Hahaha! Romney’s ad was pulled for copyright infringement. Been caught stealing. Meanwhile, Obama’s has gone full viral.
The Obama ad team unleashed a fairly effective ad against Romney below. Naturally, team Romney struck back with their own clip. I think the Romney ad attacking Obama isn’t half bad, but it’s not as solid as the one attacking Romney. You decide.
Romney doesn’t even help his friends, only himself.
I was curious about the NPR headline quoted in the anti-Obama ad. I wanted to see more context.
I found this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/06/15/137200601/report-obamas-big-money-raisers-get-key-posts-access-contracts
It appears to be an NPR-hosted blog.
The ‘doom’ music in the Romney add was a bit much. The Republican “believe only what we say and act only as we allow or it’s the end of humanity as we know it!!!” obsession is getting tired.
Romney’s ad was taken down on copyright grounds? Is that a sabotage attempt, or did he really use a song without permission?
The Obama campaign’s efforts to make Romney king of the outsourcers isn’t turning out so factual according to Factcheck. See – http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/ and other recent articles there about it.
The Romney add has been taken down
Yoritomo:
If that is the reason the ad is gone – because it got a takedown notice for infringement – it would hardly surprise me.
IP maximalists violate the rules they say they want with regularity. I can’t imagine there is a fair-use case there, so if the campaign didn’t license the music, then doom.
The Obama commercial had Romney singing one of the most horrible songs ever written. What’s so bad about America the Beautiful? Just count out how many words you have to go into the song until you get to the first verb. It’s a shockingly large number. And then what is that verb? Total poetry fail.
We need to start our own grassroots campaign to get Romney to release his long form tax returns. We need to be so psychotically obsessed with this that nothing will satisfy us. We need to dwarf the Birthers in sheer madness. We just need our own Orly Taitz to lead the assault. We need to find our own, bat-shit insane, scary looking, although slightly attractive in a creepy way, woman to unite us as we go on our crusade demanding the long form tax returns.
The world should echo our chants “Release the long form Tax Returns!”
according to Factcheck.
Which, in my opinion, has a pro-Republican bias. Democratic statements which rate a “lie” by FC tend to be rated “half true” when spoken by the Republicans.
The republicans aren’t just “the party of no”, they’re “the party of no responsibility”. They have absolutely no compunction about taking from others without permission for their own benefit. If you’re poor, that’s called theft, but if you’re rich, it’s “entitlement”.
Again and again and again, the republicans keep taking things under copyright and using them without the creators’ permission. How many times do people have to keep making the same mistake before they learn that they can’t do this? Or is it because they think they’re exempt from the law?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2012/02/29/147592568/music-in-political-campaigns-101
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1790795/republican-party-candidates-accused-copyright-infringement
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/10/ma-gops-painfully-lame-ad-may-also-violate-copyright/
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/talking-head-sues-charlie-crist/
http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000694581
http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2012/01/30/copyright-lessons-from-the-campaign-trail-romney-and-fair-use/
That’s only a partial list of republican copyright infringements.
Some lawsuits over infringement are companies being tightfisted. News and interviews on channels like NBC and CNN *can* be used by political campaigns under “fair use” laws, though companies are suing to prevent that. But most times, it’s flat out theft and presumption of permission without asking. And in nearly all cases, it’s only one party doing it.
Yes, because “scary looking: and “attractive in a creepy way” are obviously feminine traits.
My above comment was in reply to rando at #9. Sorry.
I dunno, I don’t think those traits are gender-specific. Neither is the batshit-insane trait.
The request for a woman to be the liberal Orly Taitz from the evil-twin dimension was gender-specific, though.
Maybe, rather than go with one sort of mirror/opposite
I can’t claim an opinion as to whether those traits apply to Orly’s appearance, but what makes up your inner you has a tendency to express itself outwardly via demeanor, body language, facial expression, etc. And I do have an opinion on the creepy and batshit levels she exhibits. I think they’re in the higher frequencies of the spectrum.
-1 post-finishing ability. Anyway,
Maybe, rather than go with this version of mirror/opposite, pick a different sort of negative universe scheme, if you find the previously imagined scheme lends itself too easily to some sort of sexist distortion. (I mean, I’m assuming this plan is imaginary, and thus easily tweaked prior to release.) But in there are a series of thought experiments or a wacky piece of short fiction.
Ummm… Romney’s ad getting pulled for copyright? I cannot tell the difference between reality and The Onion any more. The satire is too perfect.
Randomfactor wrote:
Democratic statements which rate a “lie” by FC tend to be rated “half true” when spoken by the Republicans.
Factcheck.org doesn’t explicitly ‘rate’ statements in the way you are talking about, from what I’ve seen at their site. Also, I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen them outright call a statement from either side a “lie”. Instead, they tend to go fairly in-depth with their analysis rather than boiling it down to one simple rating to serve up to readers that want to skip to the end and get the score.
I don’t bother with fact-checkers that use phrases like ‘pants on fire’ or rate in terms of ‘pinochios’, especially, since they are mostly looking to feed people that want to confirm their own biases rather than provide an objective check against misleading or dishonest political speech.
That is why I provided a link for you to evaluate their analysis for yourself, so that you don’t have to just assume that they were right or biased or whatever you choose to believe without having to think.
So, rather than taking Factcheck’s conclusions at face value, what do you think of the Obama campaign’s statements in light of the facts that they reported in the article I linked?
My conclusion is that Obama is desperate to paint Romney as the big evil Capitalist/Corporatist willing to step on the little guy for bigger profits. That might even be an accurate portrayal of Romney’s character, but the examples the Obama campaign is using aren’t matching up with the available facts. It might be effective, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see Obama engaging in blatant mudslinging like that, when he should be telling people how he’s made their lives better. Maybe that’s telling us something, eh?