2006-10-27 00:57:12 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Absolutely
2006-10-27 01:10:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i drive a truck all over the USA, so i'm exposed to ads from all over. both sides are doing it. both sides use half truths, sometimes out and out lies. It's the worst i've ever seen. I have litterally seen ads saying the candidate supports illegal immigrant child molesters.
I vote republican, because I vote to protect my paycheck. I think the ads do nothing but turn people off, and they sty home instead of voting. People tend to show up to vote for a guy and his ideas, not because he can slam the other guy. Don't think it matters much, turn-out is never that high for midterms anyway.
btw the worst ad in the country is this one..and it's made by a republican
http://nelson.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/common/media.php?id=6398
2006-10-27 08:06:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I really am going to vote for either party, Trying to figure out which one is better is really tough.. I never bought into the Dems Vs Reps.. They're all the same and I'm not going to become a political puppet.. I hope most of you wont either. Seems the old ways of both parties were going to bring less government into your life, I'm not sure what happen, or when.. But the adds really don't effect me one way or the other, I really hope Im smart enough to see that both the RNC and DNC are spinning BS..
2006-10-27 08:18:45 · answer #3 · answered by IOU101 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! Those adds are one reason I HATE politics! Instead of picking sides and arguing what we want to do when elected we simply just try to attack the other to make yourself look like the best choice because you've done the least stupid **** in your life. HOW RIDICULOUS.
I don't let any of the slander commercials affect my voting...I don't even listen to them. I think anyone who votes without hearing what the candidate actually wants to do when elected is an idiot...and that goes for all the people who just go to the polls and vote for who is in your party...you should just have your voting privileges taken away!
2006-10-27 08:04:11 · answer #4 · answered by jasonstroble 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I've seen attack ads from both parties. Not sure what makes you think only one party is doing this.
And regardless of the ads (which are for stupid and lazy people who can't be bothered to actually research the candidates and their platforms) I will not be voting Democrat.
I disagree with the Democrat platform, with their dreams of Amerika S.S.R., with their embrace of socialism and their failure to do what is right instead of what is politically expedient.
They offer the US nothing but failure and a destruction of the Constitution and elimination of our rights and freedoms.
2006-10-27 08:19:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Republicans have the most nasty, crude ads on television. Especially the race in TN. with Corker about Ford Jr. I am sick and tired of all the bullchit!!!! I was told a long time ago not to vote for people that go to extremes to discount their opponent and I sure am starting to believe it now!!!!!
2006-10-27 08:01:25 · answer #6 · answered by shirley e 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Where are you, all I have seen is Democrat attack ads, posters put up that make me want to shoot the guy who owns the property their on. I guess you are just a new DNC hack trying to project the DNC dirty tricks on the RNC.
All you folks from both sides make me sick. Why don't you knuckleheads meet in death valley with butcher knives and fight to the death so the rest of us normal folks can have some peace and quiet.
2006-10-27 08:00:32 · answer #7 · answered by Meow the cat 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, but all of the negative Democratic attack ads make me want to barf. They have no plans but "sling as much mud as we can", "lie about everything", "cut & run", and "tax & spend". Same old, same old.
2006-10-27 08:02:25 · answer #8 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Link a add till I make up my mind.
2006-10-27 07:59:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't you think that these "negative attack ads" that the republicans are using have some FACTS that make them a tool for the voters to use? LIKE THIS ONE, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH!!! What part of the War on Terrorism do they support?
By Ann Coulter
PRINTFPRIVATE
This year's Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick
American voters into trusting them with national security.
To wit, they're claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in
Iraq, and while they're all for the war against terror -- absolutely in favor of that war --
they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is
killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as "Iraqi civilians
," even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).
That war.
As Howard Dean put it this week, "The occupation in Iraq is costing American lives and hampering
our ability to fight the real global war on terror."
This would be like complaining that Roosevelt's war in Germany was hampering our ability to fight
the real global war on fascism. Or anti-discrimination laws were hampering our ability to fight the
real war on racism. Or dusting is hampering our ability to fight the real war on dust.
Maybe Dean is referring to a different globe, like Mars or Saturn, or one of those new planets
they haven't named yet.
Assuming against all logic and reason that the Democrats have some serious objection to the war in
Iraq, perhaps they could tell us which part of the war on terrorism they do support. That would be
easier than rattling off the long list of counterterrorism measures they vehemently oppose.
They oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers
found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability
to fight the global war on terror!
Enraged that the Bush administration deferred to the safety of the American people rather than the
obstructionist Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, one Clinton-appointed judge, James Robertson,
resigned from the FISA court in protest over the NSA spying program.
Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold called for a formal Senate censure of President Bush when he found out
the president was rude enough to be listening in on al-Qaida phone calls. (Wait until Feingold finds out the
White House has been visiting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "MySpace" page!)
Last week a federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ruled the NSA program to surveil phone calls to
al-Qaida members in other counties unconstitutional.
Democrats oppose the detainment of Taliban and al-Qaida soldiers at our military base in Guantanamo,
Cuba. Democrats such as Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,
have called for Guantanamo to be shut down.
The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like
something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
You remember -- the war liberals pretended to support right up until approximately one nanosecond after
John Kerry conceded the 2004 election to President Bush.
But apparently, imprisoning al-Qaida warriors we catch on the battlefield is hampering our ability to fight the
global war on terror.
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has compared Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags,
based on a report that some detainees were held in temperatures so cold that they shivered and others
were forced to listen to loud rap music -- more or less approximating the conditions in the green room at
"The Tyra Banks Show." Also, one of the detainees was given a badminton racket that was warped.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert complained this week that detainees in Guantanamo have
"no hope of being allowed to prove their innocence." (I guess that's excluding the hundreds who have been
given administrative hearings or released already.)
Of course all the usual "human rights" groups are carping about how brutally our servicemen in Guantanamo
are treating the little darlings who are throwing feces at them.
Democrats oppose the Patriot Act, the most important piece of legislation passed since 9/11, designed to make
the United States less of a theme park for would-be terrorists.
The vast majority of Senate Democrats (43-2) voted against renewing the Patriot Act last December,
whereupon their minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, boasted: "We killed the Patriot Act" --
a rather unusual sentiment for a party so testy about killing terrorists.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry -- the man they wanted to be president -- called the Patriot Act
"an assault on our basic rights." At least all "basic rights" other than the one about not dying a horrible death
at the hand of Islamic fascists. Yes, it was as if Congress had deliberately flown two commercial airliners into
the twin towers of our Constitution.
They oppose profiling Muslims at airports.
They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami,
Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game.
Now that's a threat.
E TRUTH::::::::::::::::
2006-10-27 09:29:45 · answer #10 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋