quote:

Originally posted by Miss Julia Not that I'm for McCain... but I kinda felt bad for him when he said Obama has spent the most amount of money on negative advertisements in the history of a presidential debate. He also said that on some of the advertisements, Obama lied and made false statements about McCain.

That's because obama has raised more money than any presidential candidate in history. Therefore, the ammount of money spent on both negative and positive ads have been record breaking.

Actually, McCain's ads have been far more negative (almost 100%) than obama's ads, per factcheck.org i believe.

Edit: just checked. 71% of mccain's ads have been negative, compared to 53% of obama's.

So, the sympathy vote should go to obama.

___________________
Eyad Allayla - drums cubana - di.fm - tribal house channel - twisted_techy_hooks

Last edited by Allayla on Oct-16-2008 at 19:52

so the more money you have the more you should be able to spend on campaigning? I am all for the UK way. Campaigning is a joke. And all this money going into it later to be returned in favors of earmarks by either candidate is total bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by element-y so the more money you have the more you should be able to spend on campaigning? I am all for the UK way. Campaigning is a joke. And all this money going into it later to be returned in favors of earmarks by either candidate is total bullshit.

actually yes! think percentages. if obama has 5 million and mccain has 1 million and obama spends 2 million and mccain spends 500,000

Yes obama has spent MORE, but MCCAIN has spent a larger PERCENT.(50%>40%)

I guess its too bad that so much money has been donated to the obama campaign, because umm....well, he's spending it!
PErish the thought!

when you were a kid and went trick or treating, and got all those candies, what did you do with them....did you toss them in the trash?

no, they were...ummm how should i say, consumed? maybe not by you, but im sure somebody ate them(older sis/ bro etc)

that was the purpose, to eat the candy.

the purpose of the donations, is to spend it. Otherwise, He can just put all the money leftover in a nice little fund and let it rake in some interest. its a slam dunk that OBAMA will win, unless something sketch happens(dade county Florida 2000)

Last edited by bigperf on Oct-16-2008 at 20:11

quote:

Originally posted by starboy That's because obama has raised more money than any presidential candidate in history. Therefore, the ammount of money spent on both negative and positive ads have been record breaking. Actually, McCain's ads have been far more negative (almost 100%) than obama's ads, per factcheck.org i believe. Edit: just checked. 71% of mccain's ads have been negative, compared to 53% of obama's. So, the sympathy vote should go to obama.

Agree 100%

McCain was being particularly sneaky there, making a statement about absolute dollars spent. Misleading at best. More like deceptive.

quote:

Originally posted by element-y yea, obama is clearly far better of a speaker than mccain is, and is far more eloquent. So when something like this happens, where the two are so opposite in how the express opinion, the eloquent one comes out on top by far. You can avoid the attacks, respond to attacks, and attack, and still come of looking cool. You might be saying the exact same thing almost, but in how you phrase it, everything changes.

Agreed. Obama is not that better than McCain in terms of solutions he got to offer for the economy issues, and pretty much evrything else. Recall when asked how positive he was that all his "well-forged" plans are likely to be carried out, and how soon into his 1st term if he was to be president, the people are supposed to see changes, he said the exact same as McCain did. And lots of other times when he openly admitted his agreements towards McCain's ideas. It's just one side of the table appears calm, eloquent, and dealing out what viewers want to hear, while as the other side of the table... But just because someone says what we want to hear, just because someone can get in touch with some of us's passions and needs, and present his images based on that, does that mean he's more qualified than the other?

quote:

Originally posted by starboy That's because obama has raised more money than any presidential candidate in history. Therefore, the ammount of money spent on both negative and positive ads have been record breaking. Actually, McCain's ads have been far more negative (almost 100%) than obama's ads, per factcheck.org i believe. Edit: just checked. 71% of mccain's ads have been negative, compared to 53% of obama's. So, the sympathy vote should go to obama.

Ya, I agree with you.

Then McCain must have lied last night. He said that 100% of the advertisements were something false and negative against him lol.

That's republican politics as usual.

___________________
Eyad Allayla - drums cubana - di.fm - tribal house channel - twisted_techy_hooks

100% of the ADs mccain was running YESTERDAY were negative. that is true. 100% of the ads mccain has RUN over the entire campaign HAVE NOT been negative.

common sense prevails here.

maybe today 0% of McCains ads will be negative....


AGAIN-ITS ALL ABOUT PERCENTS!

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Julia Ya, I agree with you. Then McCain must have lied last night. He said that 100% of the advertisements were something false and negative against him lol.

yea the whole energy debate when asked in your first term, both went on to say the 10 year thing. Obama supporters clearly will miss that and say he gave facts opposed to mccain because simply the guy is more eloquent.

As more campaign funding, yes he got more money and it is meant to be spent, but what about also rejecting funds as orinigally put forth by obama from the start? Why not raise the limit to how much someone can give? All this will be returned in earmarks. If you are blind and dont see how this works, take some econ/politic classes. You do know that once elected, obama will cover almost if not all of hillary clonton's debt loss from the campaign. They are already saying in left wing news that she doesn't have much, but OH YEA she does haha.

And yea, analyze your percentages. Mccains new ads are negative, but that doesnt add to 100 percent if he has some positive ones there...

quote:

Originally posted by element-y And yea, analyze your percentages. Mccains new ads are negative, but that doesnt add to 100 percent if he has some positive ones there...

100% of the ADs mccain was running YESTERDAY were negative. that is true. 100% of the ads mccain has RUN over the entire campaign HAVE NOT been negative.

yesterday he had 0 positive ones out, and all were negative therefore 100% of his ads were negative.

if TODAY all his ads are POSITIVE and NONE are NEGATIVE then he will have ZERO % negative ads(FOR TODAY)

so element-y
watch tv, look for mccains ad, and keep a tally....then you can give us a percent.

or wait for one of the watchdog organizations to do it for us.

quote:

Originally posted by element-y As more campaign funding, yes he got more money and it is meant to be spent, but what about also rejecting funds as orinigally put forth by obama from the start? Why not raise the limit to how much someone can give? All this will be returned in earmarks. If you are blind and dont see how this works, take some econ/politic classes. You do know that once elected, obama will cover almost if not all of hillary clonton's debt loss from the campaign. They are already saying in left wing news that she doesn't have much, but OH YEA she does haha.

ha i knew it, you are a cynic! first of all, the money you raise in the campaign you either spend on the campaign or you lose for good. considering all the exhaustive effort put into getting those dollars from the outset by every candidate in every election, it only makes sense to spend it disseminating your message because it does have a direct effect on winning elections. secondly, 94% of obama's 450 million fundraising dollars came from individual contributions of $2000 or less. finally, when interest groups do donate to the campaign, they do not buy politicians as you claim. that's a very cynical view of the process. what a large contribution does buy is access to the politician once in office. buying access as a lobbyist only gets your foot in the door of the office, it does not guarantee you anything. earmarks are a popular demon of this campaign, but it has nothing to do with campaign contributors and everything to do with lawmakers (not the president) and their constituents.

___________________