The 527 video that would never be aired on TV!(HowWouldTheyVote.com)

[Johan_Tayn]

http://www.third-core.org

Very freaky, very neat, and asks a valid question.

Check it out..

JT

 

[blahblahblah]

I need more information on the ad. I could actually use that for my electoral behavior class. I need to know who sponsered the ad, when it was made, etc.

Is that a real 527 ad?

 

[Johan_Tayn]

nope.. he couldn't get it anywhere because he doesn't have connections.

He just made it as a way to get the focus back where it should be: Not, "Am I going to get a flu shot? Will there be any left? Why did Cheney get one? Why didn't they mention Bill Clinton got one as well", but "Am I safe? Will I continue to be safe in a post-Nov2 2004 world?"

Their servers are overloaded because of a 3meg file! sounds like people are watching this..

 

[blahblahblah]

nope.. he couldn't get it anywhere because he doesn't have connections.

He just made it as a way to get the focus back where it should be: Not, "Am I going to get a flu shot? Will there be any left? Why did Cheney get one? Why didn't they mention Bill Clinton got one as well", but "Am I safe? Will I continue to be safe in a post-Nov2 2004 world?"

Their servers are overloaded because of a 3meg file! sounds like people are watching this..

Than that is not a true 527 ad.

 

[Neutrino]

http://www.third-core.org

Very freaky, very neat, and asks a valid question.

Check it out..

JT

I don't think it's a very valid question at all really.

The basic implication behind it is that we should vote based on fear of these people. If this were done it removes the power from the American electorate and gives it to terrorists and others hostile to the US. That is a horrible way to promote voting in my opinion, as it incites fear, not with reasoning and facts, but on images, impressions, and exagerations. It takes the focus away from the real issues and turn it toward toward fear. Fear is usually not very logical.

I think such scare tactics are rarely based in reality and are meant to appeal solely to the emotional response of the voter. They are a very poor basis to judge anything from.

 

[blahblahblah]

I don't think it's a very valid question at all really.

The basic implication behind it is that we should vote based on fear of these people. If this were done it removes the power from the American electorate and gives it to terrorists and others hostile to the US. That is a horrible way to promote voting in my opinion.

I think such scare tactics are rarely based in reality and are meant to appeal solely to the emotional response of the voter. They are a very poor basis to judge anything from.

Like this, or this?

Both candidates suck. I think Bush and Kerry should forfeit the election and make me president. :E

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I don't think it's a very valid question at all really.

The basic implication behind it is that we should vote based on fear of these people. If this were done it removes the power from the American electorate and gives it to terrorists and others hostile to the US. That is a horrible way to promote voting in my opinion, as they incite fear, not with reasoning and facts, but on images, impressions, and exagerations. They take the focus away from the real issues and turn it toward toward fear. Fear is rarely logical.

I think such scare tactics are rarely based in reality and are meant to appeal solely to the emotional response of the voter. They are a very poor basis to judge anything from.

I disagree. I believe that who those people would vote for would be an indication of the strength of that respective candidate.

Who has made it more dangerous for Al-Qaeda to exist? Who has eleminated 75% of their group? Who has taken a sadistic despot who murdered thousands of his own people and played cat and mouse with the group(UN) that is comprised of the biggest countrys in the world and put him in prison?

I disagree. I think a lot of people would perfer to talk about frivolous issues like voting against making a Martin Luther King Jr Day.

 

[Neutrino]

Like this, or this ?

Both candidates suck. I think Bush and Kerry should forfeit the election and make me president. :E

Hmm, I can't get those to play for some reason. But from reading the site I'm assuming your talking about the scare tactics used by both candidates.

Ya I don't like them either. Like I said, it takes the focus from the issues we really need to be looking at. Fear is a great thing when it comes to deciding how far to climb up a tree. But it's not so great when it comes to electing a president.

I disagree. I believe that who those people would vote for would be an indication of the strength of that respective candidate.

First of all, you have no idea who they would vote for. Even if they publically endorsed a candidate it's no indication of their opinion. They know they are not liked in America so in some ways it would make more sense to endorse the candiate that they don't want, as a form of reverse psychology. Or maybe not. It's would be useless to try to guess what they are thinking.

Second, I'm sorry but I don't vote based on what some terrorist thinks. I hope no one else does either.

Who has made it more dangerous for Al-Qaeda to exist? Who has eleminated 75% of their group? Who has taken a sadistic despot who murdered thousands of his own people and played cat and mouse with the group(UN) that is comprised of the biggest countrys in the world and put him in prison?

The "75%" thing isn't really true.

The rest of your points leave out many considerations and facts. It's not nearly so cut and dried as you seem to think.

See, I personally think what we've done has in fact made terrorism even worse than it was. It's possible to debate it both ways though. But that debate should use facts and logic, not fear.

I disagree. I think a lot of people would perfer to talk about frivolous issues like voting against making a Martin Luther King Jr Day.

Or other frivolous issues like taxes, healthcare, the economy, and jobs? Uhuh.


Yes, it makes sense to take a reasoned look at what has been done and who you think will make the country safer. But that should never be done through scare tactics.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Hmm, I can't get those to play for some reason. But from reading the site I'm assuming your talking about the scare tactics used by both candidates.

Ya I don't like them either. Like I said, it takes the focus from the issue we really need to be looking at. Fear is a great thing when it comes to deciding how far to climb up a tree. But it's not so great when it comes to electing a president.

what is the issue you're talking about?

 

[blahblahblah]

Hmm, I can't get those to play for some reason. But from reading the site I'm assuming your talking about the scare tactics used by both candidates.

Ya I don't like them either. Like I said, it takes the focus from the issue we really need to be looking at. Fear is a great thing when it comes to deciding how far to climb up a tree. But it's not so great when it comes to electing a president.

Did you click play? :O

That site doesn't work for me half the time, and it rather annoying real fast. Especially when you have to use the site to write essays.

 

[Neutrino]

Did you click play? :O

That site doesn't work for me half the time, and it rather annoying real fast. Especially when you have to use the site to write essays.

Ya I did. I am using firefox if that matters. I'll try a bit later and see if I can't get them to work.

what is the issue you're talking about?

It's called a typo.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Pft, when us canadians voice our opinions about the election, everyone's like:
"You don't live in the US, so your opinion doesn't matter to me enough to affect my vote."

But then when terrorists maybe have an opinion on the election, everyone's like:
"Oh no! We must take this is an extremely serious possibility, and change our votes accordingly!"

Maybe I should just blow something up, and then voice support for Bush.
It'd be a million times as effective at supporting Kerry than just talking about the benefits of electing him on an internet forum.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Hmm, I can't get those to play for some reason. But from reading the site I'm assuming your talking about the scare tactics used by both candidates.

Ya I don't like them either. Like I said, it takes the focus from the issues we really need to be looking at. Fear is a great thing when it comes to deciding how far to climb up a tree. But it's not so great when it comes to electing a president.
Excuse me for my ignorance, but aren't you in Russia? Are you even allowed to vote over there?


First of all, you have no idea who they would vote for. Even if they publically endorsed a candidate it's no indication of their opinion. They know they are not liked in America so in some ways it would make more sense to endorse the candiate that they don't want, as a form of reverse psychology. Or maybe not. It's would be useless to try to guess what they are thinking.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

I have an idea who they would vote for.. Quite a bit of an idea and I imagine the rest of America does too.

Second, I'm sorry but I don't vote based on what some terrorist thinks. I hope no one else does either.
My countrys ally fights Mr. B, I am president. I run again for election, my oppenent is supported by my ally's enemy. Why? Because I am not kindly or supportive of my ally's enemy.

The "75%" thing isn't really true.
Show me what is really true and whether and why a few percentage points are off matters if it means that Al-Qaeda is now weaker by around three quarters..

The rest of your points leave out many considerations and facts. It's not nearly so cut and dried as you seem to think.
Examples, please.

See, I personally think what we've done has in fact made terrorism even worse than it was. It's possible to debate it both ways though. But that debate should use facts and logic, not fear.I fail to see how fighting terrorists shouldn't make them mad and if you can, please explain. They are running scared as I see it.


Or other frivolous issues like taxes, healthcare, the economy, and jobs? Uhuh.
Not much of an issue when you're dead or fearing death by 380 tons of coventional explosives.


Yes, it makes sense to take a reasoned look at what has been done and who you think will make the country safer. But that should never be done through scare tactics.
Scare tatics? You mean showing people that they should be concerned about security is fear-mongering? I think we could use a bit more of that around here if that is what it takes for us to be safe. Better wary and safe than apathetic and dead.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Pft, when us canadians voice our opinions about the election, everyone's like:
"You don't live in the US, so your opinion doesn't matter to me enough to affect my vote."

But then when terrorists maybe have an opinion on the election, everyone's like:
"Oh no! We must take this is an extremely serious possibility, and change our votes accordingly!"

Maybe I should just blow something up, and then voice support for Bush.
It'd be a million times as effective at supporting Kerry than just talking about the benefits of electing him on an internet forum.

it's true, usually, that when people want to debate issues around their homeland, they don't want people from other countrys wasting their time by telling them what would be best for their respective other country.

Considering your country has now made it legal to steal music from the US' and other countrie's music artists, I wouldn't hope that you have our good in mind when you debate.

Plus, now we have you and what you said. You will now blow things into oblivion with the obvious intent of promoting Kerry who was(IMO, so stay on topic) going to lose anyway.

 

[No Limit]

All this ad is trying to do is get you to vote for Bush using a national tragedy as a scare tactic. This kind of crap really pisses me off and should be banned.

The question this ad asks is by far the dumbest question ever. That's like saying you shouldn't like a certain baseball team because your enemy might like it.

I could get in to a huge debate on who would be better to fight terror but that would drag this thread on for too long.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think the main point is that by giving these terrorists more sway to influence your descisions than you would to, say, a canadian or even a liberal, it validates the whole concept of terrorism.

Because some random faceless guys from the mideast decided to blow up a building, they've suddenly gained a huge amount of control over international politics. Which is exactly they wanted in the first place.

Edit:

it's true, usually, that when people want to debate issues around their homeland, they don't want people from other countrys wasting their time by telling them what would be best for their respective other country.

Considering your country has now made it legal to steal music from the US' and other countrie's music artists, I wouldn't hope that you have our good in mind when you debate.

Those two paragraphs sort of contradict each-other.
The first one says "Almost no-one cares if canadians voice concerns over things about america, even if they affect them", while the second says "As an american, I am concerned about things in Canada because they affect us."
Bit of a double-standard going on.

And, for the record, I don't pirate music. So I guess my opinion is still valid.

Plus, now we have you and what you said. You will now blow things into oblivion with the obvious intent of promoting Kerry who was(IMO, so stay on topic) going to lose anyway.

So the only thing stopping my plan from working is just that I am a known kerry supporter? Well, then I'll just hire someone to do the blasting for me.

Either way, the moral of the story is that terrorism apparently works.

 

[blahblahblah]

All this ad is trying to do is get you to vote for Bush using a national tragedy as a scare tactic. This kind of crap really pisses me off and should be banned.

The question this ad asks is by far the dumbest question ever. That's like saying you shouldn't like a certain baseball team because your enemy might like it.

I could get in to a huge debate on who would be better to fight terror but that would drag this thread on for too long.

You are viewing the ad only in one way. Is it an ad for Bush in the context that he has taken out one "terrorist regime"? Or an ad for Kerry in the context that Bush hasn't done enough to take out the "terrorist regimes" in the world?

You choose one side, others are bound to choose the other side.

 

[No Limit]

You are viewing the ad only in one way. Is it an ad for Bush in the context that he has taken out one "terrorist regime"? Or an ad for Kerry in the context that Bush hasn't done enough to take out the "terrorist regimes" in the world?

You choose one side, others are bound to choose the other side.

There is only one way to view that ad, it is clearly an ad that is pro-Bush. Bush has used the defense that terrorists want Kerry to win since he started his campaign. All the pro-Bush 527s quickly picked up on this theme.

There is absolutely no evidance to support this claim but they will say it all the time. The only evidance we do have is a statement from a member of al-queda that said they want Bush to win, this clearly is a contradiction to what Bush has said.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

You are viewing the ad only in one way. Is it an ad for Bush in the context that he has taken out one "terrorist regime"? Or an ad for Kerry in the context that Bush hasn't done enough to take out the "terrorist regimes" in the world?

You choose one side, others are bound to choose the other side.

it's telling that everybody is offended because the postulate in question is that Kerry is favored over Bush by terrorists.

So far, 1 (admited) endorsement for Kerry vs 0 for Bush.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

There is only one way to view that ad, it is clearly an ad that is pro-Bush. Bush has used the defense that terrorists want Kerry to win since he started his campaign. All the pro-Bush 527s quickly picked up on this theme.

There is absolutely no evidance to support this claim but they will say it all the time.The only evidance we do have is a statement from a member of al-queda that said they want Bush to win, this clearly is a contradiction to what Bush has said.

show me. Why haven't I heard about this in the news papers? They would jump to report this if had an ounce of crediblity.

Seriously Though, yes, so remember, vote Bush/Cheney in 2004 because al-Qaeda wants you to. It's pretty transparent what the group is doing but if it even sways one vote from Bush then I can't complain.

from http://www.seriouslythough.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=930 , an Anti-Bush source, to be sure.

And maybe you didn't read my post, but look here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

 

[blahblahblah]

There is only one way to view that ad, it is clearly an ad that is pro-Bush. Bush has used the defense that terrorists want Kerry to win since he started his campaign. All the pro-Bush 527s quickly picked up on this theme.

You are not a swing voter are you?

Trust me, I had those two thoughts when I was viewing that video. Please don't tell that there is only one conclusion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You are viewing the ad only in one way. Is it an ad for Bush in the context that he has taken out one "terrorist regime"? Or an ad for Kerry in the context that Bush hasn't done enough to take out the "terrorist regimes" in the world?

You choose one side, others are bound to choose the other side.

Not to offend, but I can't picture that as being a non-partisan ad.
Especially since the exact same argument as in that ad has been used against Kerry so many times before, whereas I've never heard anyone say "terrorists want Bush elected, so vote Kerry."

 

[No Limit]

show me. Why haven't I heard about this in the news papers? They would jump to report this if had an ounce of crediblity.

Sure, I can show you:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

and a Media Matters article on it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405280006

I gave you back up for my statement now I would love to see back up for the following statement you made:

So far, 1 (admited) endorsement for Kerry vs 0 for Bush.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Edit:

Those two paragraphs sort of contradict each-other.
The first one says "Almost no-one cares if canadians voice concerns over things about america, even if they affect them", while the second says "As an american, I am concerned about things in Canada because they affect us."
Bit of a double-standard going on.

And, for the record, I don't pirate music. So I guess my opinion is still valid.



So the only thing stopping my plan from working is just that I am a known kerry supporter? Well, then I'll just hire someone to do the blasting for me.

Either way, the moral of the story is that terrorism apparently works.

What I meant as to the "Got you now" statement is that you said that you meant to demonize Bush by blowing something up. Obviously, you were sarcastic, as was I.

I didn't say that stealing music affected me, I just noted that people from a nation that allows stealing from legitimate performers don't have that much crediblity if they don't take issue with their country on at least that issue, which you have done(bravo).

 

[No Limit]

You are not a swing voter are you?

Trust me, I had those two thoughts when I was viewing that video. Please don't tell that there is only one conclusion.

We can argue about the politics play book all day. To make it as simple as possible look at the top of that site. It's a Bush/Cheney banner! If you need more proof than that I really can't help you .

 

[No Limit]

In case you need even more proof that what I am telling you is accurate, this is from the official web site of the ad:

When you get right down to it, you must honestly admit that, if George Bush loses this election, the terrorists will be celebrating in the streets all over the world. Do you really want that to be the image you wake up to on November 3rd. THINK ABOUT IT.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Sure, I can show you:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

and a Media Matters article on it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405280006

I gave you back up for my statement now I would love to see back up for the following statement you made:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

Read it.

Tell me you can't see through a message claiming to come from Al Qaeda leadership that promotes Kerry over Bush as being better for the American people, but worse for the terrorists, so I can label you.

So far:

1 Kerry vs. 0 Bush

 

[Johan_Tayn]

We can argue about the politics play book all day. To make it as simple as possible look at the top of that site. It's a Bush/Cheney banner! If you need more proof than that I really can't help you .

I put that banner there because I personally support Bush.

I have that right, so I took advantage of it.

Note the message at the bottom of my post: P.S. Now mind you, despite the fact thart we support Bush, these videos don't say who to vote for, they simply remind you what is really important..

Deny that it doesn't say who to vote for so I can label you.

 

[No Limit]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

Read it.

Tell me you can't see through a message claiming to come from Al Qaeda leadership that promotes Kerry over Bush as being better for the American people, but worse for the terrorists, so I can label you.

So far:

1 Kerry vs. 0 Bush

Are you crazy? (no offense) You are comparing Yasser Arafat to al-queda??? Yasser Arafat wants Bush to lose because he wants peace and he thinks that Bush can't accomplish that. If you take that as a pro-Bush message maybe you shouldn't vote :dozey:.

 

[No Limit]

I put that banner there because I personally support Bush.

I have that right, so I took advantage of it.

Note the message at the bottom of my post: P.S. Now mind you, despite the fact thart we support Bush, these videos don't say who to vote for, they simply remind you what is really important..

Deny that it doesn't say who to vote for so I can label you.

Read the quote I posted directly off the official site of that ad.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What I meant as to the "Got you now" statement is that you said that you meant to demonize Bush by blowing something up. Obviously, you were sarcastic, as was I.

I didn't say that stealing music affected me, I just noted that people from a nation that allows stealing from legitimate performers don't have that much crediblity if they don't take issue with their country on at least that issue, which you have done(bravo).

So if I had supported piracy, my opinion would have been discounted?
That's a bit extreme.

But, since it wasn't discounted, in spite of the sarcasm, the point is still there:
If you let terror influence your decisions simply because it is terrifying, then the terror wins.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

In case you need even more proof that what I am telling you is accurate, this is from the official web site of the ad:

When you get right down to it, you must honestly admit that, if George Bush loses this election, the terrorists will be celebrating in the streets all over the world. Do you really want that to be the image you wake up to on November 3rd. THINK ABOUT IT.

1 No Limit vs. 0 Johan_Tayn
(1 point for me too!)

 

[Johan_Tayn]

Are you crazy? (no offense) You are comparing Yasser Arafat to al-queda??? Yasser Arafat wants Bush to lose because he wants peace and he thinks that Bush can't accomplish that. If you take that as a pro-Bush message maybe you shouldn't vote :dozey:.

He wants peace, ok. So bad that he would compromise just so there would be peace for all..

Wrong. He had unrealistic and quite impossible requirements for there to be "peace". You don't deal with terrorists like Spain, because it's like giving a disobedient child what he wants, ending with the child discovering it is worthwhile to be disobedient because he gets what he wants.

 

[Neutrino]

Argh, please learn to use quote tags. It makes it really difficult to respond when you don't. I don't know why I'm bothering with this as I'm pretty much done debating politics right now. But I guess I can't help myself sometimes.

Excuse me for my ignorance, but aren't you in Russia? Are you even allowed to vote over there?

There is more than one city called Moscow you know.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988

I have an idea who they would vote for.. Quite a bit of an idea and I imagine the rest of America does too.

You didn't really pay attention to what I said. I doubt you or anyone else in the public really knows what those people think. They might have other motivations for publically endorsing one candidate over the other. You don't know.

As long as we're throwing articles around on terrorist endorsing candidates, here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

"We change and destroy countries," the statement said. "We even influence the international economy, and this is God's blessing to us."

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

Show me what is really true and whether and why a few percentage points are off matters if it means that Al-Qaeda is now weaker by around three quarters.

It's not about a "few percentage points."

I was referring to this:

http://www.factcheck.org/article271.html

The President said twice that "75 percent" of al Qaeda leaders have been "brought to justice." But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.

Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.

So you see what I mean by things not being cut and dried. You rarely get the facts by listening to what only one candidate says. I hope you weren't basing any opinion off that number.

Examples, please.

Like I said, I really don't feel like getting into a serious debate on this. However, my above point was that the idea that what we've done over the last four years has either helped or hindered terrorism can be debated. So I'll just point out a few things:

Some things we've done about terrorism:

1) Let the most dangerous terrorist in the World escape. This is the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack ever on US soil. Yes we have failed to capture him.
2) We invaded a country that later turns out not to have WMD's or credible connections to Al Quida. Oops.
3) By invading that country we have angered not only the middel east but most of the world. We went from having the world's smpathy to having the world's ire. Not a good idea when there are lots of groups that want to kill you.
4) Fighting the war in Iraq took our focus and resources away from fighting terrorists groups that hd actually hurt us.
5) The way we went about fighting this war undercut the UN's authority. It's not a good idea in my opinion to hinder this international body in a time of a lot of world turmoil and terrorism.
5) That war has led to the Al-Zarqawi group to vow allegience to Osaman bin Laden, the person mentioned above whom we failed to capture.

There's a few examples for you. But like I said, it can be debated. It's a very complex issue that is difficult to judge.

I fail to see how fighting terrorists shouldn't make them mad and if you can, please explain. They are running scared as I see it.

They are running scared? Have you even been reading the news lately? Terrorists groups like Al Quida and Al-Zarqawi are currently gaining strength and forming allegiences. That doesn't exactly sound like they are running scared to me.

Not much of an issue when you're dead or fearing death by 380 tons of coventional explosives.

So you think we should just ignore every domestic issue that affects the lives of everyone in this country and just focus on terrorism? I'm sorry, but I happen to care about little things like the economy, healthcare, and jobs. If you don't that's fine, but I can introduce you to a few hundred million people who disagree with you.

This brings up another thing I've noticed recently. A lot of people seem to think that the world is less safe after 9/11 and that terrorism is more dangerous. I think this is completely false. It stems from a lack of perspective. For example consider a person who gets in a major car wreck. The car accident itself doesn't change the statistical danger of the roads and highways. They were equally dangerous before the wreck as they are after the wreck. However, the person involved in the accident is likely to see them as more dangerous afterward. This is a common psychological reaction. I've even experienced it myself when someone in my family almost died in a car accident. I found myself taking more precations and in general viewing the act of driving to be much more dangerous. But was it? No, not at all.

One car wreck does not change the danger of driving, yet this what many people and some politicians seem to think or tell us. One act of terrorism does not make the world more dangerous. In fact it can be argued that before that right before that tragedy the world was far more dangerous than afterwards.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about terrorism. We should be. But to justify anything on the basis that the world is more dangerous today than it was before 9/11 is wrong. It is not more dangerous. We are just more aware of the danger as we've now personally experienced it.

Scare tatics? You mean showing people that they should be concerned about security is fear-mongering? I think we could use a bit more of that around here if that is what it takes for us to be safe. Better wary and safe than apathetic and dead.

There is a large difference between being concerned about national security and fear mongering or scare tactics. As I said before, a reasoned look at the issue is a good idea of course. People of course have a right to be concerned about it. That doesn't mean you do it by intentionally trying to scare the public. No, you should do it by giving the public the facts on the matter and let them decide for themselves. You shouldn't do it by making a video showing terrorists wreathed in flames and trying to scare people using disturbing imagery. That's not about facts, that's about fear.

The day people start voting purely on fear is the day that the terrorists win and democracy loses.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

So if I had supported piracy, my opinion would have been discounted?
That's a bit extreme.

But, since it wasn't discounted, in spite of the sarcasm, the point is still there:
If you let terror influence your decisions simply because it is terrifying, then the terror wins.

I agree.

I think Spain was awfully weak to give in like it did. :dozey:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

He wants peace, ok. So bad that he would compromise just so there would be peace for all..

Wrong. He had unrealistic and quite impossible requirements for there to be "peace". You don't deal with terrorists like Spain, because it's like giving a disobedient child what he wants, ending with the child discovering it is worthwhile to be disobedient because he gets what he wants.

Arafat wasn't mentioned in the ad at all.

Even if what you're saying is accurate, you're still just changing the topic away from the fact that Al-Queda apparently loves Bush, and that the ad is partisan.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

1 No Limit vs. 0 Johan_Tayn
(1 point for me too!)

that post was a personal message from the creator.

When asked today on national radio whether he had intended to promote Bush, he replied, "I won't go into that. My whole point is to get people to think about this, as I think they should".

 

[No Limit]

He wants peace, ok. So bad that he would compromise just so there would be peace for all..

Wrong. He had unrealistic and quite impossible requirements for there to be "peace". You don't deal with terrorists like Spain, because it's like giving a disobedient child what he wants, ending with the child discovering it is worthwhile to be disobedient because he gets what he wants.

I'm not going to get into the subject of the palestine state. This thread was about the ad that you thought was non-partisan. I showed you it was, in fact, partisan so my point was made. I'm not going to go around in circles debunking every statement you make because everytime I show you that you are wrong you don't admit it, you simply throw something completely unrelated at me and hope that you can nail me to the wall (you won't suceed in that). Unless I see something worth while in this thread I am out.

 

[No Limit]

that post was a personal message from the creator.

When asked today on national radio whether he had intended to promote Bush, he replied, "I won't go into that. My whole point is to get people to think about this, as I think they should".

Have you read the quote from their official site!?!?

I swear, arguing with a pro-Bush person using facts is a total waste of time, they completely ignore them.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I agree.

I think Spain was awfully weak to give in like it did. :dozey:

So then why do you support the ad?
Either way, terrorists have successfully affected opinion in such a way as to sway governmental affairs.

that post was a personal message from the creator.

When asked today on national radio whether he had intended to promote Bush, he replied, "I won't go into that. My whole point is to get people to think about this, as I think they should".

So: the ad was made by a Bush supporter,
presented on a pro-Bush site,
dramatically repeating a questionable (at best) Bush argument against Kerry,
using Bush tactics,
and is still somehow non-partisan?

I want some of whatever you're taking.