Anti-Bush attack ads

Quackzilla

Quackzilla

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/finalists.shtml

Why do these ads get censored while Bush can run whatever the hell he wants?


If you vote yes than I reccomment that you read "Animal Farm" and "1984", both by George Orwell.

Those books were banned from public schools in my city (Lynchburg, VA) by the Republican party, and the same is happenning in many other areas of te United States of America. Ironically, they are about communism and people suffering under a government that allows no freedoms.
 
I've been pimping that site for a while now.

If it were up to me though, all presidental ads would have to state what that canidate wants for America, instead of saying something about the "other guy". You shouldn't even be able to mention the other canidates name in the ad.
 
they really banned animal farm? I remember reading that my freshman year of high school.

4 legs good, 2 legs BBAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDD
 
I agree ZForce. Right now it's just who can put who down the best. I want to know what they can do for me, not what their opponent has done that could have tarnished their past.
 
The problem is that Bush keeps saying he is going to do something, and then he does something totally different that some corporation wants.

Its doublespeak (A 1984 reference that the local republicans didn't want kids to hear, so it was banned)


Who voted yes on the poll? That was a rhetorical question, I didn't think anyone here was AGAINST freedom of speech!
 
Wow, it sucks that those ads were censored. The government put a block on my computer so I couldn't check the website.
Oh wait a minute, I can go to that website.
Well, maybe if I play them, the Feds will come and poke out my eyes so I can't see them? *plays one*....Nope, not yet.
Hmm...And it could be argued that being able to play 26 30-seconds ads, as much as I want, and send links to anybody who has an email address is the ultimate in free speech.
So the poll is inherently flawed, since I see no censorship occurring, at least as related to those ads at Moveon.org.
Regarding Animal Farm and 1984, I find it difficult to believe that 'the Republican party' 'banned' them from that school system. If there is evidence saying so, I'll believe it. More likely, however, either a small group of people known as the Board of Education [which traditionally leans leftward], or a larger group of people known as the citizens of that county, had some influence on what books are included in their school libraries. The same BoEs that don't allow prayer or even a 'silent moment' in school.
And, finally, those books aren't censored. You can go to any bookstore and buy them. Even a child could do that. You could probably download e-versions of them in about five minutes. They are just not carried at that library, along with many other books.

I do agree, however, that the tendency of political ads--the majority of them, from both parties-- have been trending toward the negative for a couple election cycles. I appreciate telling me why you think the other candidate is wrong, but tell me why you'd be any better. 'The other guy sucks!' isn't much of an argument.
 
I was not saying that they were completely censored, that poll question was hypothetical and rhetorical.
The ads were banned by the news media giant viacom, which had just gotten a favor from Bush (relaxed anti-monopoly laws).

Secondly, you can be your cheap ass those books are banned IN LYNCHBURG PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Also, I find it disturbing that 37% of people voting on this topic want to ban all criticism against the president. Blind faith is very unpatriotic.
 
Wait a minute, a 'news media giant' can't 'censor' anything [technically, using the Constitutional definition]. They can refuse to run ads or content, which they do all the time for various reasons. You may not like the reasons they have, and that's cool, but that's not 'censorship.' Especially when, like I said, all of those ads are EXTREMELY available for anyone with an internet connection.

You can bet *your* cheap ass that I didn't say those books were not banned in the schools. And what do you mean by that--you won't find them in the school library, or if I bring a copy in my bookbag, I get detention? Please read wait I am asking before responding. I asked *who* 'banned' them, and what exactly does this 'banning' entail? And even if I did say that, I asked for a source of information; 'you bet your cheap ass' isn't really a valid source.

And again, you didn't answer my question:
Why does it cause an outcry when Animal Farm is 'banned' in a school system [again, by whom?], but someone can't, say, pray in school, or bring in a Bible, etc? [And I'm not a Biblethumper, I just find it interesting that the proponents of 'free speech' tend to forget that when it's about any speech that's related to God, heterosexual marriage, etc.]
 
How exactly are those "banned by the Republican party" You make it sound like Bush walked in and burned them all. I'm sure it was a school board that banned those books or maybe a city council, but the chances of everyone of those people being a Republican doesn't seem that likely to me.
 
Way to go, free speech! I guess as an atheist, I'm not allowed to say anything. Where's the poll for that? Glad to see they're teaching 'tolerance' and 'openness' at your public schools. Personally, I'd be one *hell* of a lot more concerned about a school system where kids get beaten up for being an atheist, than if the school carries a certain book, or because a company decided not to run an ad. Hope you've notified the ACLU, because
"get the shit beaten out of you for being an atheist"
is not much different from
"get the shit beaten out of you for being black"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being gay"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being Muslim"
and I would hope we'd agree those are all wrong.

And your initial question brings to light a common misconception: The right to free speech does not translate into the right to be heard, or the right to demand what channels/media your message is transmitted upon.
If I wanted to make a commercial, and buy a website, and host my commercial there because no TV network or radio network would carry it, my free speech rights are 100% intact. Just because I make a commercial, or a song, or a video, doesn't mean anyone I ask has to show it. They have the right to say no, based on whatever business decisions they want to make and live with, and whatever they think their audience would want to see/hear.
 
I say that not all critisism should be censored, yet some should be!
The ad I recently saw by Moveon.org using Richard Clarkes statements makes me want to puke. It is just disgusting what people will do. I think ads like that ought to be sensored, especially when they have material that is easily slander as that ad has!
 
[quote name='suprsaiyanMAX']How exactly are those "banned by the Republican party" You make it sound like Bush walked in and burned them all. I'm sure it was a school board that banned those books or maybe a city council, but the chances of everyone of those people being a Republican doesn't seem that likely to me.[/quote]

Thank you. That question was never answered. I guess they're all just puppets of the Right Wing Conspiracy.

And Storamin--you make a good point. I haven't seen that one, but when you move into slander/libel/defamation territory, that makes the issue thornier. Much like the right to free speech doesn't allow you to yell Fire! in a crowded movie theater [unless of course there's a fire], your right to free speech is definitely weighed against the truth of your statements when you get into that territory.
Actually, that's not quite right--you still have the right to say what you want. However, the aggrieved party then has the right to sue you for slander/libel/defamation. So you can still say what you want, but your words do/can have consequences. The ultimate example of this is the [admittedly offensive] scene from Kentucky Fried Movie. Many times those consequences are merely other people expressing *their* right to free speech, and their right to *not* listen to you, or to react in other ways [turning off the Tv, not buying your product, writing to the station manager of the network, boycotting the vendors who advertise, or create ads of their own.]
 
hmmm... does anyone else think that the poll seems like a pretty loaded question?

Also, $5 says that Quackzilla has never even read 1984, as he would then clearly understand that it is a condemnation of the left.

http://studentweb.tulane.edu/~jgray1/page3.html

The idea that the GOP would ban a book that stands for the same ideas that they do is inane.

The idea that the GOP even has the ability to ban a book is also inane.

Quack, word of advice for someone still in school. You will never succeed in this world until you begin to think for yourself. Quit regurgitating the ideas of those around you, you wear your influences on your sleeve.
 
Corruption does not begin and end with a particular political party. It is omnipresent. Two corrupt buffoons exchanging blows in hopes of controlling a herd of sheep. There are more important things to worry about in my opinion.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I was not saying that they were completely censored, that poll question was hypothetical and rhetorical.
[/quote]

Grab a dictionary dude, a rhetorical question is not meant to be answered. Does that mean you posted a question you didn't actually want anyone to respond to?

Also, for a question to be hypothetical, it must be based on a (duh) hypothesis. What exactly is yours?
 
You lefties just don't get it. If you had it your way, we wouldn't have video games! Without the incetive to make money, innovation ceases.

There has never been a major original innovation created within a society that had embraced a leftist ethos.

I'll clue you in, ... Increase govt regulation and overtax game companies, and they'll start laying off employees . . . then I'll have to wait an extra year for Ratchet and Clank 3, but it'll end up playing more like Blowout because 3 guys were working on it.

It baffles me that someone who claims to appreciate new and emerging technologies can also be a leftist.

Bottom line, developers make games cause they wanna make MONEY!

Remove the incentive to make $ = No more games.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']You lefties just don't get it. If you had it your way, we wouldn't have video games! Without the incetive to make money, innovation ceases.

There has never been a major original innovation created within a society that had embraced a leftist ethos.

I'll clue you in, ... Increase govt regulation and overtax game companies, and they'll start laying off employees . . . then I'll have to wait an extra year for Ratchet and Clank 3, but it'll end up playing more like Blowout because 3 guys were working on it.

It baffles me that someone who claims to appreciate new and emerging technologies can also be a leftist.

Bottom line, developers make games cause they wanna make MONEY!

Remove the incentive to make $ = No more games.[/quote]
The founding fathers of this nation, forward thinking individuals (liberals), wanted to outlaw slavery, but in order for unification to occur, they had to allow it. In order to appease conservative politicians at the time, a great injustice was condoned, forever belmishing the United States of Ameica. Ancient history to some; very real history to many. Money isn't everything.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Firebrand,

You're right, money isn't everything. Good thing I wasn't talking about "everything," I was talking about games.

Are you employed?[/quote]
Yes, I am employed. I'm funding my own education.

I fight against the ridiculous notion that either of the two popular political parties of America can do no wrong. I also fight against culture and all of its various evils.
 
Firebrand,

Is it safe then, for me to infer that you would sacrifice video games for your leftist paradise?

y'know, since "money isn't everything."

It takes a lot of gall for a user of cheapassgamer to say "Money isn't everything."

Like quackzilla, you also wear your influences on your sleeve.

Grab an economics book, read it, think about it...

then, get a job.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']I also fight against culture and all of its various evils.[/quote]

Man, you sound like a Noam Chomsky recording. Who are you trying to impress?

Do you ever plan on leaving academia? you don't seem like the type that would.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']Firebrand,

Is it safe then, for me to infer that you would sacrifice video games for your leftist paradise?

y'know, since "money isn't everything."

It takes a lot of gall for a user of cheapassgamer to say "Money isn't everything."

Like quackzilla, you also wear your influences on your sleeve.

Grab an economics book, read it, think about it...

then, get a job.[/quote]
Assumptions commonly make fools of those who make them. Slaves existed for one purpose. To make money at no cost (to the Slave owner); hence the notion that money isn't everything...there are other things to consider in the course of one's life. If money is the only thing that drives you, you should bow your head in disgrace.

Money is an essential part of life (I never have denied that, only cursed the means some used to get it), and I am not in the middle or at either extreme of that pathetic political line many people fall on. You're entirely too quick to insult people.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']
Assumptions commonly make fools of those who make them. Slaves existed for one purpose. To make money at no cost (to the Slave owner); hence the notion that money isn't everything...
[/quote]

Firebrand,

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that since money can be gotten illegitimately, that it thus "isn't everything?"

Please clarify.

Also, when did I make an assumption about slavery?
 
Firebrand,

please repond to my earlier question...

>Is it safe then, for me to infer that you would sacrifice video games for your leftist paradise?
 
dont worry, im sure those books are still banned here in farmville, va too

4 girls in one house is still considered a whorehouse..and skateboarding ANYWHERE is illegal...penalized with a 200 dollar fine
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='Firebrand']
Assumptions commonly make fools of those who make them. Slaves existed for one purpose. To make money at no cost (to the Slave owner); hence the notion that money isn't everything...
[/quote]

Firebrand,

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that since money can be gotten illegitimately, that it thus "isn't everything?"

Please clarify.

Also, when did I make an assumption about slavery?[/quote]
Let me clarify. Slave owners were greedy and seemingly valued money above human life. That's reprehensible.

You assumed that I was on the left. I am nowhere on the political line. If leftists share my values, it is sheer coincidence.
 
[quote name='Firebrand']
Let me clarify. Slave owners were greedy and seemingly valued money above human life. That's reprehensible.

You assumed that I was on the left. I am nowhere on the political line. If leftists share my values, it is sheer coincidence.[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with that point completely.

But, don't you think it's safe to assume that someone who's chosen Stalin as their avatar is a leftist?

Or, were you going for "ironic?"
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Way to go, free speech! I guess as an atheist, I'm not allowed to say anything. Where's the poll for that? Glad to see they're teaching 'tolerance' and 'openness' at your public schools. Personally, I'd be one *hell* of a lot more concerned about a school system where kids get beaten up for being an atheist, than if the school carries a certain book, or because a company decided not to run an ad. Hope you've notified the ACLU, because
"get the shit beaten out of you for being an atheist"
is not much different from
"get the shit beaten out of you for being black"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being gay"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being Muslim"
and I would hope we'd agree those are all wrong.

[/quote]

And now since "the passion of the christ":

"get the shit beaten out of you for being jewish"

Since Janet jackson flashin her stuff:
"get fired for entertaining people in the morning, day and night"


I could go on and on.
 
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='Firebrand']
Let me clarify. Slave owners were greedy and seemingly valued money above human life. That's reprehensible.

You assumed that I was on the left. I am nowhere on the political line. If leftists share my values, it is sheer coincidence.[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with that point completely.

But, don't you think it's safe to assume that someone who's chosen Stalin as their avatar is a leftist?

Or, were you going for "ironic?"[/quote]
No, the avatar serves as a reminder of how important the job of a parent truly is. Bad parenting, like culture, is to blame for many of civilizations problems.
 
[quote name='The_Continental']You lefties just don't get it.[/quote]

Who invited your sorry hide into Cheapassgamer.com? Go pay full price for your games, you rich right-wing hack!
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3'][quote name='The_Continental']You lefties just don't get it.[/quote]

Who invited your sorry hide into Cheapassgamer.com? Go pay full price for your games, you rich right-wing hack![/quote]
That's the kind of stuff I'm against. Those attitudes.
 
Money isn't "everything," but in as much as money is a proxy for security, it is certainly one of the most important things. All things--physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual--are primarily influenced by security, or more specifically the lack thereof.
 
[quote name='Firebrand'][quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='Firebrand']
Let me clarify. Slave owners were greedy and seemingly valued money above human life. That's reprehensible.

You assumed that I was on the left. I am nowhere on the political line. If leftists share my values, it is sheer coincidence.[/quote]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with that point completely.

But, don't you think it's safe to assume that someone who's chosen Stalin as their avatar is a leftist?

Or, were you going for "ironic?"[/quote]
No, the avatar serves as a reminder of how important the job of a parent truly is. Bad parenting, like culture, is to blame for many of civilizations problems.[/quote]


So the avatar is supposed to show how much you dislike Stalin. Got it.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3'][quote name='The_Continental']You lefties just don't get it.[/quote]

Who invited your sorry hide into Cheapassgamer.com? Go pay full price for your games, you rich right-wing hack![/quote]

Nope, I'm a full time worker like the rest of you. I just don't appreciate the govt reaching its hands into my pockets to further expand itself. I beleive that power is only truly given to the people when they control their own income.

Stalin thought the exact opposite.
 
[quote name='Medium_Pimpin'][quote name='dtcarson']Way to go, free speech! I guess as an atheist, I'm not allowed to say anything. Where's the poll for that? Glad to see they're teaching 'tolerance' and 'openness' at your public schools. Personally, I'd be one *hell* of a lot more concerned about a school system where kids get beaten up for being an atheist, than if the school carries a certain book, or because a company decided not to run an ad. Hope you've notified the ACLU, because
"get the shit beaten out of you for being an atheist"
is not much different from
"get the shit beaten out of you for being black"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being gay"
"get the shit beaten out of you for being Muslim"
and I would hope we'd agree those are all wrong.

[/quote]

And now since "the passion of the christ":

"get the shit beaten out of you for being jewish"

Since Janet jackson flashin her stuff:
"get fired for entertaining people in the morning, day and night"


I could go on and on.[/quote]

Everything I've read has said that there has been absolutely *no* increase in an anti-Semitism since PotC has been released.
Regarding getting fired: Unless you sign a contract [which of course can be broken], you can be fired [or quit] for almost any reason except race, gender and a few other protected statuses. If someone's boss decides they don't want a person who says or does certain things, especially while being 'on the job' that is 100% their right.
Care to try again?
And it seems like it's okay by you to get 'beat' because you're atheist/gay/minority. Glad we cleared that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top