Thread: Interesting Anti-Union Commercial

Quick question for the group. What, if anything, was a lie or misleading about that ad?

The question is: will the people understand that it is them that the unions are fighting against and it is they that will have to pay increased taxes if the unions win?

If this message gets through, if people understand that it is them the unions are fighting, then and only then will the Republicans not only will not be punished at the polls, but they will be rewarded.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Quick question for the group. What, if anything, was a lie or misleading about that ad?

You have to ask, seriously? Anytime, and every time, short snippets, taken out of context are used, you can bet it's going to be nothing but propaganda, as this one was.

In even a short speech, there are always snippets that can be taken out of context, and used to mean the opposite of what they meant in the overall context of the speech or text.

Originally Posted by ConLib

You have to ask, seriously? Anytime, and every time, short snippets, taken out of context are used, you can bet it's going to be nothing but propaganda, as this one was.

In even a short speech, there are always snippets that can be taken out of context, and used to mean the opposite of what they meant in the overall context of the speech or text.

Blah blah blah, "out of context" blah. propaganda blah,blah, snippets blah blah.
The same trite canards over and over when dealing with The Truth.

That commercial rocks! The truth hurts. You cant handle the truth!!!!

Obama does sure love the unions, the crapflinger in Massachusetts said what he said, 42% quote is seemingly accurate but the speech snippet at/to the NEA is misleading on reading a larger quote:

"So the bad news, or depending on your point of view, the good news, is that NEA and its affiliates will continue to be attacked by conservative and right-wing groups as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education, for education employees, and for human and civil rights. And that brings me to my final and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

The bolded section appears in the commercial so it was most certainly spoken and most certainly reveals the power of the NEA but it fails to convey the true nature of the message being spoken which is not as nefarious as it seems but are still indeed fighting words against the political opposition in revealing some of the strength of the NEA so it's not outright fraud to include it in the commercial but it is indeed a touch misleading.

Originally Posted by ConLib

You have to ask, seriously? Anytime, and every time, short snippets, taken out of context are used, you can bet it's going to be nothing but propaganda, as this one was.

In even a short speech, there are always snippets that can be taken out of context, and used to mean the opposite of what they meant in the overall context of the speech or text.

Seriously chief, it was a reasonable question. What was said in that speech that was taken out of context or a lie? And I'll admit, I have not seen that entire speech targeted by the ad nor have I followed all that much the person delivering the speech. But the main question is not unreasonable to ask given the nature of the man's comments. Defend him, don't defend him, does not matter to me as much as the basic question. Was the speech taken out of context or was the ad making a false claim?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Obama does sure love the unions, the crapflinger in Massachusetts said what he said, 42% quote is seemingly accurate but the speech snippet at/to the NEA is misleading on reading a larger quote:

"So the bad news, or depending on your point of view, the good news, is that NEA and its affiliates will continue to be attacked by conservative and right-wing groups as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education, for education employees, and for human and civil rights. And that brings me to my final and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

The bolded section appears in the commercial so it was most certainly spoken and most certainly reveals the power of the NEA but it fails to convey the true nature of the message being spoken which is not as nefarious as it seems but are still indeed fighting words against the political opposition in revealing some of the strength of the NEA so it's not outright fraud to include it in the commercial but it is indeed a touch misleading.

Now this more answers my question. Still though it is a bit odd that the man is willing to state what was in bold. In all it appears to me, feel free to correct me, that his goals are still somewhat self serving. So yes the ad is a little misleading, agreed. That does not immediately mean though to me that his interests are the best education for our kids necessarily, but rather the best education in terms of what also serves union interests.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Quick question for the group. What, if anything, was a lie or misleading about that ad?

The facts don't matter to these people. Only that their hate and intolerance is being fed. This is fact on both sides of the aisle. Most campaigns are filled will, propaganda, blatant lies, half-truths, and out-of-context quotes. To put full stock in any campaign ad as truthful is a testament to ignorance.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Seriously chief, it was a reasonable question. What was said in that speech that was taken out of context or a lie? And I'll admit, I have not seen that entire speech targeted by the ad nor have I followed all that much the person delivering the speech. But the main question is not unreasonable to ask given the nature of the man's comments. Defend him, don't defend him, does not matter to me as much as the basic question. Was the speech taken out of context or was the ad making a false claim?

Yes,nothing was taken out of context. What the jerk lawyer said was in context. Contex was, "we in the Unions dont give a shit about anything but power and we have the power" to paraphrase.And power corrupts, and UNIONS LEADERS ARE CORRUPT. Unions have always attracted gangsters and mobsters. They are just a bit more cunning these days than say Hoffa!

Leftists saying "out of context" is their standard retort to any charge that rings true.

Did O'keefe throw that piece together, or did they take a clip where a corporate exec was talking to the board?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Did O'keefe throw that piece together, or did they take a clip where a corporate exec was talking to the board?

It was a speech to a large audience and definitely gives ammo to the political opposition but is nowhere near as nefarious and black-hearted as it is portrayed in the ad.

It's a little early for that ad really. It gives sensible people too long to look up the facts and entire speeches to see what was really being said if they are aiming to shore up votes for 2012.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Obama does sure love the unions, the crapflinger in Massachusetts said what he said, 42% quote is seemingly accurate but the speech snippet at/to the NEA is misleading on reading a larger quote:

"So the bad news, or depending on your point of view, the good news, is that NEA and its affiliates will continue to be attacked by conservative and right-wing groups as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education, for education employees, and for human and civil rights. And that brings me to my final and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees."

The bolded section appears in the commercial so it was most certainly spoken and most certainly reveals the power of the NEA but it fails to convey the true nature of the message being spoken which is not as nefarious as it seems but are still indeed fighting words against the political opposition in revealing some of the strength of the NEA so it's not outright fraud to include it in the commercial but it is indeed a touch misleading.

There was nothing out of context about that. It was simply editing out the irrelevant ad hominem part and keeping the relevant factual part.

Originally Posted by GeorgeLaw

Yes,nothing was taken out of context. What the jerk lawyer said was in context. Contex was, "we in the Unions dont give a shit about anything but power and we have the power" to paraphrase.And power corrupts, and UNIONS LEADERS ARE CORRUPT. Unions have always attracted gangsters and mobsters. They are just a bit more cunning these days than say Hoffa!

Leftists saying "out of context" is their standard retort to any charge that rings true.

Yes. Just like that black woman who lost her job because a small segment of her speech was aired making it seem like she was racist (got to find that article). Face it, you do not want to consider any other explanation. That commercial fed into you hate and fear and you bought it because it justifies your rather weak position on assuming that unions are full of thugs that rape the country of taxpayer money.

wiki on the article i mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resigna...hirley_Sherrod