Slashdot Mirror


Wolf In Political Ad's Clothing

Gerald Ford may have said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration." But he was never stupid enough to make this.

14 of 25 comments (clear)

  1. so whats the problem? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    the imagery is silly, but this guy DID campaign on fiscal conservatism while his actions in office were the opposite.

    california's budget problems aren't just his fault, it's a case study of liberal infinite government growth and public-sector labor union power. still, his his a fcino.

    1. Re:so whats the problem? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.

      All I see in this ad is a lot of whining about taxes. It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter.

      Plus it's entirely too long and unintentionally funny.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:so whats the problem? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Passing infinite costs on to the citizenry rather than reduce "entitlements" to the sick/lame/lazy or reduce an inflated and over-payed unionized workforce (which does decreasing amounts of work as time goes on) is tax-and-spend, not fiscal conservatism.

      But yeah, the look-and-feel of this ad is sad-funny as hell.

      It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter.

      The liberal approach, pandering to the selfishness of the woe-is-me crowd, is a better alternative?

    3. Re:so whats the problem? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      All I see in this ad is a lot of whining about taxes. It's just pandering to the selfishness of the average voter

      You're telling me that a slave wanting freedom is being selfish? You are a bigger asshole than I am.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    4. Re:so whats the problem? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      Well, if assholes like you wouldn't have spent billions of dollars a year funding religious extremists (everything from the Mujahideen, the funding of the Islamic Bomb, Zionists in Isreal and Christian Fundies) and right wing dictatorships then you wouldn't be in such a mess. Stop bitching about the problems that you cause.

      Right... because people like me who don't like paying taxes and don't approve of large government programs or spending LOVE it when the government spends billions of dollars on big government programs. We also have to be religious idiots. Also, dictators love capitalism, and they are never communist or socialist! Whatever helps you sleep, asshole.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    5. Re:so whats the problem? by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's see... not enough money? What is there to be done? You either CUT spending or your RAISE taxes. THAT is fiscal conservatism.

      Close. Fiscal Conservatism cuts spending AND taxes. Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:so whats the problem? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Proposition 13 is a good thing. It prevents people from having to move because their property taxes rise beyond their ability to pay it. This protects old people and anyone else who owns property.

      Using government to protect people is a total left-wing idea. I can't imagine why some left-wing people would want to repeal it, other than out of spite for what they see as a Reaganist proposition.

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:so whats the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Depending on which side of the Laffer curve you are on, cutting taxes actually RAISES revenue. This happened after GWB's tax cuts took effect. Bush cut taxes. Government took in record receipts (and then spent them!).

      You're oversimplifying. Most of the increase in tax revenues came from corporate taxes, which didn't get a major cut in that period.

      See: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

    8. Re:so whats the problem? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the "fiscally conservative" method of debt-and-spend championed by republicans?

  2. Bond Villain by tokki · · Score: 1

    I like that the voice over was done by an actor who played a Bond villain (Robert Davi).

  3. Wow by mrdogi · · Score: 1

    8 comments already, and not one of them mentioning anything about who this add is actually for. I'd have thought /. would have had something to say about Carly I'm shocked and amazed.

    1. Re:Wow by julesh · · Score: 1

      8 comments already, and not one of them mentioning anything about who this add is actually for. I'd have thought /. would have had something to say about Carly I'm shocked and amazed.

      Probably because you have to pay attention to realise who the ad is for. For anyone who didn't spot it, it's Carly Fiorina. Note that at roughly the same time as her target in this ad was making the supposedly poor decisions described in it, Carly was being forced to resign as CEO of HP, having presided over a 60% reduction in its stock value, at a time when most of its competitors were doing well. And wasn't there some kind of bugging scandal as well? Not that it's mentioned on the Wikipedia article about her... presumably it's been whitewashed by her publicists.

  4. Poor guy by necro81 · · Score: 1

    So who was the poor shmuck paid by Carly for Congress that had to wear the sheep outfit with the red LED eyes and crawl around the field on hands and knees? I'm guessing it was the intern.

    1. Re:Poor guy by Hinhule · · Score: 1

      Pff, that was professional sheepery right there. Must have been a new zealander they know their sheep.