|
Post by JT on Jun 11, 2004 0:20:51 GMT -5
I don't think it matters.
People have already decided which candidate they're going to vote against.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 11, 2004 0:30:27 GMT -5
If that's the case, and the canditdates believed it to the the case, why continue their tours around the country to get more votes? They could save a ton of money if everyone truly already knew who they were going to vote for already. Especially given the ongoing high level of voter apathy in deciding to not go to the polls. With this being yet another year with the primary choice is in voting for the lesser of two 'evils" it could be an even worse year in terms of voter turnout at the polls. I don't like Kerry, I really don't like Bush, and see no point in even giving Nader any consideration. Perhaps Jesse ought to jump into the arena at the last second again like he did in Minnesota and steal the presidential election. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2004 0:53:10 GMT -5
I'm not thrilled with Kerry, but I certainly wouldn't say I don't like him.
Why don't you like him? Or are you just saying you don't like him as a presidential candidate?
Seems like an honorable man. And you can't serve in the Senate without compromising. That's why the whole flip-flop business is ridiculous.
But the main reason I'll vote for him is because I strongly believe he will have better people serving with him than does GW.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 11, 2004 6:45:51 GMT -5
Why don't you like him? Or are you just saying you don't like him as a presidential candidate? As a presidential candidate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2004 8:51:07 GMT -5
Oh. Because I don't like GW as a presidential candidate AND I don't like him.
I'd love to see someone wipe that frat boy smirk off his face.
I can't STAND the guy!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 11, 2004 9:41:57 GMT -5
Oh. Because I don't like GW as a presidential candidate AND I don't like him. I'd love to see someone wipe that frat boy smirk off his face. I can't STAND the guy! You think someone could convince him to play basketball against the Lakers and make sure he has to "defend" Shaq?
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 11, 2004 13:47:55 GMT -5
Oh. Because I don't like GW as a presidential candidate AND I don't like him. I'd love to see someone wipe that frat boy smirk off his face. I can't STAND the guy! What's that line from the song? Oh yeah... To know know know him, is to love love love him... Once you get to know him personally, (R)uffda, you'll love that West Texas gal! He's also a Skull & Bones secret fraternity member. He could have you killed without so much as a blink of an eye.
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 11, 2004 13:50:20 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1083407008&start=16#1 date=1086931827]If that's the case, and the canditdates believed it to the the case, why continue their tours around the country to get more votes? They could save a ton of money if everyone truly already knew who they were going to vote for already. I think they're going for the undecided voters. It's also Marketing 101. Why does Coca-Cola still advertise when everyone knows about Coke?
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jun 11, 2004 17:28:33 GMT -5
I think they're going for the undecided voters. It's also Marketing 101. Why does Coca-Cola still advertise when everyone knows about Coke? Knowing ABOUT Coke is not the same as knowing you like or dislike Coke. JT's comment was that it doesn't matter because people already know which candidate they will vote for in the election. If "people" (presumably everyone) already know that the do or don't like Coke then they are wasting their money on additional marketing of the product to those that already drink it and to those that refuse to drink it. Unless they're coming out with a new product or modifications to the existing product. I agree with you that they DO continue to campaign because there is always a fairly high percentage of voting age people that do not vote and in this election I'd bet there are lot of people that don't yet know which candidate they will vote for in the election.
|
|
|
Post by Saruman on Jun 14, 2004 11:28:42 GMT -5
Don't spin this the wrong way.....but propaganda is and always has been used for the masses.....as we are so easily influenced and convinced.
The intelligenica who way through the muck and have patience can see the truth. As in the latest Bush debacle and of course political spin on the drop in terrorism. I have lost all possible pity on Colin Powell as he been been lowered to to janitorial status in the exposing of this latest FALSE Bush claim.
Bravo Ruffda for having the discipline to hold ground!
Guess who said this in 1925:
The whole art of propaganda consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, etc....(Propaganda's) effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those who it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level wiil have to be.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.
.....the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is bourne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat the over and over.....
One wonders is 2004 America is still fitting this analysis?
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 14, 2004 13:04:52 GMT -5
Guess who said this in 1925: The whole art of propaganda consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, etc....(Propaganda's) effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect. All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those who it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level wiil have to be. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. .....the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is bourne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat the over and over..... Adolf Hitler in his famous treatise, "Mein Kampf."
|
|
|
Post by JaneAusten on Jun 14, 2004 13:39:37 GMT -5
Adolf Hitler in his famous treatise, "Mein Kampf." Who? Is he another tennis star from the years before you were born?
|
|
|
Post by vierra on Jun 14, 2004 14:55:08 GMT -5
Who? Is he another tennis star from the years before you were born? They didn't have tennis in the early 19th Century either, Janey. What? You read about it in books? Didst Messrs. William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens busy their pens to ink on the very nature of this fledgling new sport back in the day?
|
|
|
Post by JaneAusten on Jun 14, 2004 15:06:28 GMT -5
Your point escapes me, dear sir.
But I cannot let this statement of yours pass uncorrected. Tennis was played as long ago as 5th century Tuscany. And George IV, my King, was himself an enthusiast.
I am not here for the pleasure of your pedantic search for anachronisms. Treat me with more respect or I shall not stay at all.
I do not wish to be so harsh, but, frankly, my patience wears thin.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jun 14, 2004 18:17:51 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=news&thread=1083407008&start=23#1 date=1086992913] JT's comment was that it doesn't matter because people already know which candidate they will vote for in the election. No. My statement was that people already know who they're voting against in the election. Even more than in 2000, I am hearing people say that they hate both candidates, but there's no way that they can vote for Candidate-X. It was also an apparently feeble attempt at wit, based on the thread started by you, that (just) 6 percent of Americans are still undecided about whether to vote against...
|
|