I wonder if negative ads really work

[sirs]

As usual , you missed the point of the hole thread. I said the GOP negative adds were mree plentiful and virulent. BT asked me to prove it (Posted by: BT
Insert Quote
Did Grunwald report facts or did he just give examples to bolster his hypothesis.
Be interesting to see a breakdown form some media watchdog group. )

and I just did. Get with the program , booby.

Actually, no you didn't.  Providing a link to a media watchdog group that made a comparision reference might.  Or are you just going to stick with these selected commentartaries that simply opine the same dren that you are?

[Mucho]

Actually, no you didn't.  Providing a link to a media watchdog group that made a comparision reference might.  Or are you just going to stick with these selected commentartaries that simply opine the same dren that you are?
[/quote]

Why not? That is exactly what you do except you quote such loonies as Wlordnutsdaily.com and the Rev Sun Myung Moons WashTimes.Mine at least are a little more mainstream and sane.

[sirs]

Actually, no you didn't.  Providing a link to a media watchdog group that made a comparision reference might.  Or are you just going to stick with these selected commentartaries that simply opine the same dren that you are?

Why not? [/quote]

Because that's what was asked, and that's what you claimed you did, which of course, you didn't.  I realize credibility doesn't exist in your vocabulary, but for others who read these posts, it's more for their edification

[Mucho]

[

Because that's what was asked, and that's what you claimed you did, which of course, you didn't.  I realize credibility doesn't exist in your vocabulary, but for others who read these posts, it's more for their edification

You dont consider factcheck.org a watch dog group  http://www.factcheck.org/default.html
Who do you consider one, the RNC? It is your credibility and truthfullnes that is non-existent.

[sirs]

You dont consider factcheck.org a watch dog group

Why was that not in the original request by Bt or the 2nd one by myself?  Something spook you?  You don't trust the site enough to have provided that bit of info when 1st requested?

Who do you consider one, the RNC?

No, why would I think that?  You think the DNC is an objective watchdog group?     

[syrmark59]

To add to Knute's post, what's even more telling here locally is that Ray Meier, Michael Arcuri's Republican opponent for the Congressional seat opened by Sherwood Boelhert's retirement, directly called upon the RNCC to stop these smear ads.

They refused and have continued to run them, along with mailing after mailing.

[sirs]

To add to Knute's post, what's even more telling here locally is that Ray Meier, Michael Arcuri's Republican opponent for the Congressional seat opened by Sherwood Boelhert's retirement, directly called upon the RNCC to stop these smear ads.  They refused and have continued to run them, along with mailing after mailing.

Good gravy, soon we'll be reaching the levels of Vote for another Republican and watch a church burn down

[Mucho]

You dont consider factcheck.org a watch dog group

Why was that not in the original request by Bt or the 2nd one by myself?  Something spook you?  You don't trust the site enough to have provided that bit of info when 1st requested?

Who do you consider one, the RNC?

No, why would I think that?  You think the DNC is an objective watchdog group?     

I would say that I didnt attribute it because I wanted you to expose your silly ass,which you did. But the fact is I forgot. All is well that ends well , though. You been gotchad!

[sirs]

Why was that not in the original request by Bt or the 2nd one by myself?  Something spook you?  You don't trust the site enough to have provided that bit of info when 1st requested?

the fact is I forgot. All is well that ends well , though. You been gotchad!

How so?  More of that declare victory, hit enter crap?

[Plane]

""The mid-term elections of 2006 brought an unprecedented barrage of advertising containing much that is false or misleading. We found examples of disregard for facts and honesty – on both sides – that would get a reporter fired in a heartbeat from any decent news organization.

Candidates, parties and independent groups have faked quotes, twisted words, misrepresented votes and positions, and engaged in rank fear-mongering and outright fabrication. Here we review some of the worst deceptions we found.""

http://www.factcheck.org/article467.html


Thanks Knute

[Mucho]

Thanks Knute

You are more than welcome I am sure:

http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html

Summary

Both political parties are functioning in the 2006 House races as factories for attack ads, but the National Republican Campaign Committee's work stands out this year for the sheer volume of assaults on the personal character of Democratic House challengers.

The ads being aired by both the NRCC and its rival, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, are overwhelmingly negative. However, the DCCC ads generally attack Republican candidates on policy issues or their performance in office – accusing them of casting votes favorable to drug or oil companies, or of supporting President Bush's unpopular policies in Iraq or on Social Security. We've recently criticized factual inaccuracies we've seen in some of those, and we'll have more to say in a later article. Here we focus on the NRCC's ads, which are much more likely to demean an opponent's character. That's the very definition of political mudslinging.

http://www.factcheck.org/article460.html

I am always pleased to have a third chance to flaunt it.

[Mucho]

Why was that not in the original request by Bt or the 2nd one by myself?  Something spook you?  You don't trust the site enough to have provided that bit of info when 1st requested?

the fact is I forgot. All is well that ends well , though. You been gotchad!

How so?  More of that declare victory, hit enter crap?

When you got it , flaunt it I always say. And I got you good.

ENTER

[Plane]

A national Republican ad suggested in not-very-subtle terms that voting Democratic carries a risk of death in a nuclear attack . It quoted a bin Laden lieutenant boasting that "we purchased some suitcase bombs," followed by images of al Qaeda fighters and a graphic image of a rapidly expanding orange-yellow globe resembling a nuclear fireball. The ad offered no evidence that Democrats would be any less zealous in keeping nuclear weapons from the hands of terrorists, however. And experts say it is improbable that al Qaeda or any terrorist organization actually has or could get a workable nuclear device. See "'Daisy' Redux" from Oct. 20.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


I would indeed like to see some evidence that the Democrats would be just as Zelous in keeping Nuclear Wepons from the hands of terrorists.

[Mucho]

A national Republican ad suggested in not-very-subtle terms that voting Democratic carries a risk of death in a nuclear attack . It quoted a bin Laden lieutenant boasting that "we purchased some suitcase bombs," followed by images of al Qaeda fighters and a graphic image of a rapidly expanding orange-yellow globe resembling a nuclear fireball. The ad offered no evidence that Democrats would be any less zealous in keeping nuclear weapons from the hands of terrorists, however. And experts say it is improbable that al Qaeda or any terrorist organization actually has or could get a workable nuclear device. See "'Daisy' Redux" from Oct. 20.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


I would indeed like to see some evidence that the Democrats would be just as Zelous in keeping Nuclear Wepons from the hands of terrorists.

Couldn't possibly do any worse than the Bushidiot who resided over many getting them  will certainly allow his Saudi keepers to have some.

[BT]

Somehow i don't think

Couldn't possibly do any worse

is a winning slogan.