That's the best attack ad I've seen in awhile. Maybe Samsung should move into politics. I'm a creative.

@heropsycho I largely agree with that, but I also think there's a bit too much of a tendency for the left to undercut their own messaging.

For example, the Ryan plan involved changing Medicare from a single-payer insurance program, into a set of vouchers that seniors could use to buy private insurance.

Democrats said this would "end Medicare." They're right.

However, for some reason, Democrats listened to the people who said that it doesn't end Medicare, it reforms it.

So Dem's changed their messaging and said this would "end Medicare as we know it", but still people nitpicked, and they added more and more caveats, until they finally just dropped it entirely.

Good job. Rather than cutting through the bullshit and saying the real truth (Republicans want to end Medicare, and Paul Ryan's plan will do it) in a succinct and powerful way, you have this overly hedged weasely sounding soundbite that has been effectively de-fanged by the left trying to make their attack ads stand up to some sort of academic standard of intellectual honesty.

Most people don't think that hard about this stuff. There's a time and a place for a more nuanced takedown of the Ryan plan, but for a 30-second attack add, it should be "Republicans want to End Medicare". You don't want nuance, you want blunt, emotional messages that cut to the real truth of the matter.

So yeah, Romney says he doesn't want to "dismantle" Medicare, he says he wants to give people the ability to opt-out...which experts say would undermine the single-payer part, and eventually lead to its collapse. And very recently, he's started talking up the Ryan Plan, which would end Medicare.

So does that make it "utter BS"? No, I say the utter BS when Romney tells people he wants to preserve the idea that our government must take care of the health care costs of seniors.

I have a similar take on people on the left criticizing Obama. It's good to keep it real about what he's doing, and not try to pretend he's something he's not. But it doesn't help if liberals go out and buy into the right-wing frame that Obama is the source of everything that's wrong in America right now, especially when that isn't even remotely true.

Obama can't win unless liberals support him. If they don't, then whatever clown the Republicans nominate will be President, and they'll wind up with both chambers of Congress too. I guess that'll teach him to be a moderate!

>> ^quantumushroom:

OWS is, for all intents and purposes, a mishmash of left-wingers running the gamut from left-center to communist/anarchist. Their ignorance is expected but also redundant, as it's the same "message" the libmedia expounds day and night: 'capitalism evil, bigger government good' with the added bonus of pooping on cop cars.
It was government that caused this mess. Greed is counterbalanced by risk and the fear of loss. When government steps in and removes the risk (with OUR MONEY) then certain people are free to be greedy and careless. In this case "certain people" was everyone.
If you'll scroll to the bottom of this page there's a nice (partial) list of culprits.


as an ex-lawyer, i feel comfortable saying that the law is largely bought and sold.

and no market is "free" when it is so manipulated by the rich.

A parody response video to this attack ad Scott Brown put out on Elizabeth Warren.

In that protester's defense, that was an awesome cop car...

FOR HIM TO POOP ON!

>> ^quantumushroom:

OWS is, for all intents and purposes, a mishmash of left-wingers running the gamut from left-center to communist/anarchist. Their ignorance is expected but also redundant, as it's the same "message" the libmedia expounds day and night: 'capitalism evil, bigger government good' with the added bonus of pooping on cop cars.
It was government that caused this mess. Greed is counterbalanced by risk and the fear of loss. When government steps in and removes the risk (with OUR MONEY) then certain people are free to be greedy and careless. In this case "certain people" was everyone.
If you'll scroll to the bottom of this page there's a nice (partial) list of culprits.

>> ^quantumushroom:

OWS is, for all intents and purposes, a mishmash of left-wingers running the gamut from left-center to communist/anarchist. Their ignorance is expected but also redundant, as it's the same "message" the libmedia expounds day and night: 'capitalism evil, bigger government good' with the added bonus of pooping on cop cars.
It was government that caused this mess. Greed is counterbalanced by risk and the fear of loss. When government steps in and removes the risk (with OUR MONEY) then certain people are free to be greedy and careless. In this case "certain people" was everyone.
If you'll scroll to the bottom of this page there's a nice (partial) list of culprits.


the government was the cause of this...

by eliminating departments and oversight of corporations/financial institutions,

by eliminating regulations/laws which tied the hands of these same entities from committing the attrocious blunders motivated only by greed that have happened... like commercial banks being involved in investment banking, and wall street creating derivative markets which they themselves police

by attacking people's right to organize, collective bargain, and work with employers to create equal opportunity, reward, and incentive to succeed and innovate... so that 1 person can't be insanely rewarded by running companies into the ground, hurting their employees, the community, and the financial security of MILLIONS

all that risk you talk about being removed... was because they got rid of oversight and regulation

its a myth that government is incapable of being fiscally responsible at the same level or better than private corporations... take the "representatives" who set the budget and throw the money around to their lobbied interests and corporate friends... but look at the actual institutions and departments... these have not only the mandate to be fiscally responsible (fall within budgets, etc) that private interests do... they have the added oversight of people subjecting their cause to scrutiny... private causes are to advance profit, no matter the route

these institutions protect people from interests who aren't responsible to employees, to the communities they reside in, to the country they pay taxes to (or find loopholes to not pay taxes to)

free markets is a lie and a scam, because supply/demand/innovation mean nothing when you are competing with entities that can literally buy the game board out from under you... money is power, and if you have none, you have no power...

that's what government is there for... to give people the power
smaller government is a big business lie meant to distract you from who is really hurting you... the corporations and your bought and sold representatives

But there are more people who think they are conservative who will never take the time to figure out what it's about.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A risky strategy because there are quite a few conservatives who agree with OWS.

More recently than February, the far right has been rather kind to Ron Paul. They let him into the FOX debates without protest and tossed him nothing but softballs. There have been no attack ads against him and they've given him a lot a face time on FOX. Even Ann Coulter has said nice things about him. At the end of the day, he's still another millionaire politician looking to give himself a tax cut at the expense of the working poor.

It's the dollar limit thing -- PACs allow corporations to pour money into political campaigns without disclosing the source of funds.

I don't understand it all that well, but we are in trouble here in the US. Our electorate is uncommonly stupid and susceptible to inane and lying attack ads. Now that deep pocket corporations have free rein to pour money into PACs (which wasn't allowed until a recent Supreme Court ruling), it is going to be ugly.



In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
Thanks : I would've expected the parties themselves to do that, rather than having separate organisations.>> ^bareboards2:

From Wiki:
In the United States, a political action committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of a political issue or legislation.[1] Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of state and federal law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.[
>> ^oritteropo:
What's PAC?

I'm not a fan of Harper, but I have to counter that as a Canadian this is the best ad I've been exposed to the entire albeit short election period. The sole reason being it is the only ad I've seen that isn't an attack ad.

It's raising the bar to at least talking about what your own party has/will do. As terrible and depressing a low bar as that may be.

This has to do with the coming election. They can now say everything good done by the Government of Canada was done by the Harper Government in attack ads.

Wow, he even managed to turn a 30 second TV cameo into an attack ad.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=

EmptyFriend is correct...sorry, this is a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Anti-Sam-Kaitz-Attack-Ad.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.