Forum archives » Fights Go Here » Bush in 30 Seconds

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »

Spankling
October 28, 2003 9:01 PM

I got this in email and thought some creative types around here might like to participate.
--------------------------
Today, MoveOn.org Voter Fund is launching Bush in 30 Seconds, a political TV ad contest to help us find the most creative, clear and memorable ideas for ads that tell the truth about George Bush's policies. You don't have to be trained in the art of filmaking to participate, you just need to be ready, willing, and able to turn your clever ideas into a real 30 second ad. We want to run ads that are of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Joining us in this effort is a great panel of celebrity judges, including Jack Black, Michael Moore, Donna Brazile, Gus Van Sant, Michael Stipe, Margaret Cho, and Moby (there's a full list on the site below). MoveOn members will pick 15 finalists; the panelists will pick the winning ad and help generate some good press coverage for it.

The prize? Just in case getting your work seen by our judges and thousands on our web site isn't enough, we'll put the winning ad on TV during the week of Bush's State of the Union Address. All 15 finalists will also be featured in an email to the MoveOn membership. The ad doesn't need to have TV production values -- it's the idea that counts. We'll reshoot the winning ad if we need to in order to air it.

Interested in making a 30-second spot for Bush in 30 Seconds? Check out the website below for more details. Know someone who might be willing and able to make a great ad? Please pass this message on.

You can learn more about the contest and get the complete guidelines at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

If you have an idea for an ad, but not the time or the equipment to shoot it, you can post your ideas on our discussion board at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ideaswap.html

Willing to help spread the word? Download the poster at the link below, print up a bunch of copies, and post it where likely participants might see it.
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/poster.pdf

Good luck and have fun!

Sincerely,
The MoveOn.org Team
October 28th, 2003

Post #106947link

DragonXero
October 29, 2003 10:17 AM

Wow, some left-wingers have a lot of time on their hands.

Makes Hannity, Rush, and Regan look pretty sane to me.

Post #107018link

UnknownEric
October 29, 2003 11:32 AM

quote:
Makes Hannity, Rush, and Regan look pretty sane to me.
Naaah, nothin' makes Hannity look sane.

Okay, maybe Ann Coulter, but...

Post #107045link

boorite
October 29, 2003 12:28 PM

I didn't see anything insane on the site. Dull, yes. Then again, being called insane by DragonXero is like being called a junkie by Rush Limbaugh. :-P lool

Post #107057link

bunnerabb
October 29, 2003 12:36 PM

Bush is a brainless, no-talent sock puppet.

There.

You may use the other 27 seconds any way you like.

Post #107059link

Drexle
October 29, 2003 1:47 PM

quote:
Bush is a brainless, no-talent sock puppet.

There.

You may use the other 27 seconds any way you like.



You know, I have an old pair of boots that are split across the soles. They could easily be turned into hand puppets. One of them even used to have a bar of metal sticking out of it like a snaggletooth, but it fell out one day. Would that suffice for the 27 seconds?

Post #107068link

MaKK_BeNN
October 29, 2003 4:33 PM

Won't the end result of such a propaganda machine only be interesting to people who already despise Bush? And in this way is it not just an act of tedious rhetorical masturbation?

Post #107091link

niteowl
October 29, 2003 5:16 PM

Like the images of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier or American soldiers draping the American flag over Saddam's statue in Baghdad?

Post #107099link

Drexle
October 30, 2003 8:38 AM

The snaggletoothed boot could be called "MaKK_BeNN" and the other one could be called "boorite," and they could argue futilely back and forth for 27 seconds. But somehow I think that would be just about as tedious.

Post #107171link

MaKK_BeNN
October 30, 2003 8:41 AM

Post #107172link

boorite
October 30, 2003 9:00 AM

from the same article:

quote:
But despite the massive boost to the economy, some economists are warning that growth - forecast at about 4% for the final quarter and into next year - could stumble if the US's jobs drought continues.

Almost 3 million jobs have gone since 2001 despite a surge in productivity, reflecting companies' decision to work staff harder rather than expand payrolls.

Future expansion could depend on whether or not the growth translates to hiring at long last, economists predict.



Bush's constituency is mainly composed of non-demand-driven sectors: Oil, mining, pharmaceuticals, defense, and media. These depend more on patents and monopoly power than consumer demand. So I doubt Bush much gives a damn about creating demand by creating jobs. As the article says, continued job loss will lead to economic tankage in the not-too-distant future. We'll see if I'm right. Let's check in around election time next year.

Post #107174link

JrnymnNate
October 30, 2003 9:08 AM

at least he's pro-isreal and something of a moralist :p

Post #107176link

kramer_vs_kramer
October 30, 2003 9:14 AM

I fail to see the morality in Bush's policies.

Post #107181link

MaKK_BeNN
October 30, 2003 9:51 AM

What are you talking about? The economy is doing great! Thanks Bush! ;)

Post #107187link

Inflatable_Man
October 30, 2003 10:22 AM

I like Bush, but I'm not a big fan of Dick. :P

Yeah, old joke. Anyway, being serious now, even if this 30 second commercial doesn't do anything to change people's minds, a chance to bash Bush should never be passed on. Maybe someone will make a funny and/or clever commercial that all us "dumbocrats" can laugh at.

Post #107191link

MaKK_BeNN
October 30, 2003 10:28 AM

Dumbocrats! Ha! That's a good one! ;)

Post #107193link

attitudechicka
October 30, 2003 10:40 AM

Didn't we just have a SOTU address?

Post #107196link

boorite
October 30, 2003 10:47 AM

quote:
at least he's pro-isreal and something of a moralist :p

You mean a drunk driver with a silver coke spoon up his nose?

Post #107199link

Inflatable_Man
October 30, 2003 10:51 AM

I was being facetious, mAAk. "Dumbocrats" is something that the junkie known as Rush Limbaugh likes to say.

"Pop some more pills, pillhead!" :)

Post #107200link

boorite
October 30, 2003 11:41 AM

I'm glad Rush implored us not to view him as a hero.

Post #107206link

MaKK_BeNN
October 30, 2003 12:32 PM

I know! God bless that man! ;)

Get better soon Rush!!!

Love boorite and mAAk

Post #107222link

Spankling
October 30, 2003 10:20 PM

I'm trying to decide between focusing on one thing (like how this is the most secretive admin, but they strip privacy away from the rest of America) and going the shotgun route (using a new setting to show how insane his actions are in general). And I keep thinking of him as a spoiled brat on a playground.

I'll send something. Someone will send something better. As long as Bush gets booted out - that's the main thing.

... Rush a moralist... that was worth a laugh.

Post #107309link

MaKK_BeNN
October 30, 2003 10:22 PM

Why not thank Bush for the roaring economy!

Four more years! Four more years!

Looks like those tax cuts are working!! ;)

Post #107311link

bunnerabb
October 31, 2003 2:05 AM

quote:
Looks like those tax cuts are working!! ;)

And how. I blew my 300.00 on outfitting and expanding my business so that it could enter into new market channels with a competitive stance, vis-a-vis the global consultancy industry for installation design, and completely upgrading our IT and manufacturing infrastructures.

Oh, wait... no. Sorry. I made a MasterCard payment and bought a few groceries with mine.

My bad.

Post #107316link

DragonXero
October 31, 2003 4:32 AM

I don't care much for Bush either anymore, but I still must pose this question: Who would you have replace him? Another demoralized icon for the upper-class to manipulate? When it all comes down to the nitty gritty, it's all the same with a different face. Putting someone else in office isn't going to make things better, it's just going to make the jokes we make about our leader different.

Post #107317link

MaKK_BeNN
October 31, 2003 8:48 AM

Maybe if we held our leaders accountable for their actions and weren't so tolerant of non-stop spin and empty rhetoric, the position of president would demand at least the level competency demanded of fast food employees. ;)

Post #107325link

kaufman
October 31, 2003 9:23 AM

quote:
Maybe if we held our leaders accountable for their actions and weren't so tolerant of non-stop spin and empty rhetoric, the position of president would demand at least the level competency demanded of fast food employees. ;)
That's a horrible cheap shot at our administration. They have that competency down pat.

"Would you like tax cuts with that?"
"Would you like kickbacks with that?"

Post #107326link

jes_lawson
October 31, 2003 10:01 AM

Post #107334link

bunnerabb
October 31, 2003 11:51 AM

quote:
Maybe if we held our leaders accountable for their actions and weren't so tolerant of non-stop spin and empty rhetoric, the position of president would demand at least the level competency demanded of fast food employees. ;)

We've been trying to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Actions, I might add, that border on a military coup of the US government. And he keeps getting rabidly defended by people sho are prone to shout "Yeah! Whoo! Kick ass! Blow up the middle east! If you don't like George Bush, git outta mah country!"

You can see the difficulty here in presenting rational fact-based arguments to people who eschew reason out of hand.

Supersize that load of propaganda for ya, Bubba?

Post #107348link

MaKK_BeNN
October 31, 2003 12:04 PM

In a democracy if you are surrounded by idiots remember they are the ones running the country ;)

Post #107351link

bunnerabb
October 31, 2003 12:41 PM

I thought we were a militarily-enforced capitalist repbulic. I can't think of another type of government that would invade countries for their national resources and shuttle protestors into police patrolled holding pens, several blocks away from cameras, when it's court-appointed leader gave televised speeches in public.

Except, maybe a dictatorship. But that's just silly.

Isn't it?

Post #107358link

boorite
November 1, 2003 10:14 AM

See, in a place like Mexico, one party steals all the elections. In the US, two parties steal all the elections.

Post #107424link

boorite
November 1, 2003 10:25 AM

PJ O'Rourke said that.

Post #107429link

bunnerabb
November 1, 2003 3:32 PM

Recommended reading:

Give War A Chance

A Parliament of Whores

Eat The Rich

Post #107454link

DragonXero
November 1, 2003 3:59 PM

quote:
See, in a place like Mexico, one party steals all the elections. In the US, two parties steal all the elections.

Finally someone with an intelligent comment.

Sorry all, it's not that I support Bush. In fact, while I support action in Iraq, I don't support it now, or for the reasons (the ones we're told, or the ones we know are real), but in any case, how the hell are we going to break free?
There aren't enough intelligent voters in this country. And even many who are intelligent sacrifice their vote to someone who is only half of what they want because they don't think they can win by voting for people who fufill all their wishes in a leader.

Also, even if we somehow get an independent party canidate into office, that won't help us any. We've still got congress to deal with.

We have so much hypocrisy in this country, it's becoming even more of a laughing stock than it was in past years. I've seen two democrats brought up to serious charges in the time I've been paying any attention. First Clinton gets "impeached", then more recently, Davis gets recalled. While I'm happy about the latter, the former did nothing, and had no real reason. The point I'm approaching is that people put these guys into office in the first place, and then decided to get them out.
America, she is a woman. She is a very fickle bitch at that.

I'm neither Democrat, nor Republican, because I think both parties are batshit insane. I'm not a Green Party member, because I don't agree with even a quarter of their ideals. Sadly, I admit I vote for the guy who appeals to me most out of the two major parties, because I don't feel that anyone else will vote for another party. Just as sad as anyone else I suppose, but what the hell can we do about it??

Post #107460link

Spankling
November 1, 2003 10:56 PM

Eat the Rich is great. I can't believe nobody copped to the obvious line for this thread, tho...

"I did a bush once in 30 seconds, but I don't like to talk about it."

Post #107498link

bunnerabb
November 2, 2003 4:57 AM

quote:
Finally someone with an intelligent comment.

I'd hardly call the entirety of the posts in this thread unintelligent up until somebody quoted P.J. O'Rourke.

Post #107510link

DragonXero
November 2, 2003 6:04 AM

quote:
quote:
Finally someone with an intelligent comment.

I'd hardly call the entirety of the posts in this thread unintelligent up until somebody quoted P.J. O'Rourke.
Meh, they were sub-par for most of those posting them, however.

Post #107511link

bunnerabb
November 2, 2003 6:27 AM

Dude.

We have parsed the entire scope of issues surrounding the Bush administration's decision to wave off the entire United Nations Security Council's refusing to condone war on Iraq, and then subsequently attacking another nation first. This is something quite out of character for the US. We have reviewed various pros and cons of both major parties, and their respective military and ambassadorial proclivites. We have held forth on the very basis and concepts of law in the western world.

I don't know how much more serious of a debate you would want from a forum on a site dedicated to making cut and paste funnies, but... I got my money's worth.

Post #107512link

bunnerabb
November 2, 2003 6:30 AM

Ok.... my bad. All that shit was in the other thread.

BUT YOU SHOULD READ IT!
: )

Post #107513link

boorite
November 2, 2003 10:19 AM

I thought my remarks about the economy were at least aware, if not intelligent.

Post #107524link

MaKK_BeNN
November 2, 2003 12:19 PM

Me too! Thanks for the good economy, Bush!! ;)

Post #107536link

bunnerabb
November 2, 2003 5:37 PM

You mean the one that he completely dismantled and poured into an illegitimate war and the pockets of every multi-millionaire and attorney in the country?

The one he pulled out from under the otherwise stable working-class like a cheap rug?

The one that's only now ceasing to hemmorage cash and jobs after three years of steady decline and some of the worst unemployment figures since Hoover?

The one that started out with a three trillion dollar surplus, courtesy of the Clinton administration, that is now red ink?

That one?

You realise, do you not, that the Bush administration is boning all of the rah-rah, upper-crust-wannabe Republicans silly, along with everybody else making less than 250,000.00 a year. Don't you?

*Snicker*

Post #107560link

boorite
November 2, 2003 6:19 PM

All I know is my Putnam mutual fund managers have been FUCKING me for who knows how long, and it pisses me off. I'd vote for Bush if he'd only cut their balls off as an example to the others. But I know that won't happen.

More Big Pension Funds Fire Putnam

GREAT! THERE GOES A BUNCH OF MY FUCKING MONEY DOWN THE TUBES.

Post #107563link

DragonXero
November 2, 2003 10:23 PM

quote:
The one that started out with a three trillion dollar surplus, courtesy of the Clinton administration, that is now red ink?


I do believe the guy before Gray Davis claimed to have a surplus that ended up being in the negative when Davis came in as well.

Oh, right. He's a democrat, and democrats are NEVER responsible for budget problems. It's the guy before them that caused all the problems.

Post #107602link

bunnerabb
November 2, 2003 11:48 PM

The numbers are there, yo. Fuck what they call themselves this year. The math is there and it's ugly.

Post #107607link

boorite
November 3, 2003 9:07 AM

quote:
Oh, right. He's a democrat, and democrats are NEVER responsible for budget problems. It's the guy before them that caused all the problems.

Dragon, I think your characterization of Democrats applies far better to Republicans. For example, did Clinton sit around blaming the deficit on Reagan, who managed in 8 years to get the country in 3 times the debt it had accumulated over the past 200 years (which included two World Wars, a Civil War, and the very expensive destruction of Indochina)? Did Clinton sit around whining about Bush I, who ran deficits almost double those of Reagan? No, he rolled up his sleeves and got down to turning the historic debt into a surplus. Surely, revenues were declining because of economic conditions when Clinton left, but revenue was still ahead of spending.

Enter Bush II, who cuts taxes at a time of declining revenue. Gee, guess what we're running now? If you said "surplus," we have a seat reserved for you on the short bus. And guess who the new Right blames it on (along with everything else, including getting caught flatfooted by the 9/11 attacks)? That's right, Bill Clinton.

Takes you back, doesn't it? Remember in 1980, when candidate Reagan told President Carter, "Mr. Carter, if you can't balance a budget, step aside, I CAN!"

As a matter of fact, Carter is the only postwar Democratic President since Truman who saw budget deficits increase during his term of office. Every Republican, on the other hand, presided over increasing deficits. But who did Reagan blame the deficit on? Democrats, of course!

After the public spectacle of the Reagan-Bush fiscal orgy, you'd think not even Republicans could have the naked dishonesty and cowardice to blame the deficit on the Democrats. But you'd be wrong. High-profile right-wing charlatans like Sean Hannity are still blaming Congressional Democrats for Reagan-Bush deficits, even though the budgets Congress approved were on average within about half a percent of what those Presidents requested. Hannity and company do this via an advanced rhetorical technique called "lying." They publish best-selling books that contain tables with made-up numbers and bullshit math.

How do they get away with this, when a half-bright high school student could look up the real numbers and call "fraud?" Because the right-wing audience will believe anything, no matter how outlandish, as long as it confirms what they already think. The people who buy Hannity's books do not look things up.

But don't worry. In a year, or maybe five, a Democrat will go into the White House and set about sweeping up four to eight years of fiscal elephant poop. And guess who Republicans will blame.

Post #107636link

jes_lawson
November 3, 2003 9:27 AM

That was a frank, non-judgemental and thought provoking comment.

Post #107641link

MaKK_BeNN
November 3, 2003 11:28 AM

Thank god Carter and Clinton are gone for good eh? ;)

Post #107650link

boorite
November 4, 2003 9:31 AM

Bush strategist Matthew Dowd just issued a memo saying Bush will probably fall behind in the polls when a Democratic candidate is announced. (I say it will probably be sooner.) It seems Dowd's strategy is to lower expectations, so that when Bush starts taking the beating he has coming to him, they can say "oh we saw this coming" instead of just hemorrhaging and bleeding out right on the spot.

Post #107750link

Forum archives » Fights Go Here » Bush in 30 Seconds

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »
stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks