No more political ads!

[Da Skinna]

America needs to cut it out. Seriously, there is SO MUCH crap going around on television ads that's misleading and corrupting of the true spirit of democracy.

Republicans (and don't even pretend) have made it a real project in manipulating media to their advantage. It always seems the Lamocrats are far behind in cutting or biting ads.

So my rule: no more television ads. It's corrupting, and unhealthy for a true democracy.

People need to be convinced by lively debates and discussion over the issues, not convinced by demagoguery.

[Viking Prince]

So you feel the democrats are not as effective and thus all should stop placing ads? Are you serious? Is the reason too many or the democrats are no good at it? Pick one and delete the other -- otherwise it limits the merit of your arguement.

In Colorado, we are literally swampped with ads because the are also many citizen initiatives on the ballot. There are way too many, but free speech is just that. I do not need to listen. It is my choice.

[Joker85]

BAN EVERYTHING THAT MY CANDIDATE DOESNT DO WELL NARGGGH

Next you'll be wanting to ban any discussions not made in front of a teleprompter, am I right?

[Axeman]

BAN EVERYTHING THAT MY CANDIDATE DOESNT DO WELL NARGGGH

Next you'll be wanting to ban any discussions not made in front of a teleprompter, am I right?

I believe me meant in general the republicans were more guilty then democrats of using derogatory adds , wether or not that is true is subjective , HOWEVER nevertheless I agree with him , ban overly-derogatory adds or at least put a limit on how much can be spent on them , I mean I read in the Washington *Globe?* that 87 billion dollars was spent on the television adds , could you think of something better to spend them on?

For me its mostly an issue of money then ethics.

[Viking Prince]

I believe me meant in general the republicans were more guilty then democrats of using derogatory adds , wether or not that is true is subjective , HOWEVER nevertheless I agree with him , ban overly-derogatory adds or at least put a limit on how much can be spent on them , I mean I read in the Washington *Globe?* that 87 billion dollars was spent on the television adds , could you think of something better to spend them on?

For me its mostly an issue of money then ethics.

You said it is subjective -- and who will have such subjective power to ban.

Why not tear up the whole constitution? Why stop at free speech?

[Axeman]

First of all I said it was subjective if the republicans were worse then the democrats.

Also when did I say I didn't want free speech , you couldn't think of one thing that 87 billion dollars could have been used better for? Also im pretty sure when both adds say the other wants to raise taxes with absolutely no proof that can be derogatory. Once again I guess we can't stop that , but 87 BILLION dollars!

[Viking Prince]

First of all I said it was subjective if the republicans were worse then the democrats.

Also when did I say I didn't want free speech , you couldn't think of one thing that 87 billion dollars could have been used better for? Also im pretty sure when both adds say the other wants to raise taxes with absolutely no proof that can be derogatory. Once again I guess we can't stop that , but 87 BILLION dollars!

Agrement to ban speech (political ads) is what the thread is about. You agreed in principle with the OP.

Regarding what the money could be better used for -- I think the owners of the money spent already have the right to make the decision. It is not your money. Get over it.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Moved to the Academy.

[Shi Huangdi]

Republicans (and don't even pretend) have made it a real project in manipulating media to their advantage. It always seems the Lamocrats are far behind in cutting or biting ads.

Oh my goodness, are you kidding me? The media is so head over heals for Obama it's not even funny. And running ads on national TV doesn't count as manipulation. It's called campaigning. Perfectly legal and legitimate.

I know you liberals are having a hard time right now, with your newfound darling Obama falling behind in the polls. Unfortunately changing the rules is not an option.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Americans make your mind up, half think the media is practicaly communist, the other half wildly conservative, decide and then ok?

[Da Skinna]

The two are unrelated.

-Republicans are good at manipulating media to get the effects they want on the people. Then they call the media liberal elitists. Conservatives will disagree.

-Democrats haven't really got it together with public relations. They begin on something, are called wusses, and then take it back, proving a case in point. Liberals will disagree.


My point is if everyone just used their brains in watching the debates, reading the issues, listening to the radio, and NOT FALLING VICTIM TO FLASHING LIGHTS, HALF-TRUTHS, STRAW-MEN, AD HOMINEM ATTACKS that come into your head through television, there might actually be some intelligent discourse among the people.

And I don't know, maybe a truly alert, well-informed citizenry might form.

Television rots your brain because it doesn't require you to think. It's proven radio engages more waves in your head, because you have to form more thoughts through listening. Television does the thinking for you.

Now combine that with politics? And holy , we might as well not vote at all.

[Maverick]

America needs to cut it out. Seriously, there is SO MUCH crap going around on television ads that's misleading and corrupting of the true spirit of democracy.

Oh the irony. A guy with Ed Bernays as his avatar lamenting mass manipulation!

Republicans (and don't even pretend) have made it a real project in manipulating media to their advantage. It always seems the Lamocrats are far behind in cutting or biting ads.

So my rule: no more television ads. It's corrupting, and unhealthy for a true democracy.

Ah but "media" does not only include television ads and we don't have a "true" democracy to corrupt in the first place.

People need to be convinced by lively debates and discussion over the issues, not convinced by demagoguery.

Not an issue, people, especially groups of people are not and may never be rational so to ask them to vote for someone based on rational criteria would confuse them, for example ask someone:

"Do you want tax cuts?" yes!

"Do you want universal health care?" yes!

"Do you want tax cuts at the expense of universal health care?" ...

"Do you want universal health care at the expense of tax cuts?" ...

And for a bit more fun ask the same person in six months the same questions and you will almost certainly get a different response, this is what makes our economy so strong, people don't know what they want and so advertisers tell them what they want (I think it was Bernays who coined this phenomena "the engineering of consent"). Just think about the term "fashion is cyclical", is that not the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard?

A "true" democracy, a mobocracy is necessarily as irrational and conflicting as the emotional whims of the mob. That's why the people will never have decision-making power in America (the very definition of civic liberty).

I don't think campagin ads "corrupt" or "mislead" the people as you suggest, I think they simply legitimize the irrational non-issues that people base their judgment on regardless. It's still propaganda, there is no denying that, but take Nazi propaganda for instance, it didn't create anti-semitism, it simply justified the natural irrational fear of the unknown in people. And the polar opposite emotion is the natural irrational security of the known in people, that's why political ads are all about how the candidate is just like you. I think it's sad but not "corrupt" or "misleading", even the best propagandists can't change what you feel inside, Bernays didn't invent the irrational need for self-expression, he just said why not satisfy it with this new hat?

The campagin ad is a similar million dollar idea, you want to run the country so all the candidate has to do is hold up a mirror.

[Da Skinna]

True democracy to me is giving the best informed answers regarding the candidates, their stances, and having an alert citizenry choose with the information available.

I understand how ironic it must look that I have the father of public relations as my avatar, but really it's to raise awareness. I do not endorse mass manipulation in any way, despite how successful it has become.

But why are we justifying irrationalities? It seems so damaging in the long run.

[Maverick]

True democracy to me is giving the best informed answers regarding the candidates, their stances, and having an alert citizenry choose with the information available.

"The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." - Oscar Wilde

It's the old paradox, if you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. James Madison wrote about the people: "as there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form".

I do not endorse mass manipulation in any way, despite how successful it has become.

I like this anecdote about Bill Clinton, after a speech by Al Gore on global politics he said: "that's great stuff Al...but until I can say it in a single phrase, we're sunk."

But why are we justifying irrationalities? It seems so damaging in the long run.

Either they don't care or they believe the ends justify the means.

[Astaroth]

I am SuNL1ghT and I do not approve this topic!

Still, while I have no real say on the issue, I found it confusing to have political ads on TV, something we don't really have here. I don't mind them though. Those ads won't do much anyway, most halfways intelligent people know better than to trust everything a candidate says for 100% and than to take it as if it was the word of God.

[Da Skinna]

I am SuNL1ghT and I do not approve this topic!

Still, while I have no real say on the issue, I found it confusing to have political ads on TV, something we don't really have here. I don't mind them though. Those ads won't do much anyway, most halfways intelligent people know better than to trust everything a candidate says for 100% and than to take it as if it was the word of God.

Speak for yourself. Maverick has it right.

[Astaroth]

I know those ads by heart now lol. Just from being in the US for a few weeks =/

He fought corruption in both parties. He is the original maverick. Okay..

[shadyrome]

I know those ads by heart now lol. Just from being in the US for a few weeks =/

He fought corruption in both parties. He is the original maverick. Okay..

I repped you, you have to rep me back!!!

[Axeman]

If I am not mistake the taxpayers do loose SOME of thier money to the political adds , hence public funding.

Either make it completely private or not , because essentialy the adds are nothing but mudslining ....