God, I Hate Political Ads

[bulmabriefs144]

They air night and day trying to tell you to vote for some jerk, who tells you nothing about what the guy believes in. Freedom of Speech is limited under a couple things (unlike some people, I believe in "harm" principle rather than "offense" so unless something you say... causes one to lose their job or get killed or makes them contemplate suicide as in bullying, nope I don't care):

• Libel
• Slander
• Obscenity (though wikipedia says this one lacks citations)
• Sedition
• Copyright
• Revealing top secret stuff
• Incitement to commit crimes (I couldn't tell you all to go rob a bank)

So, ummm first two off the bat in political ads, and the politician has told us nothing about themselves.

Next, there's the fact that aside from the two-party system, which is basically a machine, the secondary parties are basically left out in the cold, since nobody expects them to win. There aren't simply two parties anyway, there's two parties and two mindsets. Authoritarian and Libertarian.

(Btw, here's the compass layout for various leaders. Although, I think Obama is closer to the center)



Authoritarians like rules, and like people in their places. If people are doing things like (heaven forbid) carrying on free trade, having really weird sex or fetishes in the privacy of their homes, or making internet memes, we MUST put a stop to that. (I supposedly labelled a hypocrite because I don't like jerks in the name of "free markets" flooding the market with monoculture crap, for example banning raw milk because it "could" make you sick in favor of crappy hormone-fed cooked milk. I've tried it before and haven't a problem with it). Libertarianism is basically the opposite, the leader basically doesn't care. You wanna sit in the nude eating ice cream all day? Sure, why not.

So yea. What's this thread about? Am I against advertisements of politics. Well, yea. They're alot like brainwashing and buying votes. Am I against voting? Well, no but... Because so many people have so many stances, can a person who all we know about represent us? Can a two party system really represent us? Isn't the whole system built on not taxing without representation? Why should we have to pay taxes, if we aren't getting a real choice.

(This btw, is also not a speech against taxes. They have their place in most govts.)

We should in fact, vote, but it should not be a personality campaign. Appoint officials based on ideology not party. Vote Centrist, Liberal, Conservative and Authoritarian, Centrist, or Libertarian. Like a dating service, match the two up with a candidate. eHarmony for politics, we'd actually get a decent match, instead of a beauty contest or who has the most money.

Stop with all these *******s telling us lies about what they're going to do. I think many of us given the choice would rather skip the face and vote along ideology anyway, changing mainly if things get too extreme.

Centrist Libertarian for me. I like gay rights and religion in schools.

[Tesiqurasa]

Good lord I don't think I've ever agreed with you more.
It's disappointing that attack ads work so well in politics. It's not even branding, which is even more disappointing. It's just removal from brand [x]. Most regular commercials may briefly mention negative aspects of the competitors, but it's usually done with a comparison (rather or not the comparison is fair is another story). Can you imagine if EVERY Toyota commercial simply said "Fords are the WORST! Fords hate BABIES! Fords want to kill everything you love! Buy a Toyota!"?

The whole process is incredibly frustrating, because you're right, it really is a beauty show.

[BarelyAwake]

I actually really like this thread. I like your thoughts and how well you did this!

I for one think gay rights are good, but religion in school is nonsense, you shouldn't teach what is not 100% true ( I think science is ok for obvious reasons.)

[bulmabriefs144]

The point is, whether you agree it or not, religion should be taught. And not just Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All religions and atheism too. And science too, since ppl electrocuting themselves is generally bad. For the same reason too, religious ignorance is as dangerous as scientific ignorance.

Why? Because without understanding of religion, you come across like a dumbass in any debate involving the Middle East. Understanding religion is understanding a person's motivation, and why it matters that the Hindus and Muslims were forced to chew beef and/or pork tallow to open gunpowder cases (it was part of the packaging) prior to a war in India with the British. Immediately prior, btw.

The only way to really ensure people can decide for themselves is to teach everything, and give the resources to let people goto the library if one interests them. Teach it all, if only briefly, to allow ppl to make up their own minds.

[Sayo]

Separation of church & state. If public schools are government funded, you just can't teach religion to schools. And yeah understanding is fine, but you're just mentioning people who are ignorant and closed-minded that doesn't want to understand the actual beliefs of said religion. Doesn't also help that media hypes and sensationalizes a lot of the actual story.

[bulmabriefs144]

Separation of church & state. If public schools are government funded, you just can't teach religion to schools. And yeah understanding is fine, but you're just mentioning people who are ignorant and closed-minded that doesn't want to understand the actual beliefs of said religion. Doesn't also help that media hypes and sensationalizes a lot of the actual story.

I think you misunderstood separation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The reason for inclusion of the 1st amendment was not freedom from religion. It's freedom of religion. To restrict anything from being taught is suppression of free speech anyway (Scopes Trial was about teaching evolution in schools, if you can teach that, you can certainly teach religion).

What is the 1st amendment, which was put in place since the founders were afraid of a state religion (that much is true of separation of church and state). And they were equally afraid of religions being banned.

...the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.

The separation of church and state is not about saying state places can't worship or have a moment of silence. Nor should it have any place telling people they can't teach whatever. Or wear crosses, or mention their faith (if asked). No, the law refers to something else entirely.

State has no business mandating any laws in religion, this is the meaning. It can neither make an official religion, nor ban a religion. For example, a court case deemed it unconstitutional to have mandated prayer in school (by a vote of 6-1 no less). Having a silent time for optional prayer/study/whatever on the other hand is constitutional. Having a mandated Christianity class is unconstitutional because it it foists an official belief system on people, teaching a broad overview of religions and how it connects to myth and history is sorta iffy but should be constitutional, and having an elective religion course that people can take if they want is so constitutional it isn't even funny, and anything suppressing such a course would be religious suppression and horribly off. Whatever you wanna do is fine, so long as you don't mess with other's rights of free religion (and freedom not to have one too, of course). If a school is government funded, the religion course probably can be allowed despite what you think, but the course funding has to come out of pocket.

All of which ties into gay marriage rights. Having the state issue marriage licenses, and only the state, is a conflict of separation of church and state. If people really care about the separation, there should be court marriages and church marriages, with equal validity, and if you live in a state that's far right and doesn't do gay marriages, but your leftist Unitarian church does (they tend to, and this is good), **** the state, that marriage is legal. And vice versa, in left-leaning states.

And this, is a very good thing if properly understood. And a very restrictive thing, if misunderstood. Being that the govt is far from perfect, this is something that would have to be legislated.

[Clockwork]

I don't know. How you guys even see Obama's newest ad?

Spoiler!

.......

[Grace]

They air night and day trying to tell you to vote for some jerk, who tells you nothing about what the guy believes in.

So yea. What's this thread about? Am I against advertisements of politics. Well, yea. They're alot like brainwashing and buying votes. Am I against voting? Well, no but... Because so many people have so many stances, can a person who all we know about represent us? Can a two party system really represent us? Isn't the whole system built on not taxing without representation? Why should we have to pay taxes, if we aren't getting a real choice.

1. media tends to do that. quite opinionated...

2. you could say all advertising is like brainwashing. subliminal messaging and all that.

[rasudoken]

I don't know. How you guys even see Obama's newest ad?

Spoiler!

.......

I really liked this post. Honestly.

[kaglover1]

Parties always advertise something bad about the other party. (Do you wish the ..... to put 13% tax on everything) (Poll for us if you don't want the .... to destroy the education system or what-ever) Politics these days are just fighting hoping to get the votes from their people