Telemarketing: The Worst Attack Ad of All?

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary, the Nice Lady is advocating for a ballot issue that would make phone spam illegal. The Fast Male Voice is promoting a different ballot issue, this one to make phone spam illegal. The Scary Voice is advocating for a different ballot issue, this one to make phone spam illegal. All three of the voices agree that telemarketing is a crime against humanity.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That was funny!:rofl:
 
  • #3
These are funny:

Free candy in every pot
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/11/06/PM200611068.html

NICE LADY: I'm a Mom, and I'm voting "yes" on Prop. 111. Prop. 111 provides free candy for every child in our state.

NICE LADY: And the candy won't hurt their teeth, because Prop. 111 will fund the development of a high-tech polymer that protects kids' teeth from decay. The polymer also makes kids 200 percent smarter and wealthier, and it makes them hate illegal drugs. And Prop. 111 does all this without raising taxes, by floating a series of magic astrological wizard bonds that incur zero debt while generating billions of dollars in revenue. If you believe in unicorns, vote yes on Prop. 111.

FAST MALE VOICE: Paid for by Citizens for Realism in Voting.
:rofl:

SCARY VOICE: Supporters of Prop. 111 say it gives candy to children. But thanks to special-interest loopholes, Prop. 111 will actually seal children in wooden barrels and roll them off the tops of skyscrapers.

The plummeting child-stuffed barrels will destroy our roads — 10 percent of state revenue will go towards repaving the streets and burying the dead. And Prop. 111 has provisions for 900 new taxes, including one on the air you breathe. Prop. 111 was crafted in a cave full of vampire bats by demons with wings of fire. It hates you. If you are a human being, vote NO on 111.

FAST MALE VOICE: Paid for by Voters United Against Fearmongering.
:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Ivan Seeking said:
:rofl: "Do Not Eat the Ballot" :rofl:

Astronuc, those are great too!

I'm so looking forward to tomorrow when the political ads will be gone from the TV and radio again, and my phone will stop ringing with automated dialers and recordings from campaigns...geez, if they're just going to play a recording, couldn't the candidate at least take 5 min to record their own message instead of having some campaign worker do it for them? Have all the out-of-work telemarketers joined political campaigns?
 
  • #5
Moonbear said:
:rofl: "Do Not Eat the Ballot" :rofl:
And you thought the Florida recount was bad.
 
  • #6
I want a ballot issue to make phone-spam illegal. :grumpy:

Telemarketing is a crime against humanity. :biggrin:
 
  • #7
Astronuc said:
I want a ballot issue to make phone-spam illegal. :grumpy:

Telemarketing is a crime against humanity. :biggrin:
I agree! At the very least, if they're going to allow calls from political campaigns, they should require they be from live people who have to dial their own phones...then I can at least have the joy of annoying them back. :devil: And, in the age of caller ID, I could even have fun with my greeting as I answered the phone if I knew they were calling...it's just no fun if it's just a computer.

"Hello, Tony's Crematorium, subsidiary of Genco Olive Oil Company: You kill 'em, we grill 'em." :biggrin:
 

What is the "worst attack ad of all"?

The "worst attack ad of all" is a term used to describe a political advertisement that is considered to be particularly negative, aggressive, or unethical in its attempt to discredit an opposing candidate or party.

Who decides what is considered the "worst attack ad of all"?

There is no definitive authority or organization that determines what is considered the "worst attack ad of all". It is often subjective and can vary depending on individual opinions and perspectives.

What makes an attack ad particularly negative or unethical?

An attack ad can be considered particularly negative or unethical if it uses false or misleading information, personal attacks on character or integrity, or incites fear or anger towards the opposing candidate or party.

Have there been any notable examples of the "worst attack ad of all"?

There have been numerous examples of attack ads that have been considered particularly negative or unethical, such as the "Daisy" ad in the 1964 US presidential election and the "Willie Horton" ad in the 1988 US presidential election.

How do attack ads impact the political landscape?

Attack ads can have a significant impact on public opinion and can shape the outcome of elections. They can also contribute to a polarized and divisive political climate. However, some argue that attack ads are necessary to inform voters about important issues and differences between candidates.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
572
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
5
Views
817
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
587
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
669
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top