NationStates Jolt Archive

All three are...reprehensible (Sen. E. Dole wanting to name part of an AIDS relief bill for Jesse Helms?!?), but the WORST guy is, well, the worst.

Here's the Countdown video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25710956) that features the billboard mentioned below. It's the third bit of the "worse, worser, worst" segment, so it's in the end third of the video but the whole thing is only about 3 minutes long.

This douchebag with money (http://www.therepublicansong.com/index.html), Mike Meehan, takes the cake for the billboard he bought in St. Cloud, Florida depicting the smoking World Trade Center towers over a US flag background with the title of his song next to the image: "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat."

I'm the last person to restrict expression, and he obviously has the disposable income to purchase the billboard (I'd hate to think of someone going into debt for such an asinine visual statement), so my question isn't about whether or not the message is appropriate in a First Amendment context. Rather, it is this: is the implication on the billboard even remotely logical or truthful, let alone fair?

I say they put up a billboard right next to it depicting people displaced by Katrina saying "Please Don't Vote For a Republican".

If you believe that you are in the mainstream of American thought, and you believe that Americans are not stupid, and you believe that most Americans have made up their minds who to vote for President, then you should believe that billboards (of either type) have zero effect, just as if Himmler and Hitler were shouting Nazi slogans on a street corner.

If, however, you believe any one of the following:

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

then either billboard will decide who the next President will be.

I say they put up a billboard right next to it depicting people displaced by Katrina saying "Please Don't Vote For a Republican".

That was my first thought.

If you believe that you are in the mainstream of American thought, and you believe that Americans are not stupid, and you believe that most Americans have made up their minds who to vote for President, then you should believe that billboards (of either type) have zero effect, just as if Himmler and Hitler were shouting Nazi slogans on a street corner.

If, however, you believe any one of the following:

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

then either billboard will decide who the next President will be.

:eek:

Excellent point. I'm leaning toward the latter, but have hope for the former, with regard to US stupidity.

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

This.

This douchebag with money (http://www.therepublicansong.com/index.html), Mike Meehan, takes the cake for the billboard he bought in St. Cloud, Florida depicting the smoking World Trade Center towers over a US flag background with the title of his song next to the image: "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat."

I'm the last person to restrict expression, and he obviously has the disposable income to purchase the billboard (I'd hate to think of someone going into debt for such an asinine visual statement), so my question isn't about whether or not the message is appropriate in a First Amendment context. Rather, it is this: is the implication on the billboard even remotely logical or truthful, let alone fair?
Well, it is true that the Commander-in-Chief at the time of 9/11 was a Demo...oh wait.

I say they put up a billboard right next to it depicting people displaced by Katrina saying "Please Don't Vote For a Republican".

Or indeed the same image

If you believe that you are in the mainstream of American thought, and you believe that Americans are not stupid, and you believe that most Americans have made up their minds who to vote for President, then you should believe that billboards (of either type) have zero effect, just as if Himmler and Hitler were shouting Nazi slogans on a street corner.

If, however, you believe any one of the following:

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

then either billboard will decide who the next President will be.

#1 is irrelevant

#2 is not as true so much as that americans as a group are easily manipulated...there is still a hefty percentage of americans who believe that iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11 after all.

#3 is true.

All three are...reprehensible (Sen. E. Dole wanting to name part of an AIDS relief bill for Jesse Helms?!?), but the WORST guy is, well, the worst.

Here's the Countdown video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25710956) that features the billboard mentioned below. It's the third bit of the "worse, worser, worst" segment, so it's in the end third of the video but the whole thing is only about 3 minutes long.

This douchebag with money (http://www.therepublicansong.com/index.html), Mike Meehan, takes the cake for the billboard he bought in St. Cloud, Florida depicting the smoking World Trade Center towers over a US flag background with the title of his song next to the image: "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat."

I'm the last person to restrict expression, and he obviously has the disposable income to purchase the billboard (I'd hate to think of someone going into debt for such an asinine visual statement), so my question isn't about whether or not the message is appropriate in a First Amendment context. Rather, it is this: is the implication on the billboard even remotely logical or truthful, let alone fair?

this guy should be put into the file of candidates for worst person of the year.

its not logical, truthful or fair; its an advertisement for the sale of his song.

If you believe that you are in the mainstream of American thought, and you believe that Americans are not stupid, and you believe that most Americans have made up their minds who to vote for President, then you should believe that billboards (of either type) have zero effect, just as if Himmler and Hitler were shouting Nazi slogans on a street corner.

If, however, you believe any one of the following:

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

then either billboard will decide who the next President will be.

One small nitpick here. It may be true that most Americans have decided for whom they will vote, without precluding the possibility that there are enough undecided voters, especially in Florida, that this billboard could change the outcome. (Of course, it might not be quite the change the advertiser was hoping for!)

I also don't really believe I'm in the mainstream of American thought, but like Ashmoria, I think I may be missing the relevance there.

Wether it is logical, truthful or even fair should not be the issue. He made business deal to put that billboard up, it is his money, and it is his right to put it up. Whatever the message be, as long as it is legal and he is willing to pay the money for it, go for it.

If I find it offensive, I just ignore it. The same way that I don't read things that I don't agree with.

If you believe that you are in the mainstream of American thought, and you believe that Americans are not stupid, and you believe that most Americans have made up their minds who to vote for President, then you should believe that billboards (of either type) have zero effect, just as if Himmler and Hitler were shouting Nazi slogans on a street corner.

If, however, you believe any one of the following:

1. You are not in the mainstream of American thought
2. Americans, on the whole, are completely stupid
3. Most Americans haven't made up their mind who to vote for President

then either billboard will decide who the next President will be.

um, no.

elections are frequently decided at the margins - even if the vast majority of people have decided already, it is often that case that the tiny minority of undecideds ultimately determine the outcome. this is pretty basic stuff.

and, of course, people who are undecided late in the game are disproportionately likely to make their decisions for even stupider reasons than those that decided immediately. less basic, but not altogether surprising.

its an advertisement for the sale of his song.This.

I doubt he really expects the billboard to influence anything more than his sales. I also think he made it controversial intentionally, in order to snag some free national TV advertising media coverage.

this guy should be put into the file of candidates for worst person of the year.

its not logical, truthful or fair; its an advertisement for the sale of his song.
I agree. This guy is not only a liar and slanderer, he's a money grubbing vulture, trying to squeeze more dollars out of 9/11. Screw him.

Olbermann rant of all time.

Keith Olbermann Bush Smackdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

Olbermann rant of all time.

Keith Olbermann Bush Smackdown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYL_5E5_60

do you think olbermann writes those rants himself or are they done by smarter but less photogenic assistants?

do you think olbermann writes those rants himself or are they done by smarter but less photogenic assistants?

Does it really matter?

Does it really matter?

not to their content. i love those rants.

but i wonder if he is the "bill oreilly" of msnbc. instead of the smart insightful guy i want him to be, he may be just a tool who reads other people's words and pretends that other people's ideas are his own.

Wether it is logical, truthful or even fair should not be the issue. He made business deal to put that billboard up, it is his money, and it is his right to put it up. Whatever the message be, as long as it is legal and he is willing to pay the money for it, go for it.

If I find it offensive, I just ignore it. The same way that I don't read things that I don't agree with.

Of course he has the right to do it. I have the right to do it too. He does it because he's an awful person, and I don't do it because I'm not an awful person. The fact that he's done something so obviously not logical, truthful, or even fair speaks volumes about his character and makes him very much deserving of being singled out for ridicule.

not to their content. i love those rants.

but i wonder if he is the "bill oreilly" of msnbc. instead of the smart insightful guy i want him to be, he may be just a tool who reads other people's words and pretends that other people's ideas are his own.
Even if he is, he's still better groomed than O'Reilly.

All three are...reprehensible (Sen. E. Dole wanting to name part of an AIDS relief bill for Jesse Helms?!?), but the WORST guy is, well, the worst.

Here's the Countdown video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25710956) that features the billboard mentioned below. It's the third bit of the "worse, worser, worst" segment, so it's in the end third of the video but the whole thing is only about 3 minutes long.

This douchebag with money (http://www.therepublicansong.com/index.html), Mike Meehan, takes the cake for the billboard he bought in St. Cloud, Florida depicting the smoking World Trade Center towers over a US flag background with the title of his song next to the image: "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat."

I'm the last person to restrict expression, and he obviously has the disposable income to purchase the billboard (I'd hate to think of someone going into debt for such an asinine visual statement), so my question isn't about whether or not the message is appropriate in a First Amendment context. Rather, it is this: is the implication on the billboard even remotely logical or truthful, let alone fair?

Anyone else find it wierd that the psyco guy in link two quoted "The United States of America" in his web page ... seems odd to me

Isn't modern Islamic fundamentalism influenced in part by of multiple nations' attempt at strategic involvement in Arab nationalist movements, the Cold War struggle for the Middle East, the US/Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War as well as continuing troop presence in Saudi Arabia and other states as well as various other European nations' worldwide colonial involvement during the first half of the century?

That's a good...150...or so years of history spanning two continents and dozens of countries, right? Sort of odd to blame the problem on a party that had barely begun to exist when modern Islam terrorism's foundations were developing.

Wether it is logical, truthful or even fair should not be the issue. He made business deal to put that billboard up, it is his money, and it is his right to put it up. Whatever the message be, as long as it is legal and he is willing to pay the money for it, go for it.

If I find it offensive, I just ignore it. The same way that I don't read things that I don't agree with.

Funny, that's exactly what I said in the OP. I'm not debating whether he has the right to do what he wants with his money, but rather the nature of the message on the billboard.

Of course he has the right to do it. I have the right to do it too. He does it because he's an awful person, and I don't do it because I'm not an awful person. The fact that he's done something so obviously not logical, truthful, or even fair speaks volumes about his character and makes him very much deserving of being singled out for ridicule.

Glad to be of service! :salute:

Countdown: Worst Person July 16, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFaAecKvqk) youtube link as msnbc is being jolty (at least for me)

Olbermann isn't worth watching, because he's become what he used to decry.

On the OP - it's free speech. If you don't like it, I suggest you spend your own money to put up an alternative message.

Countdown: Worst Person July 16, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFaAecKvqk) youtube link as msnbc is being jolty (at least for me)

Oh. Sorry! Thanks for posting an alternate.

Olbermann isn't worth watching, because he's become what he used to decry.

That may be so, but it's still refreshing to hear someone who is eloquent as opposed to ham-fisted when it comes to his screeds. And if becoming what he decries means he does what O'Reilly, Rush and Hannity do, but better, with better fact-checking, a better sense of humor and in a manner that means I can actually listen to him for more than a few minutes without wanting to pull my own head off from lack of coherent arguments, then that's fine with me.

This thread isn't a referendum on Olbermann, though.

On the OP - it's free speech. If you don't like it, I suggest you spend your own money to put up an alternative message.

Uh...right. I'm gonna go to a state about as far away as I can get from here, and drop a few grand to rent a billboard? I'm sorry, but the notion that the people with the most disposable income are the ones who get to put up horseshit on billboards is at least slightly disturbing to me.

On the OP - it's free speech. If you don't like it, I suggest you spend your own money to put up an alternative message.Which is it? Is it free, or do you have to spend money?

Which is it? Is it free, or do you have to spend money?

well, technically no speech is "free" as in dollars, but all speech should be free, as in not government regulated. Either you're purposefully confounding the two, or just being silly. Even speaking isn't free, it takes energy, which you get from food, which you either grow with effort, and land, and supplies or pay money for, and is therefore not free.

well, technically no speech is "free" as in dollars, but all speech should be free, as in not government regulated. Either you're purposefully confounding the two, or just being silly. Even speaking isn't free, it takes energy, which you get from food, which you either grow with effort, and land, and supplies or pay money for, and is therefore not free.

And you called JB silly?

We're just pointing out the dissonance that results from saying "free speech" and "buy your own billboard". No need to lecture us on the function of ATP in the execution of actual speech. :rolleyes: