Posted on 09/28/2004 7:55:29 AM PDT by Sparqi
Comedian Dan St. Paul's SF Comics' Spoof of the Swift Boat Ad Generates Big Reaction on the Internet
SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 28, 2004--A new version of the Swift Boat Ad is taking the Internet by storm. The spoof was put together by a group of actors and comedians from the San Francisco Bay Area and has already gotten thousands of viewings in its first day going live. http://www.bushvets.org/
(Excerpt) Read more at biz.yahoo.com ...
I can't get too excited about a group of comedians putting an anti-Bush message on a private website, even if it is popular.
The spoof may be offensive, but what is it about the presentation (as opposed to the message) that offends you, exactly?
"We lie," It might be THIS admission by the numbskulls.
It's supposed to be comedy. I think it's to their credit that they start the bogus commercial by stipulating that it's not true.
OK - I laughed. I shouldnt have, but I did. It is not like it will have any impact on anything. Its not like Bush painted himself orange two days before the debates. This is marginally funny, but the orange Kerry is hillarious. "Nice tan John. Get that windsufing ?"
And to their extreme discredit that they insinuate that what they are parodying is NOT true.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed this message at the beginning?
"The following is a lie. The difference is we tell you it's a lie."
So what do you want to do? Ban them?
Or perhaps see if slander laws apply.
This is totally different from CBS Evening "News" with Dan Rather.
I find it ironic that people are writing on a site called "Free Republic," trying to raise a mob to harass a group of people who disagree with them politically. I believe that one of the mainstays of our free republic is the right of free speech.
In the case of this fake commercial, I appreciate the fact the comedians posted a disclaimer at the beginning. They are using satire in order to try and make their point, and -- unlike Dan Rather, CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, and on and on -- they are not pretending to report the news.
I see no attempt to mislead the public (although I do disagree with their point of view); they do not use obscenity, hatred or foul language.
In short, I see nothing to get enraged about at this site, which is open in its intentions and amiable in its presentation. If the opposition were as civil as this ad, the Presidential campaign would have been much different and the split in this country would not be nearly as severe as it is today. In fact, if I were an opponent of the President I would see much more to get enraged about in the satirical postings about John Kerry that appear on Free Republic every day.
My point is; that Dan rather would use anything to egt at the President; he has proven that by sticking to his lie. It's Dan Rather no matter what venue he uses; he long ago stop giving all the facts injecting his opinion instead.
I made no comment about their commercialand I'm far from enragged about it. You're sound like that dude from the Clinton-Buss debate, "Can't we just get along."
Most people don't know the facts of a news story, and simply assemble their understanding of events from the headlines, inuendo, and comedic commentary. The "story" got a major setback as far as being presented as a journalistic effort. Now they have to fall back on inuendo from the entertainment industry, which, incidently, is arguably more effective than the mainstream news industry in terms of ultimately impressing inuendo on the minds of the "masses".
I thought of that as I was writing my post. It was Rodney King who said that.
So it's a conspiracy?
I find it ironic that people are writing on a site called "Free Republic," trying to raise a mob to harass a group of people who disagree with them politically. I believe that one of the mainstays of our free republic is the right of free speech.
If the opposition were as civil as this ad, the Presidential campaign would have been much different and the split in this country would not be nearly as severe as it is today.
Not necessarily a conspiracy. But DEFINATLY propoganda. They were probably, you know, working on their own without any connection whatsoever to the DNC. Just like Gerafolo, and Baldwin, and Streisand, and...
Completely dreadful and unfunny. What freaking amateurs.
If you are going to protest every private individual who makes fun of President Bush on a website, you have more free time than I do.
Last week, I posted a vanity about the primate lab at Harvard, which had a Quicktime image of President Bush morphing into a chimp (I saw the reference at the Little Green Footballs blog). Many of us sent emails, and Doug from Upland called them up and spoke with the lab assistant, and within a day the movie was removed from the website. In my opinion this was appropriate, because it was the official website of a department at Harvard. If the professor in charge of the lab had the movie on his personal website (even if it was his personal Harvard website) I would not have been offended, just thought it was stupid and immature.
How do you pick your battles if you fight every private individual who mocks President Bush on a website? If you put up your own website and made fun of John Kerry would you appreciate it if you got hundreds of calls and emails from DU'ers? Personally, I would feel that they are trying to intimidate me for my opinion, and that they don't know how to prioritize. I also would feel that my opinion must be a whole lot more important than I thought.
Besides the lab assistant, I spoke with the secretary of the president of the university and their media relations department. They got right on it. The head of the department called me back and was fairly p*ssed, but it came down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.