PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Peace is Cheaper


BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 11:23 AM
This is not an endorsement of Johnson. I think this ad is excellent though. Johnson is actually polling higher in some states ( 7%) than previous Libertarian candidates though. That's enough to affect this elections outcome.


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zh4dU9QNPU8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 12:03 PM
"These ladies have a death wish?" Why gender the bi-party system like that? It's not even a good metaphor.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 12:08 PM
"These ladies have a death wish?" Why gender the bi-party system like that? It's not even a good metaphor.

Because it colored the word "lad" out of ladies differently, to refer to "lads" and "ladies." It's called graphic communication. Perhaps, I got it because I'm a graphic designer. I think English profs should note such devices, for the future, so they can do literary analysis on other types of writing. Like ads.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 12:40 PM
Because it colored the word "lad" out of ladies differently, to refer to "lads" and "ladies." It's called graphic communication. Perhaps, I got it because I'm a graphic designer. I think English profs should note such devices, for the future, so they can do literary analysis on other types of writing. Like ads.

I wouldn't say that it colors "lad" differently. It colors "ies" blue and "lad" red. This comes immediately after the metaphor setup win which each Republicans (commonly associated with the color red) and Democrats (commonly associated with the color blue) were compared to one of the titular characters in the film Thelma and Louise. SO the strongest graphical comparison there is that republicans and democrats are both ladies (for the purposes of the metaphor).

If I were grading your visual text analysis paper in EN101, I would congratulate you for noticing that visually offsetting "lad" in "ladies" can be interpreted as making the message inclusive of males. But I would fault your paper for 1.) not reconciling how allowing for a "lads and ladies" reading disrupts the metaphor, and 2.) not writing about how the ad communicates, then, that Republicans are associated with maleness (again, in this reading of "lad" as intentional reference to "lads and ladies), while Democrats are removed from this possibility.

SNR
05-26-2012, 01:08 PM
Why is it the best candidates never know how to run effective ads or campaigns?

With the exception of some Ron Paul ads early in the primary season, of course.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 01:25 PM
I wouldn't say that it colors "lad" differently. It colors "ies" blue and "lad" red. This comes immediately after the metaphor setup win which each Republicans (commonly associated with the color red) and Democrats (commonly associated with the color blue) were compared to one of the titular characters in the film Thelma and Louise. SO the strongest graphical comparison there is that republicans and democrats are both ladies (for the purposes of the metaphor).

Well, I disagree. As a graphic designer, who teaches typography including the history of it along with writing letters and how they developed, I immediately saw it as "lads" and "ladies" —*although I had to look at that particular one again to be sure. Not that one can't get their own interpretation.

I mean he colors U.S. similarly meaning "us" and it's blue and red. I'd say this device has been used more as a double meaning over a metaphor.

If I were grading your visual text analysis paper in EN101, I would congratulate you for noticing that visually offsetting "lad" in "ladies" can be interpreted as making the message inclusive of males. But I would fault your paper for 1.) not reconciling how allowing for a "lads and ladies" reading disrupts the metaphor, and 2.) not writing about how the ad communicates, then, that Republicans are associated with maleness (again, in this reading of "lad" as intentional reference to "lads and ladies), while Democrats are removed from this possibility.
Well, you'd be allowing your political leanings to determine the grade imo. And/or a more confining way to interpret since ad copy does take liberties with standard English devices.*

The typography throughout that ad, is quite excellent in this professional's opinion, in its communication with visual devices ( color here) and other typographic features. I'd say one possible device is questionable.

*Adding a period to the end of sentence or phrase in an ad headline has been found to stop the reader from reading body copy.
There's no body here though...so it's not so black and white and the communication may have used to for final emphasis—as in "They blew it." Period.

End of discussion. <---Heh! Heh! :p

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 01:37 PM
Why is it the best candidates never know how to run effective ads or campaigns?

With the exception of some Ron Paul ads early in the primary season, of course.

You don't think that ad is effective?

I can't speak to Johnson's campaign but it may just be a lack of money to run a decent campaign or attract the talent for it. Plus there's no major media networks to carry or reinforce the message which is also Paul's problem. Public relations precedes marketing and marketing precedes advertising. Lack of media hits their PR exposure. The big guns of the media will never see that such a message dominate the TV spectrum anyway. It's owned by a few corporations who have too much influence in our govt and thus operate as the gateway for ideas. Unfortunately, most Americans think what they hear on the major networks and news is true.

I think the freedom movement needs to get their own network so they can have their pundits analyze the policies of the two major parties. Then I think they'd have a fair chance.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Well, I disagree. As a graphic designer, who teaches typography including the history of it along with writing letters and how they developed, I immediately saw it as "lads" and "ladies" —*although I had to look at that particular one again to be sure. Not that one can't get their own interpretation.

I mean he colors U.S. similarly meaning "us" and it's blue and red. I'd say this device has been used more as a double meaning over a metaphor.


Well, you'd be allowing your political leanings to determine the grade imo. And/or a more confining way to interpret since ad copy does take liberties with standard English devices.*

The typography throughout that ad, is quite excellent in this professional's opinion, in its communication with visual devices ( color here) and other typographic features. I'd say one possible device is questionable.

*Adding a period to the end of sentence or phrase in an ad headline has been found to stop the reader from reading body copy.
There's no body here though...so it's not so black and white and the communication may have used to for final emphasis—as in "They blew it." Period.

End of discussion. <---Heh! Heh! :p

If by political leanings you mean that I think it's OK to be a woman, then I guess you're right. Apart from not being a misogynist, everything I said is objectively observable on the ad.

You don't think that ad is effective?


It's fine apart from the quibble I had about the awful Thelma & Louise metaphor and the implicit connection that comes from it that connects failure to femininity. The ad (probably accidentally) places itself into a history of misogynistic rhetoric when it genders a problem that doesn't need gendering, just for the sake of a movie reference.

I can see the double-meaning explanation for why they intended it to read as "lads and ladies," but just means that the terrible metaphor/film reference wasn't needed. It's problematic. Not to mention, again, how (despite your comment that red and blue just read as America colors in "ladies") the ad just trained us seconds earlier that red = Republican and blue = Democrat.

Once the ad gets past the metaphor then it finds its footing. But until that point its got questionable internal logic at best and implicit bigotry at worst.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:06 PM
If by political leanings you mean that I think it's OK to be a woman, then I guess you're right. Apart from not being a misogynist, everything I said is objectively observable on the ad.

It can't possibly be "objective if I, a woman, didn't see it.

It's fine apart from the quibble I had about the awful Thelma & Louise metaphor and the implicit connection that comes from it that connects failure to femininity. The ad (probably accidentally) places itself into a history of misogynistic rhetoric when it genders a problem that doesn't need gendering, just for the sake of a movie reference.

The misogynistic thing I never got from it and I am a woman. This is where I think your political leanings influence your grading on this. Thelma and Louise is a feminist screed and this is where you're coming from. The ad talks about the country being driven over a cliff which is what Thelma and Louise did. So that is likely more the intent of the ad by the author who leans my way more politically than your way. That it means no more than the country being driven over a cliff by both parties is the extent of it. Particularly. when analyzed as a whole. You reading too far into it as well.

I can see the double-meaning explanation for why they intended it to read as "lads and ladies," but just means that the terrible metaphor/film reference wasn't needed. It's problematic. Not to mention, again, how (despite your comment that red and blue just read as America colors in "ladies") the ad just trained us seconds earlier that red = Republican and blue = Democrat.

Well, that's your opinion. I see it as a metaphor for the two party system being broken.

Once the ad gets past the metaphor then it finds its footing. But until that point its got questionable internal logic at best and implicit bigotry at worst.

Again, the politics of feminism from the perspective of someone on the left. NTTAWWT but it's your political perspective. Hence, your interpretation. Mine is equally valid and so I deserve a higher grade that is not the result of professorial political leanings.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:24 PM
two parties are doing?

They go on a crime spree like both our political parties.
Abused property rights by robbing a convenience store and exploding an oil tanker.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 02:30 PM
It can't possibly be "objective if I, a woman, didn't see it.



The misogynistic thing I never got from it and I am a woman. This is where I think your political leanings influence your grading on this. Thelma and Louise is a feminist screed and this is where you're coming from. The ad talks about the country being driven over a cliff which is what Thelma and Louise did. So that is likely more the intent of the ad by the author who leans my way more politically than your way. That it means no more than the country being driven over a cliff by both parties is the extent of it. Particularly. when analyzed as a whole. You reading too far into it as well.



Well, that's your opinion. I see it as a metaphor for the two party system being broken.



Again, the politics of feminism from the perspective of someone on the left. NTTAWWT but it's your political perspective. Hence, your interpretation. Mine is equally valid and so I deserve a higher grade that is not the result of professorial political leanings.

You don't deserve a higher grade. Yours is C level work at best, unless of course you can more adequately defend your interpretation. Not against my own feminist concerns (because I certainly don't grade down students I disagree with) (though awareness of that feminist reading would be one of those little good things that separates high B/low A papers from high A papers), but just proving your own claims.

I mean, you're claiming that the way that "ladies" is graphically presented 1.) allows for a "lads and ladies" reading, and 2.) that the word is split up into two colors symbolizes that the two party system is broken (or were you simply saying that the two-party system is broken in that it's driving us over a cliff?)

Your hypothetical analysis paper would need to defend why those aspects of the ad make it effective. Was that film metaphor really a good choice for the ad to take, given it's possible misreadings? What kind of audience is this ad intended to reach?

It seems to me like it's trying to reach an audience who won't think critically, since even light examination of that metaphor will demonstrate how flimsy and confusing it is.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:32 PM
You don't deserve a higher grade. Yours is C level work at best, unless of course you can more adequately defend your interpretation.

You deserve a D in Advertising Communications 101 then. I've also taught Advertising as an adjunct college level. So there.

That's an ad—not a novel. As such it does not require any more of an analysis than what I gave.

Not against my own feminist concerns (because I certainly don't grade down students I disagree with) (though awareness of that feminist reading would be one of those little good things that separates high B/low A papers from high A papers), but just proving your own claims.

I mean, you're claiming that the way that "ladies" is graphically presented 1.) allows for a "lads and ladies" reading, and 2.) that the word is split up into two colors symbolizes that the two party system is broken (or were you simply saying that the two-party system is broken in that it's driving us over a cliff?)

Your hypothetical analysis paper would need to defend why those aspects of the ad make it effective. Was that film metaphor really a good choice for the ad to take, given it's possible misreadings? What kind of audience is this ad intended to reach?

It seems to me like it's trying to reach an audience who won't think critically, since even light examination of that metaphor will demonstrate how flimsy and confusing it is.

Nope. See above. That ad is NOT a novel.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 02:35 PM
two parties are doing?

They go on a crime spree like both our political parties.
Abused property rights by robbing a convenience store and exploding an oil tanker.

That rhetoric makes the metaphor stronger, but it still invites the criticism that the film's audience interprets these actions as subversive and ultimately heroic. At best, I'm spending time re-assessing the actions of two movie characters rather than thinking about the issues that Mr. Johnson wants me to think about.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:38 PM
That rhetoric makes the metaphor stronger, but it still invites the criticism that the film's audience interprets these actions as subversive and ultimately heroic. At best, I'm spending time re-assessing the actions of two movie characters rather than thinking about the issues that Mr. Johnson wants me to think about.

That's the heart of the disagreement. I look at in context to Johnson's stands in our current political climate.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 02:38 PM
You deserve a D in Advertising Communications 101 then. I've also taught Advertising as an adjunct college level. So there.

That's an ad—not a novel. As such it does not require any more of an analysis than what I gave.



Nope. See above. That ad is NOT a novel.

Because basic critical thinking = treating something like a novel. Sheesh. If I barely have to read into something to reach the "you've read into it too much" line then there's something wrong with the ad. This line of thinking is literally how/why people get accused of being sheep -- passively receiving what they are told.

Ace Gunner
05-26-2012, 02:41 PM
peace = compromise

compromise = tolerance

tolerance = respect

respect = liberty

liberty = freedom

freedom = prosperity

prosperity = resource

resource = equity

equity = hawaii vacation :D

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:43 PM
Because basic critical thinking = treating something like a novel. Sheesh. If I barely have to read into something to reach the "you've read into it too much" line then there's something wrong with the ad. This line of thinking is literally how/why people get accused of being sheep -- passively receiving what they are told.

Except I haven't been told anything. Now you are ASSuming things that do not exist in reality.

I already agree with the message in that ad before seeing it. Neither party is promoting that message. The ad simply created a strong emotional reaction that was positive based on current disappointment with the major two parties. That's EXACTLY what an ad is supposed to do—using emotional buttons. The ad is not about feminism or misogyny.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 02:46 PM
That's the heart of the disagreement. I look at in context to Johnson's stands in our current political climate.

That's the ad's intent, and I think that it gets in its own way.

Put differently:

"The Republicans and the Democrats are The Avengers...they perform operations outside of taxpayer knowledge, operate in ways that allow for damage to major U.S. infrastructure, and are responsible for massive governmental spending while working Americans struggle."

Audience of ad, barely applying critical thinking to the comparison: "Yeah, but The Avengers actually and legitimately saved the world. That comparison instead just makes big government seem justified and heroic instead of wasteful."

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:48 PM
Other things I like is, how it opens with the visual of all those people that eventually form the peace symbol along with the music. Then rebuilding our own nation instead of other nations which is what leaders of both parties are over concerned with today.

That the majority of people are tired of these wars consistently shown in polls is a hot-button issues—this ad addresses.


The visuals, music and words are strong. It's an ad that would make a NeoCon, globalist or international progressive or socialist mad.
So who hates it says just as much. I think it's awesome.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 02:50 PM
That's the ad's intent, and I think that it gets in its own way.

Put differently:

"The Republicans and the Democrats are The Avengers...they perform operations outside of taxpayer knowledge, operate in ways that allow for damage to major U.S. infrastructure, and are responsible for massive governmental spending while working Americans struggle."

Audience of ad, barely applying critical thinking to the comparison: "Yeah, but The Avengers actually and legitimately saved the world. That comparison instead just makes big government seem justified and heroic instead of wasteful."

Audience of the ad isn't directed to literary analysis experts either but the common person who is does not like the direction of this country under the Bush Republicans or Democrats....they are tired of war and nation building over seas by both parties. They are economically scared. So using a word like bankrupt for the country is powerful.

Reaper16
05-26-2012, 02:52 PM
Except I haven't been told anything. Now you are ASSuming things that do not exist in reality.

I already agree with the message in that ad before seeing it. Neither party is promoting that message. The ad simply created a strong emotional reaction that was positive based on current disappointment with the major two parties. That's EXACTLY what an ad is supposed to do—using emotional buttons. The ad is not about feminism or misogyny.

So you're seeing the audience for the ad as people who already agree with Johnson's politics. Is the intent to make those people aware of Johnson as a politician, then? A reminder that one can vote for him instead of settling for Romney?

I ask this because it doesn't seem to be trying to reach potential new voters. I say this based what I bolded in your post, and on my own reactions; I mean, I'm a voter who is dissatisfied with both parties and I'm looking for someone to vote for, since I won't be voting for Obama or Romney. I see what this ad wants to do, and for me the early part of the ad doesn't do it because of its confusing film metaphor. Cut that metaphor out and the ad would be more effective for voters like me.

Ace Gunner
05-26-2012, 02:56 PM
btw this isn't war, it's just a military style buldozer for corporations to move in and harness cheap labor. see vietnam nike who employs 600,000 east asians.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:04 PM
So you're seeing the audience for the ad as people who already agree with Johnson's politics.

No, just explaining that I wasn't being told anything new with it which was your allegation. ( sheep reference, remember?)

Is the intent to make those people aware of Johnson as a politician, then? A reminder that one can vote for him instead of settling for Romney?

It did make me more aware of Johnson because I thought he was for another war ( Iran ) previously ( just not as strongly for) and that he had been criticized as being for military intervention which goes against the non-agression doctrine of Libertarianism. I mean that stood out to me in the debates.

So this ad, had the effect of my checking into that stand of his more...which is why my first post said it's not an endorsement of Johnson. I loved the ad though. Peace is cheaper.

So once, I am done checking into all that which is in progress and not complete, he could be someone I may vote for whereas previously I wouldn't have at all.

That and the fact that he's not polling in such miniscule numbers, so far, in a few states show it's enough to make both parties sweat losing this election if they don't mind their intentions on another war. ( Not to mention a recent meeting between Mitt and Rand Paul because Mitt's worried about a challenge inside the party even if Mitt wins the national election...another check and balance is coming to curtail these warmongers. The message is getting through. These are all good developments and the Paul campaign is having some effect even if he doesn't win the nomination.)

I ask this because it doesn't seem to be trying to reach potential new voters. I say this based what I bolded in your post, and on my own reactions; I mean, I'm a voter who is dissatisfied with both parties and I'm looking for someone to vote for, since I won't be voting for Obama or Romney. I see what this ad wants to do, and for me the early part of the ad doesn't do it because of its confusing film metaphor. Cut that metaphor out and the ad would be more effective for voters like me.
It does it for me and apparently the statistics for it on You Tube show a high favorability of the ad. It was on a libertarian site that favors Paul over Johnson and labeled "brilliant." I've even seen it on facebooks.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:25 PM
btw this isn't war, it's just a military style buldozer for corporations to move in and harness cheap labor. see vietnam nike who employs 600,000 east asians.

Well, they use war/military for those reasons.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 03:39 PM
The ad was horrible I thought.......Seemed like a little kid wrote it at his mom's request.....Thelma & Louise as the intro? LOL

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:41 PM
The ad was horrible I thought.......Seemed like a little kid wrote it at his mom's request.....Thelma & Louise as the intro? LOL

Yeah, but you're not the public for that ad either. You support all options on the table on Iran and believe in regime change because of their values. So you're the exact public I'd expect to hate it. That you do, proves my point.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 03:45 PM
Yeah, but you're not the public for that ad either. You support all options on the table on Iran and believe in regime change because of their values. So you're the exact public I'd expect to hate it.

I don't hate the ad for the message, I didn't actually object to the message.

Actually I don't even hate the ad...I'm just pointing out that it looks rather amateurish, and choosing Thelma & Louise as one of the central foci is a basic mistake. Not many people, especially young people are going to get that reference....I would've gone with a more universally known reference...

Perhaps you are being a little defensive if you can't see this?

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:46 PM
I don't think you're one to judge whether or not its amateurish....just that you don't like it.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 03:51 PM
I don't think you're one to judge whether or not its amateurish....just that you don't like it.

It doesn't even say he is running for president of the united states, once in the entire ad....that is a major blunder for one thing.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:53 PM
Because basic critical thinking = treating something like a novel.

I didn't address this part. Seeing items the same when they're different is a point of logic too.
It's not in the same category of thing even if one can find a part that bears a similarity.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 03:57 PM
It doesn't even say he is running for president of the united states, once in the entire ad....that is a major blunder for one thing.

LOL Then you need to look at it again. .5—.53 seconds and then 1:48 as well as the last image.
Unless, you need to be bludgeoned with a hammer to see it. Lemme know.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 04:02 PM
whatverLOL Then you need to look at it again. .5--.53 seconds and then 1:48 as well as the last image.
Unless, you need to be bludgeoned with a hammer to see it.

It says 'the peoples president' at 50-53 seconds, that is meaningless, and sounds like he already has the title....whatever peoples president is.



at 1:48 it doesn't say anyThing other than www.garjohnson.2012


It never once introduces him, and says he is running for president of the united states of america....


FAIL

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 04:06 PM
Yup, you're a literal type of guy who needs to be bludgeoned with hammer to get it.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 04:10 PM
Yup, you're a literal type of guy who needs to be bludgeoned with hammer to get it.

I'm just saying that it is a mistake for an UNKNOWN person not to tell you he is running for President of the United States in a very long Ad. (2 minutes).

You asked why the ad is bad, I've told you......Obviously you are biased, as I am just stating facts......

Also the music is cheesy and the CGI pople look like they are from a 1999 outdated computer system.

Also the title is 'peace is cheaper' yet that is not even stated in the ad....Why choose that title?

Its a dumb ad.....I'm sure they can do much better....

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 04:14 PM
Judging from how often I've seen mis-read posts in this forum, mischaracterize someone's argument resulting in chronic strawman arguments I can see why you feel this way. Ads rely in images and words...not just words.

Oh, and I don't expect the ad to appeal to those who though Obama would pay their mortgage or some similar type public. Johnson can throw some out prediction in this elections results if he continues to poll around 7%. Make both parties sweat.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 04:18 PM
Judging from how often I've seen mis-read posts in the forum, mischaracterize someone's argument resulting in chronic strawman arguments I can see why you have see what this ad says using images —not just words.

So you attack me rather than my argument? Arent you now guilty of a basic fallacy? (Ad Hominem)

All I am saying is if you are an unknown guy, maybe it might be a good idea to you know....introduce yourself, do a voice over.....tell us what your beliefs are and tell us that you are running for president???

I mean if the guy actually wants some votes......

You honestly don't find any fault with this as a 1st impression ad? I mean, it seems like you are being very defensive here......The ad is probably about a C- at best.....and that is being generous.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 04:27 PM
How many times have you attacked me but using worse such as derogatory insults, names and photos instead? Pot calling kettle.

I said that because I actually find that's how you have read many of my own posts and others.
So I see that a factor if you can't tell it's an ad for president. Sure it's not direct with "I am running for president" but it's not that hard.

Johnson is a Libertarian, and as such, he's not going to get enough votes to win but so far anyway, there's enough to affect the election. There's enough disaffected voters that are not that stupid to not know what he's running for. That philosophy appeals to the more aware. I'd say he's trying to get the Paul crowd's votes.

I absolutely LOVED the ad the first time through and play it over and over. But then I am the public for that ad as it hits me where I sit already. I've shown it to others who also like it. It has good stats on You Tube also. It's being shown on the most widely read Libertarian site on the net, where I first saw it...and they're not wild about Johnson either. Although, the owner thought the ad was " brilliant."

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 04:39 PM
Here's another thing pawnmower—Gary Johnson doesn't even have the funds to run in major media markets. He's going to have to focus on small media markets with limited funds. Therefore, it's not that important to have the appeal to the publics you say it should. Perhaps, IF he had huge sums of money it would be different. However, he could run other ads saying he's running for president while running this or make a few changes to the end of this with a more direct statement.

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 04:43 PM
I absolutely LOVED the ad the first time through and play it over and over. But then I am the public for that ad as it hits me where I sit already. I've shown it to others who also like it. It has good stats on You Tube also. It's being shown on the most widely read Libertarian site on the net, where I first saw it...and they're not wild about Johnson either. Although, the owner thought the ad was " brilliant."

Maybe its a crazy idea, but i wouldve geared the ad towards people who didn't know him and were not already going to vote for him....

Personally I found the ad to be lacking substance....It doesn't speak to much of what Mr. Johnson is actually for....It is merely another in a cacophony of negative-based ads (the dems are thema, reppubs are louise, they are driving the country off of a cliff, they BLEW it...etc...).....It didn't have enough positives about Mr. Johnson to make me want to look at his site or even google him.

Those are all just my opnion.....

I wouldve:


not used the Thelma & louise stuff
introduced myself in my own voice
mentioned, at least once, that I want your vote for president of the united states
done away with the cheesy music, and mainly used my voice
done away with the cheesy graphics
had less negatives
had more about my own beliefs
had more about the libertarian beliefs
changed the title, or used 'peace is cheaper' in the ad

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 04:54 PM
I got that all already.

Dave Lane
05-26-2012, 05:22 PM
So does this mean you've dropped your unhealthy obsession with RP1?

SNR
05-26-2012, 05:28 PM
You don't think that ad is effective?

I can't speak to Johnson's campaign but it may just be a lack of money to run a decent campaign or attract the talent for it. Plus there's no major media networks to carry or reinforce the message which is also Paul's problem. Public relations precedes marketing and marketing precedes advertising. Lack of media hits their PR exposure. The big guns of the media will never see that such a message dominate the TV spectrum anyway. It's owned by a few corporations who have too much influence in our govt and thus operate as the gateway for ideas. Unfortunately, most Americans think what they hear on the major networks and news is true.

I think the freedom movement needs to get their own network so they can have their pundits analyze the policies of the two major parties. Then I think they'd have a fair chance.The pan-outs to the exact same CGI crowd of people gets dull after he does it a 2nd time. And he does the same shot, like, two more times.

It just looks really bad. As much as I hate being this kind of guy, ads are only half what you say. The other half is if they look good or keep one's attention.

The "peace is cheap" message is great, though. I have no problems with that. He should just hire Ron Paul's ad manager from the primary season. He's not exactly doing anything these days

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 05:33 PM
The "peace is cheap" message is great, though.

The problem is the only place the message exists, is in the title.....I dont think that message exists in the ad itself.

The ad seems to fall back to generic scare tactics (country is driving off a cliff) and negativity (the other parties blew it)....rather than any positives about Mr. Johnson.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 05:52 PM
So does this mean you've dropped your unhealthy obsession with RP1?

It was never about Paul—it was about certain ideas. You know my top issue this election is to prevent another aggressive war being started by the U.S. If you thought it was, then you haven't paid attention. Oh, I've also not said this was an endorsement of Johnson either. Just in case you missed that too.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2012, 05:54 PM
He's not exactly doing anything these days

Okay on the first part of your post ( not quoted here). But Johnson is polling higher than past Libertarians, at least right now in some states. If that continues, even he does nothing, I think that could make the two parties sweat out their win more.

I'd love to see that. :evil:

cosmo20002
05-26-2012, 07:00 PM
You don't think that ad is effective?



I think it is pretty lame. Thelma and Louise? Geez...

Pawnmower
05-26-2012, 09:16 PM
I think it is pretty lame. Thelma and Louise? Geez...

Even if you forgive it for the fact that most people who remember the movie will remember Thelma and Louise at the PROTAGONISTS....and heroes of the movie.....

AND you forgive it because they were kind of fighting 'against the man' or against 'big government' and Libertarians probably mostly want to be seen as fighting for common folk like thelma & louise....

What is not forgivable is that this ad's MAIN fucking analogy is Thelma & Louise, an outdated 20 year old movie that probably no one younger than 40 even remembers.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2012, 02:56 PM
I think it could be more hard hitting though. Looks like he targeting Paul supporters.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uF367w4nI1E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>