Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wolf In Political Ad's Clothing

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the bad-idea dept.

Idle 25

Gerald Ford may have said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." But he was never stupid enough to make this.

cancel ×

25 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so whats the problem? (2, Informative)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31023696)

the imagery is silly, but this guy DID campaign on fiscal conservatism while his actions in office were the opposite.

california's budget problems aren't just his fault, it's a case study of liberal infinite government growth and public-sector labor union power. still, his his a fcino.

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025660)

Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.

All I see in this ad is a lot of whining about taxes. It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter.

Plus it's entirely too long and unintentionally funny.

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31025788)

Passing infinite costs on to the citizenry rather than reduce "entitlements" to the sick/lame/lazy or reduce an inflated and over-payed unionized workforce (which does decreasing amounts of work as time goes on) is tax-and-spend, not fiscal conservatism.

But yeah, the look-and-feel of this ad is sad-funny as hell.

It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter.

The liberal approach, pandering to the selfishness of the woe-is-me crowd, is a better alternative?

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31140950)

um maybe you should look at what programs and choices bankrupt the government before you drag out your liberal boogymen. big spending libruls have managed their checkbooks better than conservatives post ww2. good to see you check the publicly available numbers before jumping into the fray.

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31154324)

As opposed to the "fiscally conservative" method of debt-and-spend championed by republicans?

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028404)

All I see in this ad is a lot of whining about taxes. It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter

You're telling me that a slave wanting freedom is being selfish? You are a bigger asshole than I am.

Re:so whats the problem? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31032504)

You're telling me that a slave wanting freedom is being selfish? You are a bigger asshole than I am.

Well, if assholes like you wouldn't have spent billions of dollars a year funding religious extremists (everything from the Mujahideen, the funding of the Islamic Bomb, Zionists in Isreal and Christian Fundies) and right wing dictatorships then you wouldn't be in such a mess. Stop bitching about the problems that you cause.

The people who whine the loudest are the ones who are the assholes.

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036936)

Well, if assholes like you wouldn't have spent billions of dollars a year funding religious extremists (everything from the Mujahideen, the funding of the Islamic Bomb, Zionists in Isreal and Christian Fundies) and right wing dictatorships then you wouldn't be in such a mess. Stop bitching about the problems that you cause.

Right... because people like me who don't like paying taxes and don't approve of large government programs or spending LOVE it when the government spends billions of dollars on big government programs. We also have to be religious idiots. Also, dictators love capitalism, and they are never communist or socialist! Whatever helps you sleep, asshole.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039436)

Right... because people like me who don't like paying taxes and don't approve of large government programs or spending LOVE it when the government spends billions of dollars on big government programs. We also have to be religious idiots. Also, dictators love capitalism, and they are never communist or socialist! Whatever helps you sleep, asshole.

Pretty much correct. Congratulations. Yes the big government programs tend to be military and CIA in nature (i.e. like foreign aide to military dictatorships). You got one thing wrong though when you said "dictators love capitalism". They don't "love" any particular economic philosophy, but in general they tend to collude with big business (often corporate America), and accept American covert and overt foreign Aide graciously. It's ironic that the people who claim to be Conservatives almost always lie through their teeth and practice the opposite of what they preach. Much like the people who proclaim themselves to be Communist. You have more in common with your enemies than with your friends.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31155464)

The GP said

You're telling me that a slave wanting freedom is being selfish? You are a bigger asshole than I am.

The GP was NOT moderated as Flaimbait. The above post made an informative argument with examples to counter and nullify the GP Flame and yet was moderated as Flaimbait. It's a shame that there are some moderators who would rather try and forward an agenda rather than be fair and Moderate appropriately.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31033528)

Well, if you accept the definition of 'selfishness' as 'acting in one's own interest', then yes, it WOULD be selfish. Just justifiably so in every moral, ethical, and humanitarian sense.

Re:so whats the problem? (2, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31072640)

Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.

Close. Fiscal Conservatism cuts spending AND taxes. Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).

Re:so whats the problem? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31102186)

Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).

You're oversimplifying. Most of the increase in tax revenues came from corporate taxes, which didn't get a major cut in that period.

See: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html [factcheck.org]

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31034020)

... it's a case study of liberal infinite government growth and public-sector labor union power. still, his his a fcino.

If you tell a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately that neoconservative strategy is all too effective. It is however a great way to deflect responsibility away from the Right Wing.

"california's budget problems" are basically the fault of the Right Wing Proposition 13, the Right Wing deregulation of the energy industry (i.e. remember Enron?) etc and so on... It's a right wing conspiracy. And by the way, there is no communist party in power in California, so stop the neoconservative lies about blaming everything on the "Left" when in fact there is no "Left".

Re:so whats the problem? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31051764)

Point 1: Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

Conclusion: California's leaders have had 32ish years to fix the budget.

Point 2: California's spending does not match revenues

Conclusion: California is continuing to spend too much money.

Point 3: Most (68%) of California's budget goes to socialized education and health/human services

Conclusion: Too much socialization.

Final conclusion: You are an ignorant idiot.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31052746)

You make sense until you reach this part:

Point 3: Most (68%) of California's budget goes to socialized education and health/human services

Conclusion: Too much socialization.

Final conclusion: You are an ignorant idiot.

As with most neoconservatives, if you can't say anything intelligent, you just say stupid things and insult the people who point out your weak arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "socialized education and health/human services". If you mean education and health care that isn't controlled by big business and lobbyists then you obviously don't know what the word "socialization" means. Only an asshole thinks that children who can't afford education shouldn't get any. It doesn't have to do with socialism, it has to do with not being an asshole and fucking over your neighbors.

Only an idiot would believe that you can have your cake and eat it too. Or would you rather be like your other neocons and spend more money on jails and the jail economy? If you so-called (self-proclaimed) Conservatives were HONESTLY against BIG GOVERNMENT then you would be doing everything in your power to lobby against the prison economy and the military-industrial complex. You must realize that kids who aren't in jail are in school.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31155972)

1.

Point 1: Proposition 13 passed in 1978.

Conclusion: California's leaders have had 32ish years to fix the budget.

A non sequitur as a premise that leads to a conclusion that is circular in nature and doesn't prove a point. The date when the law came into being has no relevance to the fact that it is still in effect.

2.

Point 2: California's spending does not match revenues

Conclusion: California is continuing to spend too much money.

Another logical fallacy and a very obvious propaganda technique. The parent is trying to persuade through propaganda rather than having and honest and sincere desire to educate or discuss. For the lazy and intellectually incapable, I will specifically point out that "California's spending does not match revenues" is another logical fallacy because it is another non sequitur. In fact one of the most important reasons why "California's spending does not match revenues" is because of Proposition 13. It should also be obvious that "spend too much" (the conclusion) and deficit spending (the premise) do not prove each other because they are too terms that merely repeat themselves. Again; up-moderating bogus arguments just because you like a specific point of view is inappropriate.

3.

Point 3: Most (68%) of California's budget goes to socialized education and health/human services

Conclusion: Too much socialization.

Another logical fallacy.The parent didn't prove or even give evidence that the budgeted allowance is used for education and health care that is based on socialism. The parent also (apparently) makes the implicit representation that the proportion of the budget spent on health and education is too much without giving any evidence or proof that it is too much. Of course the amount spent on education and health care would be too much (according to the parent) even if it was less than one dollar a year, because 1 dollar a year could also be 68% of California's budget if the State decided to have almost everything run and paid for by private citizens instead of through taxation. Another part of the fallacy is that the Parent claims because part of the budget is spent on education and health care, then this equates to "too much socialization".

Final conclusion: You are an ignorant idiot.

Another logical fallacy and a Flame as well. Unfortunately the Moderators like this who find these comments "Insightful" are also the type of people who vote in corrupt politicians and then complain that it's really "socialists" and "communists" that are to blame for people's problems. Look at your history folks!

Moderators: Moderate with reason and fairness. Do not moderate just because you have an agenda. It makes you and the whole system seem like a waste of time and effort to read and reply.

Re:so whats the problem? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31089254)

Proposition 13 is a good thing. It prevents people from having to move because their property taxes rise beyond their ability to pay it. This protects old people and anyone else who owns property.

Using government to protect people is a total left-wing idea. I can't imagine why some left-wing people would want to repeal it, other than out of spite for what they see as a Reaganist proposition.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31090090)

Proposition 13 is a good thing...Using government to protect people is a total left-wing idea.

Proposition 13 is a government idea to protect people... like seniors for example. Of course nothing is so simple and naive as Right Wing fanboys would have people believe. If they can't blame their self-made problems on Canada, then they will blame it on the nebulous yet omni-present threat of the "Left". I wish you guys would come up with better arguments.

Re:so whats the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181210)

@1m into the video:
abudgetaboutwhichtherespectednon-partisanCalifornialegistlativeanalystofficewrote

Wow. Talented voice-over.

Bond Villain (1)

tokki (604363) | more than 4 years ago | (#31028856)

I like that the voice over was done by an actor who played a Bond villain (Robert Davi).

Wow (1)

mrdogi (82975) | more than 4 years ago | (#31037004)

8 comments already, and not one of them mentioning anything about who this add is actually for. I'd have thought /. would have had something to say about Carly [carlyforcalifornia.com] I'm shocked and amazed.

Re:Wow (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31044094)

8 comments already, and not one of them mentioning anything about who this add is actually for. I'd have thought /. would have had something to say about Carly I'm shocked and amazed.

Probably because you have to pay attention to realise who the ad is for. For anyone who didn't spot it, it's Carly Fiorina [wikipedia.org] . Note that at roughly the same time as her target in this ad was making the supposedly poor decisions described in it, Carly was being forced to resign as CEO of HP, having presided over a 60% reduction in its stock value, at a time when most of its competitors were doing well. And wasn't there some kind of bugging scandal as well? Not that it's mentioned on the Wikipedia article about her... presumably it's been whitewashed by her publicists.

Poor guy (1)

necro81 (917438) | more than 4 years ago | (#31087086)

So who was the poor shmuck paid by Carly for Congress that had to wear the sheep outfit with the red LED eyes and crawl around the field on hands and knees? I'm guessing it was the intern.

Re:Poor guy (1)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180544)

Pff, that was professional sheepery right there. Must have been a new zealander they know their sheep.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?