<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzhUOfgxg2c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xzhUOfgxg2c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Two thoughts: If the voice at the end is not the opponent, then somebody needs to pay. That's just plain wrong. Second, are you kidding? I've seen a couple of dozen of worse ads than that in Oregon alone. It's another political season where no one is ever held accountable. I wish they were.
You know it's interesting you bring that up. Maybe if a slander lawsuit or 2 went through after a political campaign advertisements, this crap wouldn't happen after some individuals were reduced to zero cash flow for most of the rest of their lives.
That ad is BS and typical of the Republican side. On the other hand, what is wrong with being Atheist or Agnostic? I really wish religion would be off limits in politics; I mean, I don't care about a candidate's religion, unless they are a fanatic of one stripe or another.
I agree! Every single attack ad or slanderous ad has been the doings of Republicans!!! Hang 'em all! Filthy jerks. And every caring, compassionate and humble ad has been by Democrats. We all know that. Gol darnit, Ray, I'm with you 110%. C'mon, who's with us? Let's file lawsuites against single slanderous Republican out there! Let's go men, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeeze, I just love political season and it's sheep. I do, I really do.
I thought what he meant was that it was typical in its focus on the importance of religion--specifically, one religion--and putting forth misleading religious-oriented info about the opponent. There's lots of attack ads by Democrats, but they focus on other things. Let me know if I'm wrong. If i was in NC, I'd vote against Dole just for this ad alone.
No disrespect, but if I'm wrong, it should be Ray who says so. I prefer to read things narrowly, and not broadly.
All other things being equal, I'll vote for someone who doesn't worship mythical beings over someone who does, but that's just me. I like my servants grounded in reality.
What is wrong with trying to protect our borders? What is wrong with being pro-life? What is wrong with having a strong military? What is wrong with lowering taxes? Democrats attack conservatives all the time on these issues. I guess what's "wrong" depends on what you believe is important.
Those are what are called policy issues. They are not analogous to attacks on a candidate's religious beliefs. (Edit: Which in this case are just completely false, btw. Kay Hagan is a sunday school teacher.)
Wrong. Many conservatives are pro-life based on their religious beliefs, and yet they still get attacked. And a candidate's religion or lack thereof is certainly relevant to most Americans. After all, this country is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are all over our currency, our laws, and our traditions. The Senate starts every session with prayer, and the President ends every state of the union speech with "God bless America."
Pro-life is the policy, the religious belief underlying it is not a policy. It's an easy distinction. A character attack is not the same as disagreeing on policy. If the Democrats were to make unfounded, fear-mongering character attacks, perhaps they could focus on the relatively higher incidence of corruption and sexual hypocracy in the Republican party. Oh, but then it wouldn't be unfounded. Keep trying with the "country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs" things, though. You don't sound at all like white-supremacist groups.
Sure, but conservatives get attacked for their "ignorant" stand on abortion, gay marriage, and a host of other issues, which is nothing but a veiled attack on Christian principles. The libs have been trying to take prayer and any mention of God out of public life for a long time, and that is a direct assault on the religion of most conservatives, and indeed, most Americans. I have to defer to Bill Clinton on those issues. He's the master of both. Keep trying to deny that the country was founded on those principles. You don't sound at all like an ignoramus.
What I know is that the founders were very concerned about the tyranny of religion, and specified that no religion would hold a special place in government, and wrote into the constitution a separation of church and state. Furthermore, what I know is that baseless, fear-mongering attacks on political leaders debases the country as a whole and lowers the level of political discourse. In this case, it will also lead to a disgruntled, frustrated and potentially violent subclass of people who believe the lies spouted by yourself and others, which is not a great thing for the country to have. I don't expect you to understand much of what I've written here, but I'll leave it in the post anyway.
Has there been a "tyranny of religion" in this country for the last 230 years?? The answer, of course, is no. So why try to remove the existing mentions of God from public discourse? "God" is not a religion. The concept of God is something that all religions agree on. Yet the left has been trying to remove any mention of God from schools and public buildings for a long time now. This was never intended by the Founding Fathers. They believed in God--they just didn't believe in an official state religion, such as existed in England. There has NEVER been an official state religion that was imposed on all citizens of the U.S.--only an agreement that we believe in God and the Judao-Christian values of our founding fathers. You might be interested to know that the preamble to EVERY STATE CONSTITUTION begins with an acknowledgement of God and a request for his blessings. This is a pretty clear sign of the religious values that ALL americans in every part of the country have always agreed on. I don't expect you to understand much of this, but I'll leave it in my post anyway.
