    If you compare the per-capita abortion rates of the United States to Canada, a country with a much more progressive stance on abortion and sexuality, you'll notice that in the United States abortions happen almost twice as frequently, and that the US has one of the highest abortion rates in the developed world. This is in no small part because Canada is largely free of this kind of empty moralizing, and instead is willing to recognize the causal link between comprehensive sexual education, pregnancy, and ultimately sexual health and abortion.

    Of additional importance is the number of women who die every year during pregnancy and childbirth. Impoverished women, usually from ethnic minorities, are up to seven times more likely to die during maternity and childbirth, and they are not so shockingly also the demographic that has the most abortions. Also not so surprising is the dreadful level of child poverty in the United States, once again leading the developed world.

    This is a house of cards in pitiful disarray. I suggest you attend to that before condemning women to death and children to poverty in the name of the moral high ground.
     
  14. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #14
    Disclaimer... voting for Obama, McCain is a senile loon, and Palin is just plain frightening. I'm also a professional wildlife biologist, so I know what I'm talking about here. That being said...

    The wolf ad really turned me off. Admittedly, it is a very effective appeal to emotion, but there is much that is left out of that ad. So much that it is borderline deceptive. As someone previously said, why are the wolves being killed?

    Killing them in that way is not inhumane and wrong. It is (usually) unfortunate but necessary. Here's why:

    Wolves in Alaska prey on Caribou. So do indigenous peoples. If I'm not mistaken, the government has guaranteed the right of natives to a certain take of their native game. Prior to intelligent wildlife management, humans and wolves competed for prey, and humans killed wolves, sometimes in vast numbers, to the point where there was real danger of losing them.

    Fast forward a few years, animal rights took off, and people stopped killing wolves altogether. Wolf populations rebounded drastically. So much so, that they are now depressing caribou populations to the point where natives are having difficulty hunting, and caribou are in real danger of crashing. So if we want to keep our promise to indigenous peoples, keep the caribou, and keep the wolves, we must kill some wolves so that the caribou can be hunted sustainably. This is management, and it's ugly, and not something I recommend watching, but it is necessary if we are to interact with wildlife without destroying it.

    As far as how to kill them - using poison is ineffective (they are smart), you don't know how many you've killed, and you might kill other things. Hunting on foot or in the spring is equally ineffective, as wolves are very hard to track. Aircraft with rifles is the most cost effective, humane way to do it. Again, not pretty, but better than losing the wolves entirely, which is what would happen if they got so numerous that Alaskan natives started running out of their food source, or the wolves started creeping into human settlements. Just look at the nightmare in Wyoming.

    The only thing that's a little disturbing in the ad is the bounty for the forepaw. I'd like to see that explained, as it is an old-fashioned technique that goes back to the days when the management goal was to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible.
     
  15. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #15
    and that is what you say to defend killing babies due to no fault of their own? that is just pathetic

    abortion is mass genocide imo and how anyone can support it is sick. let me ask you again. what did the baby do that justifies killing it?

    adoption is a much better alternative than killing the baby.

    you bring up the fact that mothers die from childbirth. so you would rather kill 100% of unwanted babies than whatever % of moms that die giving birth? you can't be serious

    why dont human rights extend to the unborn child let me ask you that? you may say well it isnt human or alive or just cells, etc. Well guess what, it IS and WILL BE if you don't kill it. Sure our views on what constitutes life may be different but there is NO debate that that group of cells, fetus, etc will be its own person if left alone.

    If you want to cut down on unwanted births, we as a society need to change our culture/education etc about family, sex, etc. That is how we attempt to solve the problem, not by allowing mothers to kill their babies because they are unwanted
     
  16. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #16
    100%, you're honestly trying to imply that we want all unwanted pregnancies to be aborted? When the hell did the idea of being pro-choice mean that we encourage or actively push abortions on women who might not want a baby?

    We don't want abortions to happen any more than you do, but we don't feel that it is our right to force women to use their uterus as an incubator and incur the physical pain and medical risks and cost if they are determined not to have the baby.

    I'd rather have abortions be safe, legal, and rare than have women who are determined to have an abortion risk their own lives and reproductive track by seeking out illegal abortions or taking steps to end the baby's life in a way that could cause them physical injury or death.

    The first step to making them rare is a good comprehensive sex education program that dispels all of the myths out there and minimizes unwanted pregnancies by arming people with the knowledge they need, along with easy access to birth control. You want to eliminate abortion? Start by telling kids, and adults how to use birth control methods, because they are going to have sex, and just telling them not to do it and turning a blind eye will only make the problem worse.
     
  17. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #17
    As they say, only a sith speaks in absolutes. I think we should all ignore his self-righteous rambles.
     
  18. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #18
    You're right. There is no debate. If left alone, it will not become a person. 22 weeks tends to be the bare minimum for viability of a fetus--a point at which outcomes are not going to be very good either.
     
  19. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #19
    So by that logic, using condoms or other contraceptives, whacking it, BJs and any other sexual act that doesn't result in a child is murder since after all, those are cells that could be a human life. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #20
    Ignoring the rest of your ridiculous diatribe about genocide, you're absolutely right that there's no debate. If left alone, that group of cells will die within seconds. Until it's able to survive on it's own (approximately 22 weeks) it's not an independent organism, it's a fetus within it's mother's body, and repeating "baby" won't make it true. The fact that you are unable to emotionally deal with what someone else does with their body involving a procedure you obviously don't understand in the slightest is your problem. And if you truly believe that decreasing unwanted pregnancies and abortion can be done with a change in sex education, then you're clearly supporting the wrong candidates.
     
  21. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #21
    I kind of agree with you on this. Kind of. IMO it's not a baby until it forms a fully working heart and other organy stuff. Early on then it's just something that is supposed to become a human.
     
  22. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #22
    It's a life of it's own when it can live on it's own.

    Nations such as Canada that recognize this have a much lower rate of abortion. Interesting that people so much more willing to commit "genocide" tend to do so half as often? It's just another example of how ignorance and empty moralizing is ultimately detrimental to society. If you want to stop "killing babies" then you may wish to vote for a progressive candidate.
     
  23. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #23
    none of those practices result in a sperm fertilizing an egg now do they...

    ah yes, so life is when it can support itself right? so a fetus (with organs and limbs) is not "alive" because it cant live without it's mother. unbelievable. how can you say that isnt a person?

    i dont care what people do to their own body but once that starts affecting others who cant help it, thats where i have the issue
     
  24. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #24
    so life by that logic begins at birth? sorry thats wrong. what do you define as "living"? a baby even born can NOT fend for itself (get food, water etc) without the help of the parents...........gee much like a fetus now isnt it but in a different setting.

    please tell me how allowing abortion makes people want to do it "half as much". that is a bs argument. im sure that is what people think when they are facing that decision. its as absurd as saying murders will decrease if we legalize killing others...

    the issue is our culture and education and that is what affects the outlook on such beliefs
     
  25. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #25
    Then what is your opinion on it before the cells form what can be recognizable as a human baby?

    IMHO, once the brain and heart begins to function, it is a life and is too late to have an abortion( unless it affects the health and life of the mother). Anytime before that, it is just a mass of reproducing cells within the woman's body.
     

Share This Page