Wednesday, September 22, 2010

That will leave a mark

29 comments:

LT B said...

I saw this commercial on tv early this morning.  My wife both looked at each other and said, "damn!."  Kathleen Parker in the WaPo discusses it and says it is a comparison to the Morning in America for Reagan's campaign.  Good commercial not feeding on America's anger, but rather our sadness.  Well done.

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

You have two wives?  I don't even have one! That's not fair!

KhakiPants said...

There's eyerolling in America.  *DONT_KNOW*

I would find this ad to be comical if it wasn't so depressing to know people are actually taken in by this. Love how unemployment, closed businesses, forclosures, and the entire national debt are apparently entirely President Obama's fault despite an economic recession that began before he took over office, and administrations under both parties that ran up extreme deficits (except, you know, that guy in the nineties? I think left us with a surplus...). 

What is up with the use of a FUNERAL? Oh come now. Isn't that a bit over the top? Or are we now suggesting that President Obama is actually single-handely and intentionally killing people? 

And I routinely hear small-government advocates say the job of a government isn't to care, nor provide, nor help, but to merely stay out of the way. Just how does a smaller government demonstrate to me how much it cares about everything we still need to do in order to, again, promote the general welfare?

There is mourning in America, and it's because of political stunts like this that distort the records of both sides of the aisle. 

How truly sad that we have come to this on a national scale, using children, funerals, and flags to oversimplify disagreements and score political points.

LT B said...

Great at picking up women, but crap at using the English language.  Believe me, 2 wives doesn't really soune like fun. :)   That's a lot of work.

LT B said...

You are right, under a Republican Congress, there was a surplus.  Newt shut down the government until Clinton could get a decent budget to Congress.  Secondly, both Clinton and Bush had a good economy, both sitting on a bubble (.com and housing market). 

Yes, this is a powerful ad.  You don't have to agree w/ it, but to think that ads don't work is to deny that this country elected a president on fluff, a nice jingle (can we elect someone new?  YES WE CAN!), and a vapid ad campaign.  The man had and has no substance. 

The government can care by lowering my taxes, allowing me to clutch to my Bible and guns w/o interference or snide remarks.  Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs.  Not health care, not cap and tax, not any of that crap.  Legislation was shoved down the throat of the populace, thus showing how much the current set of idiots "care" for the country.  Is he a communist/socialist?  Yes, pretty much.  I'm not interested in his change.  It is dragging us further down.  BTW, good job electing Bush for his third term.  Oh, you didn't?  You certain because you and your ilk keep blaming him for what is going on, I thought he was still in the White House.  Putzes that eschew responsibility for their actions.  Pathetic.

KhakiPants said...

You'll note I took equal opportunity potshots at both parties. Both parties have run deficits. Both parties have made decisions that have increased the size of the government. Hell, sometimes the GOP has done things I liked when they've increased the size of government. 

It's a powerful ad. Propaganda usually is. That is, in fact, my problem with it. And frankly, I voted for Hillary in the primaries, and voted for Obama based on the idea that I agreed with his policy positions more than agreed with McCain's. This doesn't mean I agree with POTUS all the time. I didn't then, and I don't now. That doesn't change the fact that the Democratic agenda is often closer to my beliefs than the Republican agenda. I certainly can say I don't agree with the rehash of Contract with America that they're using now. I don't agree with the Pledge to America, and you certainly won't see it swaying my vote in two months.

An American government that doesn't provide necessary social services is certainly one Americans would not recognise. In a recessionary period the individual thinking is to hoard all the money one can get. However, while it may be counter intuitive, this is the worst thing that can be done for the economy. Cutting taxes on the highest income earners will not help; that money will sit, unspent, it will not be injected into the economy. No matter how many slide show presentations Mitch and John give about how no, really, trickle down economics will work this time, we swear.

KhakiPants said...

<p>I'm a Christian, and while I'm not a gun owner, I am trained in the use of firearms, and am generally against gun control restrictions. I think you're going to have to be more specific if you want to suggest somehow I am anti-faith or anti-gun just because I tend to vote Democratic. Healthcare, cap and trade? Huh. Unwilling populace? Really? Because I recall those are both ideas that I pestered my (all Republican) congress critters to pass. Unsurprisingly, I didn't so much as get a form letter in response. For every person you can find who believes those legislative goals to be "crap," I can find you a person who believes them to be necessary. 
</p><p> 
</p><p>Obama is not a Socialist/Communist. Have you ever met a genuine Socialist or a genuine Communist? Trust me, Obama is a centrist by international standards. In some cases he is more liberal on positions than I am, in some cases he is more conservative than I am. I consider myself a socialist democrat (notice no capital letters), but whatever "ilk" you refer to probably doesn't apply to me entirely, possibly not even halfway. As far as not accepting responsibility, POTUS has had less than two years to undo several years of damage. If that's your meter-stick for "responsibility" remind me not to ask for your help when trying to fix things.
</p><p> 
</p><p>And no reason for name calling. We're both adults, presumably, let's please act like it or Sal may ask us to stop making a mess of his house.
</p>

Byron said...

Obama's first attempt to run for state office was as a member of the Socialist Party. I seriously doubt that his stripes have changed much since then, especially since everything he's been for and pushed legislation for has been against the principles of a free market economy.

Stupid is as stupid does.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Khaki,

Before you put the blame on GW Bush for the current conditions and laud Bill Clinton for budget surpluses, you should not some things.  It was indeed a Republican Congress when the 1990s budget surpluses existed. 

And count this current economic condition to January 3rd, 2007, when the 110th Congress was seated, both houses controlled by the Democrats.  On that day, Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Cmte, and Chris Dodd the Senate Bakning Committee.  The Bush administration attempted to reform Frank's FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE on several occasions but that was defeated in Congress.  And guess where the crisis of 2008 started?  Yep, housing and finance. 

Also on Jan 3rd, 2007:

The DJIA was 12, 617
GDP growth in the last Q was 3.5%
Unemployment was 4.6%
There had been 52 straight weeks of employment growth.

So please, cut the "blame Bush" nonsense.  Obama sounds increasingly like a shill when he says it, others sound simply like ultra-partisan imbeciles.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Byron,

You got that right.  Except the Socialism part.  I believe Obama and Holder to be dyed-in-the-wool Communists.

KhakiPants said...

I shall repeat: I took shots at both parties, and I simply said the issues arose before Obama was POTUS. If we're going to blame Obama for the acts of people not him, why can't I laud Bill Clinton for acts of people not him? I guess the internet killed my sarcasm.

There is no "blame Bush" nonsense. And defining me as "ultra-partisan" is silly. I hate what Democrats do half the time- I just hate what the GOP does more.

KhakiPants said...

*Sigh*

Obama and Holder are far too rich to be real communists. I somehow don't see either of them agreeing to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I've met real communists. They'll bluntly tell you they want to create giant communes where joint ownership means you get only what you need, and work as much as you're able. Pretty much the exact opposite of anyone who has made as much money as those two guys...

sid said...

 I don't even have one! That's not fair!

Yowser...Who wants that much aggravation!?!?!?

8-)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Lavrentii Beria and Nikolai Bulganin were wealthy men.  As was Alexei Kosygin and Leonid Breshnev.  And I am pretty sure they were communists. 

Have I ever met a real communist?  I joined the service in 1982.  What do you think?

LT B said...

Big Love = Big Pain! 

LT B said...

Big Love = Big Pain! 

sid said...

I just hate what the GOP does more.

For the record...After having seen the smarmy bug sprayer turned greedy pol up close and personal, I never once voted for Tom Delay...

That said...This current batch of hypocritical, drab Socialism for all except themselves (see the Isabel blurb at the bottom), Democrats makes me want to hurl.

And there is no getting around the fact that they have accelerated the already stupid spending levels to an insane level.

Retarded lemmings headed for the cliff could do better.

And thats why this ad is resonating so loudly.

Great pice by the always erudite Neptunus Lex spells it out way better than I...

KhakiPants said...

Oh, those "communists." The ones that despite 70 years, never did turn their nation into a worker's paradise? i believe they appropriated Marxism for their own nefarious purposes and though they claimed to be communists, are not in actuality believers in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." 

Just to be clear, I think communism is impossible, and attempts at to establish it are misguided. I've seen no evidence that Obama or Holder, or any mainstream politician in the United States advocates anything even remotely resembling true communism.

You met people who called themselves communists, but were really authoritarians fixated on a highly centralised state with an elaborately planned (and failing) economy.

LT B said...

Name calling not necessary.  True.  My apologies. 

Just because Obama/Holder have money does not mean they don't want socialism and to use that to keep elected by buying votes, producing programs that are only funded by those that work for those that don't.  Over 40% of my paycheck is taken out of it.  I am NOT pleased w/ that.  Some of that is for me and my retirement, a lot is going to other's needs and wants.  How about they let me have my money and I'll spend and share where/when I choose.  It is MINE after all.

As for social services, how about if the government does what it is enumerated to do first, do that well then branch out beyond that if at all.  Additionally, when Obama was told that the data showed that historically, the revenue increased when capital gains were reduced and investments encouraged, he basically said he didn't care, it didn't seem fair.  IMHO is he has to show a class warfare to get and stay elected.  These "socialists" seem to make an awful lot of money crying for the poor.  As for communes, I almost feel Michelle is pushing that idea.  But maybe I'm wrong, maybe telling me what I can and can't eat is just fascist, not socialist.  Tomato/Tomahto. 

Kristen said...

Good stuff.  Plus Carly Fiorina here in California is out with a new ad regarding "Senator Ma'am" that's pretty good.

sid said...

Michelle is a first lady. She has no formal power

Then she needs to quit acting like Queen Sleeveless and quit squandering enough resources to move a battalion of Marines half way around the world for a purely personal trip.

And I do not want to hear about how "Laura did it too"

At least she never said I couldn't eat french fries.

Also, it is outright horse pooh that little grand tour cost just 375 k too. 4X 6X times that easy.

A C-32 burns 4 tons of fuel an hour. A C-17 11.

Remember that come Cap and Tax time khaki.

The <span>very least </span>she could have done is to go visit the wounded at Landstuhl.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

The cost of Queen Michelle's little jaunt was more than the combined Hospital Preparedness Program grant for all fifteen Vermont hospitals.

KhakiPants said...

I concur with all of the above. Are you surprised? Somehow I don't consider first lady shopping trips to be included in my "tangible benefits for myself and others" or "taking care of fellow citizens." And if Laura did do it too, not something I was actually aware of, then that shouldn't have happened either...

Okay, it's night time on this side of the world, and I need to hit the rack. I look forward to seeing all the fun responses when I wake up.

Kristen said...

Sid, Queen Sleeveless made me laugh out loud.  Perfect.

sid said...

...but were really authoritarians fixated on a highly centralised state with an elaborately planned (and failing) economy.

Wow!

That sounds like the cretins infesting Capitol Hill!!!!

Last account I had Reid, that was OUR house.

You jackass.

sid said...

Khaki..that last meant for the PUBLIC SERVANT who thinks he owns the place....

sid said...

Feel free to widely disseminate it Kristen...

She needs to quit acting like 19th Century Royalty.

sid said...

<span>...but were really authoritarians fixated on a highly centralised state with an elaborately planned (and failing) economy.  </span>
<span></span>
<span>This person sure is fitting that description to a T khaki.</span>
<span></span>
<span>While I have liked much of what she has said about what ails our economy, this comment, and the rather odious way she has been brought on to shape policy is a bit concerning when it comes to "authoritarian."</span>
<span></span>
<span>Also, while DADT may need to end (I personally wouldn't want to be waiting in line for the shower, with the boat rolling idling the time next to an open gay...but thats just me), the Machiavellian way in which it might happen is downright scary.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Now, a lower court judge of a given political bent will be able to usurp the Legislative Branch...the proxy voice of the people (in theory at least)?</span>
<span></span>
<span>How more "authoritarian" can you get than that?</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Right as rain, sid.  I seem to recall something about "endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights", and "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

POTUS left out the "endowed by their Creator" part, and pardon if I think the slip more Freudian than "off-script". 

And then there's that pesky "That should any form of government become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it..."