logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> "No on Prop 8" ad, best or worst of Election 2008?
Bikerdad
post Nov 5 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



The linked ad ran during the closing days of the campaign in California. Watch it.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

2) If no to #1, what has?

3) What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Vanguard
post Nov 5 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #2


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 325
Member No.: 6,505
Joined: September-16-06

From: So Cal
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Nov 5 2008, 10:49 AM) *
The linked ad ran during the closing days of the campaign in California. Watch it.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

2) If no to #1, what has?

3) What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?


1. Oh my gosh, that stunk. wacko.gif

<skip #2 >

3. Mormon missionaries would not have quite the sideburns! Did you see the set on that blonde? tongue.gif

4. Hopefully not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Nov 5 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #3


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

Yummy - so subtle! sour.gif I've not seen many, but this is a stinker.

3) What specifically about the ad do you find objectionable?

The acting. I watched it without sound, and the desperate mugging reminded me of nothing so much as a costume melodrama from the silent era.

If they turned down the colour and inserted a few speech cards between edits, it would probably improve the overall effect. Especially if the two "enforcement division" guys had tall stovepipe hats, black capes, dark eyeliner and big twirling moustaches, and one of the speech cards had one of them saying "Out! Into the cold snow!". Maybe one of the women could have been tied to a railway line, too...

I'd have thought that California, especially, could have found some half-decent screen actors from among the bazillions of wannabees waiting tables and pumping gas in the greater Los Angeles area.

Or maybe, this is an indication of why most of them are going to carry on waiting tables and pumping gas, and this is the acting equivalent of the early rounds of American Idol - you just marvel at the self-delusion that makes these people think they can carve a career doing something they so clearly have no talent for.

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?

Not really. There have been badly acted, badly scripted, scaremongering advertisements on television since the dawn of commercials. That this one is political merely indicates that political ads are not immune from bad planning, bad direction, bad writing and bad acting.

There's nothing wrong with opposing Proposition 8 per se but surely a bit more thought and care could have gone into this.

One thing it does make me want to do is look up the pro Prop-8 ads to see if they're any better.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 5 2008, 04:36 PM
Post #4


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,415
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Nov 5 2008, 05:49 AM) *
The linked ad ran during the closing days of the campaign in California. Watch it.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

2) If no to #1, what has?

3) What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?

This is a classis attack directed at people who have religious convictions Ė clearly implying that they will somehow be given, or will have, rights that they donít have and really donít want.

Yes itís a stinker and it failed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Nov 5 2008, 09:02 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

Neither.

If no to #1, what has?

The worst was probably the avalanche of attack ads that were aired in Pennsylvania over the past few weeks by the state's Republican Party. Though this one is pretty scary, too. Just so you know, supporting Prop 8 isn't enough: you must also be married in a Latter-Day Saints Temple or you will be breeding misery. rolleyes.gif

There was no "best" - though I did mention a few that were okay in the thread which duplicates this question.

What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

It is worthy in that it highlights the fact that the opposition to California's proposition was spear-headed by people from Idaho and Utah who were willing to spend $20 million to affect the rights of people in another state in order to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. If nothing else, this should automatically eliminate the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status - forever.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygamous Mormon sect is now advocating marriage as a contract between one man and one woman? I guess The Adversary has already succeeded in thwarting God's Great Plan for Happiness - at least the part of His Plan that sanctions bonking as many underage brides as one desires (so long as one is male). That cunning Dark One! Religious convictions, Ted? These people should be religious convicts.

Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?

I certainly hope so. As I've mentioned numerous times, I'm not that fussed about "gay marriage", but the Prop 8 campaign in California has underlined the fact that this is nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality and enshrine religious beliefs in our laws contrary to everything for which the founders of this country stood. It is also a demonstration of the fact that homophobia is rampant in the US and that we have a long way to go before all men and women are deemed to have been created equal.

The fact that Sen. Obama is on the side of the Mormons (and Sarah Palin) in this case indicates just how much "change" he actually represents.


This post has been edited by Wertz: Nov 5 2008, 09:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logophage
post Nov 5 2008, 09:33 PM
Post #6


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
August 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,456
Member No.: 3,058
Joined: May-8-04

From: California
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?

Agree with Wertz. Neither the best nor worse.

2) If no to #1, what has?

What qualifies as the best or the worse? I can't say for the best. As for the worse, I think some of the attack ads by the McCain camp against Obama were likely at the bottom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3IAjphhw6E

3) What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

I enjoyed the ad, actually. Mormons did indeed represent a huge amount of non-state funding for the Yes on 8 campaign. But, then, I view all organized religion negatively.

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?

There is no new direction. It's the same old direction. Nothing to see here; move along.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 5 2008, 10:48 PM
Post #7


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 03:02 PM) *
The worst was probably the avalanche of attack ads that were aired in Pennsylvania over the past few weeks by the state's Republican Party. Though this one is pretty scary, too. Just so you know, supporting Prop 8 isn't enough: you must also be married in a Latter-Day Saints Temple or you will be breeding misery. rolleyes.gif


Yes, I didn't realize there were tiers of celestial glory and exaltation. Apparently, the highest degrees are reserved for those who marry in an LDS temple. dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Nov 6 2008, 01:36 AM
Post #8


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 5 2008, 05:48 PM) *
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 03:02 PM) *
The worst was probably the avalanche of attack ads that were aired in Pennsylvania over the past few weeks by the state's Republican Party. Though this one is pretty scary, too. Just so you know, supporting Prop 8 isn't enough: you must also be married in a Latter-Day Saints Temple or you will be breeding misery. rolleyes.gif


Yes, I didn't realize there were tiers of celestial glory and exaltation. Apparently, the highest degrees are reserved for those who marry in an LDS temple. dry.gif

Gee, maybe if you had a little diversity among those you know, you'd have known. devil.gif

As for the ad, did anybody in California ever see this broadcast? I doubt very much that it was, simply because, while the LDS don't hide their beliefs regarding the afterlife and marriage, I've never seen them advertise them publicly. Could this have been something prepared for broadcast to the faithful? It could be. It just doesn't make sense to make an explicitly LDS argument and spend the bucks necessary to reach the faithful over the public airwaves when you can just use the 'Net and distribute it to all the wards that way. The LDS work pretty hard to represent to the world and mainstream Christians that they're pretty much just another Christian denomination, thus it doesn't make sense that they'd highlight some of their differences with standard Christian theology in this way. I doubt very much that they'd even air a commercial like this in Utah!

QUOTE
Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygamous Mormon sect is now advocating marriage as a contract between one man and one woman?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a polygamous sect. There are polygamous offshoots, but the folks with that honkin' big Tabernacle in Salt Lake City don't qualify.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Syfir
post Nov 7 2008, 03:13 AM
Post #9


****
Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 90
Member No.: 5,246
Joined: July-9-05

From: Idaho
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
It is worthy in that it highlights the fact that the opposition to California's proposition was spear-headed by people from Idaho and Utah who were willing to spend $20 million to affect the rights of people in another state in order to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. If nothing else, this should automatically eliminate the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status - forever.

I have heard this statistic, or similar ones, quoted in various places and am curious as to the source of them. I am looking to find supporting data and am not able to do so, in fact the only data I have found indicates that this is not the case. According to the Los Angeles Times less than 30% of the total donations for the support of the proposition came from out side California, about the same amount of out of state donations to fight the proposition. If you have data supporting this I would be interested to see it. Also most of the donations appear to be from private sources rather than from religious organizations. I realize that many private donors did so from religious conviction but that is not really the same thing.

Also I find it interesting that all of the stories of the "little people" donating large sums of money appear to be Mormon's donating in support of their beliefs. That is, people to whom writing a check for $50,000, etc. is not a monthly occurrence. Where are the stories of the Anti-proposition crowds backing up their talk/beliefs with real money? I would be surprised if there weren't any, yet the only stories I see were those of wedding invitations inviting donations to fight the proposition rather than putting their savings and future at risk to support a cause they obviously believe in.

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygamous Mormon sect is now advocating marriage as a contract between one man and one woman? I guess The Adversary has already succeeded in thwarting God's Great Plan for Happiness - at least the part of His Plan that sanctions bonking as many underage brides as one desires (so long as one is male). That cunning Dark One! Religious convictions, Ted? These people should be religious convicts.

Which sect would that be Wertz? I don't remember the FLDS church running any ads or coming out in support of the proposition. (Side note: at least one FLDS leader is a convict. Warren Jeffs. It wouldn't surprise me to see more before it's all said and done.)

Even if you are referring to the polygamy the LDS church practiced in the 1800's you may want to remember that once the legal challenges that church mounted to those laws they felt were unconstitutional failed they abandoned the practice. Will those against proposition 8 do the same if their legal challenges fail?

QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
It is also a demonstration of the fact that homophobia is rampant in the US and that we have a long way to go before all men and women are deemed to have been created equal.

I know that many who support gay marriage label all those who are against it homophobes, but I still think it not just incorrect but slanderous in many cases. I don't think that many who oppose this do so out of fear but out of principle, just as many who fought against polygamy did so out of principle as well.

In regard to the questions posed by Bikerdad:

1) Does this ad qualify as the best or worst of E2K8 that you've seen?
Since I didn't see very many at all I would say yes it was. In fact it was one of the worst political ads I have ever seen.

3) What specifically about the ad do you find worthy or objectionable?

I would place it right up there with the Horton ad that Bush Sr. ran when he was elected. Both used blatant fear mongering to push their agenda. I would have to say that if I was on the fence about this issue and I viewed this ad it might just push me to vote the other way.

From a logical standpoint it is puzzling in another way. Who was this aimed at? The people most likely to be swayed by it were more than likely going to vote against the proposition anyway. It seems like it was more designed to pander to the "faithful" rather than get the fence sitters.

4) Does this ad represent a likely new direction in what's acceptable advertising?

I certainly hope not.

On a side note, for those who are curious about the video that Wertz linked to here it looks like it was an amateur video created by someone who took the audio and added his own video to it. Call it a YouTube special. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Nov 7 2008, 05:40 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Syfir @ Nov 6 2008, 10:13 PM) *
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
It is worthy in that it highlights the fact that the opposition to California's proposition was spear-headed by people from Idaho and Utah who were willing to spend $20 million to affect the rights of people in another state in order to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. If nothing else, this should automatically eliminate the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status - forever.

I have heard this statistic, or similar ones, quoted in various places and am curious as to the source of them. I am looking to find supporting data and am not able to do so, in fact the only data I have found indicates that this is not the case. According to the Los Angeles Times less than 30% of the total donations for the support of the proposition came from out side California, about the same amount of out of state donations to fight the proposition. If you have data supporting this I would be interested to see it. Also most of the donations appear to be from private sources rather than from religious organizations. I realize that many private donors did so from religious conviction but that is not really the same thing.

My apologies: my phrasing was a bit weaselly. The LDS prop 8 fund-raising was, indeed, spear-headed by the Church in Utah - with broadcasts to members in Utah, Idaho, and Hawaii encouraging Mormons to make contributions, man phone banks, distribute campaign materials, and intensify voter registration efforts. The bulk of the LDS contributions came from Church members in California, though there were substantial contributions from members in Utah, Idaho, Hawaii, and elsewhere (some of the figures can be found here). According to Californians Against Hate, the total LDS contributions exceed $22 million - 77% of the total funding. They also spent over $7 million to defeat Arizona's Proposition 102. A little background on the LDS's decade-long campaign against "homosexual legal marriage" and their plan to coordinate their efforts with and hide their activities behind the Catholic Church (because of their "higher public image") can be found here (though I should warn the nervous that the information was posted at DailyKos ohmy.gif ).

QUOTE(Syfir @ Nov 6 2008, 10:13 PM) *
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
Does anyone else find it ironic that the polygamous Mormon sect is now advocating marriage as a contract between one man and one woman? I guess The Adversary has already succeeded in thwarting God's Great Plan for Happiness - at least the part of His Plan that sanctions bonking as many underage brides as one desires (so long as one is male). That cunning Dark One! Religious convictions, Ted? These people should be religious convicts.

Which sect would that be Wertz? I don't remember the FLDS church running any ads or coming out in support of the proposition. (Side note: at least one FLDS leader is a convict. Warren Jeffs. It wouldn't surprise me to see more before it's all said and done.)

Even if you are referring to the polygamy the LDS church practiced in the 1800's you may want to remember that once the legal challenges that church mounted to those laws they felt were unconstitutional failed they abandoned the practice. Will those against proposition 8 do the same if their legal challenges fail?

First, not all Mormons have abandoned the practice - your "side note" included one recent example, Warren Jeffs and the FLDS. There would also be the Apostolic United Brethern, the Kingston Clan, the Centenniel Park Group, the Nielson/Naylor Group, the Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days, among others - all of whom still embrace polygamy (as well as the ineligibility of blacks to enter the priesthood, for what that's worth). Unfortunately, no distinction is made between mainstream LDS donors to the Proposition 8 cause and donors who are members of fundamentalist Mormon sects. But, so far as I know, no one in the LDS has rescinded Section 132 (esp. 132:61-65) of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The practice may have been abandoned by most, but the belief in "celestial plural marriage" has not.

And, um, it would be difficult for opponents to Prop 8 not to "abandon the practice" as "the practice" in this case is legal marriage. Those wishing to legally sanction their unions have no choice but to "abandon the practice" - "the practice" no longer exists. Mormons - or Mormon men, at least - are free to marry as many women as they like, so long as they don't get caught. Lesbians and gays simply can't get married any more.

QUOTE(Syfir @ Nov 6 2008, 10:13 PM) *
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 5 2008, 02:02 PM) *
It is also a demonstration of the fact that homophobia is rampant in the US and that we have a long way to go before all men and women are deemed to have been created equal.

I know that many who support gay marriage label all those who are against it homophobes, but I still think it not just incorrect but slanderous in many cases. I don't think that many who oppose this do so out of fear but out of principle, just as many who fought against polygamy did so out of principle as well.

First, I'm not a particular supporter of gay marriage - if heterosexuals want to embrace such a failed, obsolete, and unnatural institution as marriage, they are welcome to it. Second, the "principled" objections to gay marriage and polygamy simply cannot be compared. Polygamy is both sexist and exploitative (polyandry has never been a tenet of Mormonism) - especially when many practitioners have also ignored age of consent laws. Gay marriage, on the other hand, exploits no one, harms no one. There is no objection to gay marriage which is based on any "principle" apart from personal beliefs - as is the case with any victimless crime. (Indeed, advocacy of victimless crime legislation tends to indicate a singular lack of principles, such a disdain for individual rights.)

QUOTE(Syfir @ Nov 6 2008, 10:13 PM) *
On a side note, for those who are curious about the video that Wertz linked to here it looks like it was an amateur video created by someone who took the audio and added his own video to it. Call it a YouTube special. tongue.gif

Actually, call it a ProtectMarriage.com special. Members of that organization (35% of whom are Mormon) have produced numerous viral videos. I chose that one because the man speaking is Elder Russell M. Nelson, one of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - the highest authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints next to the First Presidency. To me, Nelson's words alone remain far scarier than the lampoon ad posted here by Bikerdad.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2008, 06:00 PM
Post #11


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Nov 5 2008, 07:36 PM) *
As for the ad, did anybody in California ever see this broadcast? I doubt very much that it was, simply because, while the LDS don't hide their beliefs regarding the afterlife and marriage, I've never seen them advertise them publicly.


You've never seen the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints advertise? I grew up watching their ads on television in the Bay Area.

"Who broke my window?!"

QUOTE
Could this have been something prepared for broadcast to the faithful? It could be.

erm... no.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Nov 7 2008, 06:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 19th, 2018 - 02:28 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.