>> ^renatojj:

There are no winners in this sham of an election, they are both the same in terms of policy, they both suck.


I don't disagree with that. I don't like where we tend to put the blame though, on the politicians and such rather than on ourselves. It's our own damned fault.

TV News used to do some investigative journalism, and it used to be a loss leader for the networks and done for a public service to earn them the right to the frequencies they were offered free of charge. But with 60 minutes and others of the sort the networks learned they could turn a profit and examine more personal issues then with Crossfire and others of the sort they lost even the public service requirements which they had on broadcast.

From Vince Foster murder allegations to blowjobs, 911 conspiracy theories and Swiftboating, death panels, foreign born, communist, socialist, we took it all in and never changed the channel or turned off the TV, and it DID shift our votes and opinions.

The fault is with us. We bought all of the deregulation arguments which allowed our current media and corporate system, we kept electing people who would do it some more even as the impact of our prior choices should have been getting more clear, and we kept responding to and watching ever more extreme and confrontational "news" shows and ads. Any politician who even tried to play nice, honest, and so on was simply steamrolled over and we never bothered to notice. And now we complain that we got the system we asked for.

No argument at all, both parties and the whole system these days sucks. And it's our own damned fault. We watched the shows, we voted them in, then reelected them, we echoed every conspiracy theory and accusation, and we never demanded better. We had every opportunity to see it coming and people have been warning us about it for years. We just couldn't be bothered to care.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Good point!

It's really *livemusic


>> ^speechless:

music

>> ^My_design:

Fixed.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
"Even though my official title was President of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2008. See?"
- Barak Obama, 2012




Cute, except that Obama hasn't actually used this excuse once already.

Fixed.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"Even though my official title was President of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2008. See?"
- Barak Obama, 2012

>> ^Quboid:


Why wouldn't it be?
An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.
What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.
Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!


Agreed, it is by far the worst aspect of American politics. I think there should be an advertising regulation covering political ads that you cannot mention your opponent, all you can do is promote your own policies, although that would probably violate the first amendment in the US. Maybe just have the candidates sign an agreement?

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

Why is telling the truth considered an attack?


Why wouldn't it be?

An attack ad is one that attacks your opponent, rather than, oh I don't know, TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING COUNTRY.

What's that about creating jobs? No, not the other guy destroying jobs, you creating them. What's that about taxes? No, not the other guy not paying enough, you reforming them, or not. What's that about foreign policy? No, not how the other guy would or wouldn't declare war on Iran, what would you do? What's that about the environment? No, not what the other guy drives, what you will do about clean air. What's that about the deficit? No, not how the other guy will increase it, how you will decrease it.

Jesus Christ, it's July and I'm jaded by this fucking election already. I like Obama, relatively speaking, but this is negative campaigning bullshit and I'm rather concerned that people can't even see that any more. Imagine how pissed off I'd be if I lived in the US!

>> ^Ryjkyj:

"Even though my official title was president of the United States, I can't be held responsible for the last four years. See, what had happened was... I took a leave of absence for a little while, then I decided to do something else, so I back-dated my resignation to 2012. See?"
- Mitt Romney, 2016


Too true to be funny... prescient.

@pumpkinandstorm...

Thanks for the promote that helped me get here!

Wadda woman!

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Your video, <a rel="nofollow" id="postlink-228108" href="http://videosift.com/video/Holy-crap-Talk-about-attack-ad">Holy crap! Talk about attack ad!!!!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^nock:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http

/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html

Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.


The Obama campaign hasn't actually provided any evidence that their accusations are true. That Romney signed a few documents while they were transferring ownership of the company doesn't prove Romney was actually running the company. He was working 112 hour work weeks running the Olympics; how was he supposed to have an active role at Bain?

There is also the evidence of three confidential offering documents distributed to potential investors, two in 2000, 1 in 2001, in which Romneys name is conspicuously absent from. If he was really running the company, his name would have been on them:

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's a great ad if you're not interested in facts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
You might also want to consider President Obamas outsourcing record:
http
/www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-record-on-outsourcing-draws-criticism-from-the-left/2012/07/09/gJQAljJCZW_story.html


Your rebuttal is only true if he indeed left Bain in 1999, which is why he is adamantly denying involvement up to 2002 despite recent evidence to suggest otherwise.

Clearly you've missed a good argument cause of anti-fox bias. It's kinda understandable tho..

Shep's point is: Wow, that's a strangely polite and creepy response considering Romney and Newt have vehemently opposed and talked shit about each other up until a few days ago.

e.g. -

"In the most negative primary season ever, Mitt Romney is outspending Newt Gingrich 5 to 1 on attack ads ahead of today’s primary in Florida, stopping the ex-speaker’s momentum coming off a South Carolina win."

"In honor of Newt Gingrich's impending endorsement of Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign has compiled several clips reminding voters of all the nasty things Newt said about Mitt during the GOP primary."



>> ^Trancecoach:

reacting to Newt's withdrawal the way a sane person would.

It's not my list, (though it tends to be accurate) But that's exactly why I'm calling for more active moderation on this site. I'm sick of the logical fallacies. When it goes unchecked, you get people who fed up and fire back. So it cuts both ways. It stops QM from making his ad homs and it stops people from making ad homs against him. Win win.

I'm also sick of EVERY GODDAMNED THING being turned into a left v right shitfest. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist and I think both parties are full of shit (sure I think one party is more full of shit than the other, but that's not really the point) but I think the founding fathers were right to not like parties and this two party system is killing this country.

Quite frankly though, if someone makes some quality posts, you don't earn the right to make some ad homs and otherwise make some shitty posts. if someone ad homs you, you don't get to ad hom them. It's not a tit for tat system.
>> ^Payback:

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.
However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.
Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.
>> ^VoodooV:
I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

Oh, believe me, I know his "Kenyawaiian" schitck by heart. As "The Obamanation" isn't here as a participant, I guess I am just drawing too fine a line, but I have yet, in recent memory, to see QM attack someone personally for their views.

However... HE gets attacked, ad hominem, CONSTANTLY.

Also, the others on your list barely contribute BEYOND their political rhetoric. QM comes up with some brilliant, actual-lol-worthy AND NON-POLITICAL comments quite often. I guess that's his saving grace with me, his sense of humour.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm sure I could probably find one if I looked hard enough, but it's not me that QM does his ad homs to. It's anything associated with the left or especially the man in your avatar pic. Or have you forgotten his favorite nickname for Obama? I have yet to see QM make a rational argument in regards to politics without resorting to a strawman or an ad hom or some form of logical fallacy
>> ^Payback:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^Payback:
>> ^vaire2ube:
BillO or Choggy
starring as Winstonfield_Pennypacker
as Bobknight33
Here on Psychos Of the Sift.
Don't worry kids, Quantum Mushroom is still in there as well, go figure!!

Please don't include QM with that list. Of all of them, QM doesn't argumentum ad hominem. He might be out to lunch, but it's a classy lunch.

where have you been? QM argues Ad homs all the time. It's his bread and butter.

Show me a post where he tries to deflect what you say by attacking you personally. That's what ad Hominem is. Attempting to discredit someone to win an argument, rather than debating their view.
VoodooV: I believe (place anti-rightwing-wacko argument here).
QuantumM: Your feet stink. Look everyone! VoodooV's feet stink!

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by bareboards2.