"Republican Cuts Kill"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It has a valid point about the impact of cuts and the danger about talking about them in the abstract, but it's really crudely made and fuel the Ebola panic.


PD is most certainly not the greatest troll.
Not to mention misleading... in a way it is almost trying to perhaps bring out fear in individuals who are turned off by black people in not so well-to-do nations.
 
I dislike the fear mongering angle, but have also always been confused why once a thing is relevant and happening it's off the table to discuss. Someone kill a bunch of people at school? Then talking about guns or mental health is taboo because it's political pandering and somehow not relevant.
 
God that was terrible. Not just the message but the edits were waaay too many.

Too many cuts you say? I think the message got through.
3AQmK.gif
 
I'm directly/indirectly affected by NIH cuts, and I don't agree with them for the most part. That said, I don't like scare tactics, either. Bleh.
 
Pretty terrible ad that sets themselves up for attacks.

CDC has a budget of almost 7 billion dollars. They aren't exactly hurting for money. They spend roughly 1.3 billion a year on "preparedness" for bioterrorism. A noble cause but I am sure they could realistically drop that down to a much lower figure and spend funds on other things.
They spend more on Bioterrorism preparedness than they do for any particular disease prevention.

On top of that the AD starts with a blatant mistruth. 2010 Budget for the CDC was so high because the Recovery and Reinvestment act of 2009 pumped 800 million dollars into the CDC above the usual budget. remove the temporary boost and budgets pretty inline with the usual

You know that Congress doesn't just give an agency 7 billion dollars to spend as it pleases. 1.3 billion was specifically allotted by congress for preparedness for bioterrorism. So blame a Republican congress who has a majority of the House and a Senate Republican minority that will threaten filibuster and actually require 60 votes for almost all legislation.
 
Daniel B·;134233019 said:
Any GAFer who is happy with this state of affairs needs to think again. Money is destroying the U.S. political system and until its influence is drastically reduced, our government is never going to represent what's best for the vast majority of Americans and the World as a whole.
I agree, we need to slash government spending drastically, eliminate programs like mad and cut taxes down to zero until we get money out of politics.
 
As always, youtube comments are an endless source of amusement:

yeah tell that to Americans that cant afford food and gas because of the inflated dollar from Obama doubling the debt in just 6 years

I will never vote for a DEMOCRAT again after seeing this. How low to use Ebola for political gain!

You don't need a budget TO STOP A FUCKING FLIGHT.
 
Honestly, the ad wasn't that bad. Sure, the crappy Windows Movie Maker style text at the end wasn't stellar, but the ad drove the point home (and this is Demon Sheep video, that's for sure).

The irony here is that all the people who are pointing to this video to show how democrats are just as bad as Republicans prove that Democrats need to make ads even worse than this one since they'll be blamed for being mean to the Republicans even if there's nothing factually inaccurate with this video.
 
I know it's hyperbole, but there's some truth to that. The ROI on money put in to politics is crazy high.
Yeah, it's utterly disgusting. Millions and millions and millions of dollars spent every election cycle that could be put towards helping so many people in need and so much of this nation's infrastructure, economy, etc. There needs to be severe caps on how much money can be spent in elections, but the SCOTUS made it worse than it was even before...
 
I'm directly/indirectly affected by NIH cuts, and I don't agree with them for the most part. That said, I don't like scare tactics, either. Bleh.
I don't see a problem with "scare tactics". The public doesn't give a fuck unless you give them a reason to, which in most cases has to be an insane worst-case scenario. People will stop caring about this in a few weeks, anyway so they may as well get as much mileage out of this as possible.
 
It's a horrible ad. Using current events and people's suffering and/or paranoia to score political points. Whether or not it is effective is a different matter entirely though.
 
It's a horrible ad. Using current events and people's suffering and/or paranoia to score political points. Whether or not it is effective is a different matter entirely though.
These political points affect people's lives, which is the point. Louisiana's governor would rather see hundreds of thousands in the state go without health insurance so that he can appease a bunch of people who don't even live here and spite Obama. He has cut funding to hospitals, public health organizations, and other healthcare-related initiatives for absolutely no reason so I have no problem with people pushing back against shit like that.
 
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?

Of course it's ironic that President Obama chose the chief lobbyist for the Cable Industry to head up the FCC, who is soon to decide the fate of the Internet, but my point is, had a Republican president gotten in, this would be done already and a good few of you would be bitching at the $10 hike in streaming fees to cover the government sanctioned extortion by the cable companies...
 
Daniel B·;134246858 said:
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?

Of course it's ironic that President Obama chose the chief lobbyist for the Cable Industry to head up the FCC, who is soon to decide the fate of the Internet, but my point is, had a Republican president gotten in, this would be done already and a good few of you would be bitching at the $10 hike in streaming fees to cover the government sanctioned extortion by the cable companies...
If we keep letting the Republicans destroy the country the Democrats will win and be even more liberal

I don't believe this but I've seen this sentiment spread around - apparently ignoring that these are the exact conditions that led to Obama's presidency which many internet liberals don't seem too happy with
 
If we keep letting the Republicans destroy the country the Democrats will win and be even more liberal

I don't believe this but I've seen this sentiment spread around - apparently ignoring that these are the exact conditions that led to Obama's presidency which many internet liberals don't seem too happy with

Well I think there is something to that. If not for Bush fucking up so badly, I doubt we would have got Obama.
 
hm, dumb ad. you could definitely make the argument that the insane budget cuts made in the past couple years have caused widespread misery and even death in some cases. way to go putting it in the context of this crazy ebola freak-out, though.
of course, if you focus on insane budget cuts in general, then you run into the problem that democratic party officials are pretty on-board with said spending cuts despite what the base likes to believe
 
I'm directly/indirectly affected by NIH cuts, and I don't agree with them for the most part. That said, I don't like scare tactics, either. Bleh.
All's fair.

Pointing out cuts to the CDC when we are now having an Ebola outbreak is fair game. What do you think the GOP would do if Obama lowered airport security and then a plane got hijacked?


And at least there is some logic to this scare tactic instead of crap like "Gay marriage is gonna end civilization!"
 
Daniel B·;134246858 said:
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?

I'm not really sure how your premises connect to your conclusion.
 
Daniel B·;134246858 said:
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?
What makes you think that?
 
I've never considered ebola fear-mongering to be the sole domain of the right, but this ad definitely proves it. Fear sells. I'll concede that it's an effective ad but you folks saying it's an appropriate one are deluded. The idea is to be better than the other guy, not stoop to his scummy level to score some easy votes.

Go, team, go! I guess.
 
I've never considered ebola fear-mongering to be the sole domain of the right, but this ad definitely proves it. Fear sells. I'll concede that it's an effective ad but you folks saying it's an appropriate one are deluded. The idea is to be better than the other guy, not stoop to his scummy level to score some easy votes.

Go, team, go! I guess.

If that worked, people would do it. Apparently it doesn't work so well.
 
Shit, let's start talking about how significantly my healthcare expenses have changed thanks to the "affordable" care act...

This add is bullshit fodder for dumbasses. American politics are a joke. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Edit: turns out my wallet is in the corner crying.
 
Shit, let's start talking about how significantly my healthcare expenses have changed thanks to the "affordable" care act...

This add is bullshit fodder for dumbasses. American politics are a joke. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Edit: turns out my wallet is in the corner crying.
No thanks. Even Republicans have seemingly given up on that old song. It only took four years of having to hear it.
 
Daniel B·;134246858 said:
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?
When isidewith kept stats for the quizzes by the site that linked to it, GAF was something like 65% Democrat, 20% Green, 10% Libertarian, 5% Republican.

So 70+% of the site voting Democratic would not be surprising to me if you could somehow show the voting numbers.

*Disclaimer: For Americans only.
 
I'm the leftiest left leftie I know (seriously, I'd be center left, at least, in any western European country -- any Fox News watcher would call me an America hating commie), and I think that Democrats, on the whole, pull way too many punches when it comes to getting their message across.

That said, this ad is just about 'too extreme' for even me. The GOP really does need to be tied strongly to their to-the-bone expense cutting ways, but I get the feeling that this ad is going to generate far more backlash for candidates in those states than support. I'd probably run the ad myself, personally, but there's a reason why I'm not a PR guy - I make pretty shitty PR decisions.
 
If we keep letting the Republicans destroy the country the Democrats will win and be even more liberal

I don't believe this but I've seen this sentiment spread around - apparently ignoring that these are the exact conditions that led to Obama's presidency which many internet liberals don't seem too happy with

With the likes of the Koch Brothers wielding so much power, from the many millions they spend circumventing the U.S. political system (sanctioned by the Republican leaning Supreme Court...), I am genuinely concerned that the damage caused by a future "no holds barred" Republican Presidency could take decades to recover from and the chances of them even considering action on Global Warming is nought.

For the record, I'm not a progressive who thinks Corporations and the super rich should actually be paying 35% tax, but allowing them to park their profits in a foreign country and pay $0 tax for multiple years or even negative tax (we give them a frigin subsidy) is downright scandalous.
 
I'm not really sure how your premises connect to your conclusion.

In this and another recent thread, where the thread is directly related to the political parties, as opposed to a politically polarizing issue, the posters are largely expressing a Republican viewpoint. It could just be that no Dems are on hand to comment, but never the less, I'm seeing the pattern I highlighted.
 
Seems accurate to me. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you gut the government spending down to and through the bone. It's about God damn time we started seeing pushback against this imbecilic line of reasoning that a smaller government is a good government. It only took 30 years. I hope we see more of this stuff in the coming years.
 
Daniel B·;134246858 said:
The GAF paradox; on many issues GAF members appear to have a progressive viewpoint, such as wanting Net Neutrality to be maintained or believing that same sex marriage should be a right, but I get the strong impression that when it comes time to vote, you vote for the kings of crony capatalism, the Republicans. Why is that?

If US Gaf were to be put into a two-party dichotomy, it would be overwhelmingly Democrat, likely higher than 90:10
 
If US Gaf were to be put into a two-party dichotomy, it would be overwhelmingly Democrat, likely higher than 90:10
I don't think it would be nearly that high. I think a lot of people here are Republicans, they just don't post in political threads often. Just look at minimum wage threads for a good example.
 
Sigh, both sides are the same. Not voting for any of these clowns.

False equivalency is as pathetic as it is dangerous. If you can't be bothered to spend the tiniest amount of energy following current events to understand the differences between the Republicans the Democrats then just say that and be done.
 
Daniel B·;134256239 said:
In this and another recent thread, where the thread is directly related to the political parties, as opposed to a politically polarizing issue, the posters are largely expressing a Republican viewpoint. It could just be that no Dems are on hand to comment, but never the less, I'm seeing the pattern I highlighted.

I've read this thread like ten times and I can't see "a Republican viewpoint" being expressed... by anyone, let alone by enough posters to say that the thread is "largely" filled with them. I honestly don't know what it is you're seeing. I just read the thread again. There's honestly no one. There may be some Republicans among the thread's posters, but there's no evidence within the thread to support that.

Are you confusing "people think this ad is dumb" with "people here are Republicans"? That's a pretty cynically partisan perspective itself.
 
If US Gaf were to be put into a two-party dichotomy, it would be overwhelmingly Democrat, likely higher than 90:10

Reasons why the GAF 10% vote for the Grand Old Party:

  • You're desperate for a tax cut and if you can pay the minimum on your maxed out credit cards, what's wrong with the country running up a gargantuan deficit and doing the exact same thing?
  • You can't get enough of Elizabeth Hasselbeck's legs, on Fox News and don't care that the average age of the audience is an "out of touch" 68.8, she's hot!
  • You don't really believe in The First Amendment and strongly believe that Creationism should be tought alongside Evolution, never mind any confusion that is inherent in such a policy.
  • Republican experts, a notable 0.9% of the "scientific" community, have proof Global Warming is a Liberal myth and the billions saved from tackling the issue can go towards more deficit busting tax cuts.
Seriously though, voting for "establishment" Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, is like voting for moderate Republicans of past years, and whilst maintaining the same level of taxation, you'd avoid the untenable extremes of the 21st century Republican party.

Progressives, such as myself, are hoping either organisations like Wolf-Pac successfully table a Constitutional Amendment, to once and for all, get money out of our elections or also by some small miracle, we elect a progressive President (someone like Senator Warren), with a favorable House and Senate.
 
Holy shit! I was just talking about this today with a friend. I pointed out if the Dems were smart they would capitalize on the Ebola issue and point out Repubs have long wanted to cut government spending on thing like the CDC.

There's nothing "desperate" about this. This is making Repubs eat crow on their own words and platform.
 
Stumpokapow said:
I've read this thread like ten times and I can't see "a Republican viewpoint" being expressed... by anyone, let alone by enough posters to say that the thread is "largely" filled with them. I honestly don't know what it is you're seeing. I just read the thread again. There's honestly no one. There may be some Republicans among the thread's posters, but there's no evidence within the thread to support that.

Are you confusing "people think this ad is dumb" with "people here are Republicans"? That's a pretty cynically partisan perspective itself.

And yet, in the media, the only ones attacking the ad is the Republican media, such as The Washington Post and of course, Fox News. The leading progressive YouTube channel, The Young Turks, was impressed by the boldness of the ad and in their response video their initial comment was "Damn! That was an aggressive ad." (TYT has previously criticised Obama and the Democrats for not taking the fight to the Republicans). This sentiment is reiterated in Secular Talk's video, another progressive YouTube channel.

Having previously followed UK politics closely (pre/post Blair era), I am frankly flabbergasted at the broken state of the U.S. political system, where today you can effectively spend unlimited funds in any State, to fund the election campaign of your preferred candidate and the candidate with the most funds invariably wins... How is that Democracy?

If politics is largely unchanged in the UK, this Supreme Court sanctioned corruption (donors of course expect nothing in return for funding a politician's election...) cannot happen in the UK because there are strict limits on how much you can pay towards a Member of Parliament's (MP's) election campaign and they have to declare donations over a certain amount. As a result there is pretty much a level playing field for election candidates (for the main parties), funded by local and sometimes central political offices (I believe for key areas), the net result being, the must popular candidate in the district wins. Essentially, instead of money playing a huge role in an election, it comes down to the mood of the nation as to which party governs.

I was ecstatic when Labour (Blair) booted the long standing Tories (Conservatives) out of office as just like the Republicans, they only represented the well off in society. As it turned out, Blair's government wasn't a whole lot different (wait a minute, that sounds familiar - thanks Obama), with the chief "spin doctor", Alastair Campbell, becoming the public face of the Labour government (man, I grew to detest Campbell as I wanted to hear directly from Blair etc and not get government spin from Campbell). As I recall, Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer (decides monetary policy, such as taxes) was fair and didn't dissapoint. I got the hell out of the UK, in 07, when he became Prime Minister ;).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom