Video: Absolute moral authority, kids edition
posted at 11:02 am on October 30, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Slowly but surely, they’re working their way towards finding The Perfect Victim. They’re probably doing casting calls right now for black female children with Parkinson’s.
Why do you hate the children? Ask yourself that, then click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I’m more interested in knowing why liberals hate Bush.
DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 11:15 AM
can anyone say: “Children of the corn”?
Graceless on October 30, 2006 at 11:18 AM
It’s on YouTube.
Courage Campain site.
What kind of hate monger doesn’t listen to the kids… Awful.
MT on October 30, 2006 at 11:19 AM
I’m not even going to watch it. I am sick just thinking about it!
Bob's Kid on October 30, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Is it just me, or is there an eerie resemblence between the children is this video and the children in the eight (count’em, 8) Obsession video blogs posted on U-tube? Looks like Fascism has come home to roost — starting with the children.
CyberCipher on October 30, 2006 at 11:24 AM
it isn’t coming up for me, so i guess i’m spared.
i don’t need to be watching ideological pedophilia at work anyway.
jummy on October 30, 2006 at 11:26 AM
okay watched it on youtube. just a bunch of snotfaced child actors reading lines. not that enraging.
jummy on October 30, 2006 at 11:31 AM
SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Next thing you know we’ll have a politican who speaks only in rhymes. Because as we remember in grade school, if it rhymes it’s true.
First the worst, second the best.
I am rubber and you are glue, anything that you say bounces off of me and sticks back to you.
DAMNIT! If they figure this out there will be nothing we can use to defeat their logic!
Keljeck on October 30, 2006 at 11:37 AM
…an entire smarmy, exploitative concept encapsulated in two words. Well done!
Using children for partisan politics…reprehensible….
Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 11:41 AM
For a better effect they could have shown a fade-in to Clinton, holding a child, wiping tear and biting his lip at the end of the ad.
Dems, always caring for the children, if they make it out of the birth canal.
fogw on October 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM
…hey, boss! I got an idea: an unborn child!…
…wha’chu mean “it won’t work”?…don’t they have agents?
Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Paid for the Courage Issues Committee [?] that has to hide behind kids as they lost their courage decades ago.
They are running against Bush? I didn’t know he was running this year. :oP
DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Black lesbians in a wheel chair who were abused as a child.
SouthernGent on October 30, 2006 at 11:47 AM
The sad/funny thing about that commerical with the children (LGF) is that they, the kids, won’t understand what they said for another 10 years.
They will feel cheated and used, molested.
One of their Conservative relatives should duly note the abuse and have lawyers available and at the ready.
ar_basin on October 30, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Nah… they need a Cute Black Female disabled Pre Op transexual with Parkinsons, who lost a loved one in Iraq to freindly fire, with shells built by Halliburton…. and fired from Cheney’s shotgun….
that’ll show em….
Romeo13 on October 30, 2006 at 12:02 PM
One of the LGF commenters called them Moonbrats. Heh. Hadn’t heard that one before.
topmaker on October 30, 2006 at 12:03 PM
Their I Hate Bush message is clear, and they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting hatred amongst children.
DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 12:05 PM
I haven’t gotten a chance to see the video. And yeah, I know all about the democrate use of unassailable victems (Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, etc.) So I’m not trying to be an actus type contrarian here, and as I said in my first sentence, I speak from a slightly ignorant position here.
But what is the difference between this ads victems (young children) and that Daisy/Thermonuculear War ad from the 60s? She was pretty much the perfect victem too. And I believe a lot of us liked that Daisy ad.
EFG on October 30, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Despicable. Would have been more effective with an illegal immigrant child suffering from DDT poisoning. There has got to be a backlash from this ad.
Valiant on October 30, 2006 at 12:35 PM
what a ridiculous commercial
Ironically enough might backfire
Almost all democratic campaigns against republicans here in California have been to paint each republican candidate as a clone of George W Bush. That backfired with Phil Angelides, with Tom McClintock, with Brian Bilbray, etc. This could again; while alot of you outside of the golden state make many well made jokes about my fair home state, most people here do not see W as a blood sucking vampire but many are tired of hearing how every republican is GW and how that automatically makes them bad.
And when you actually read what the heck is in the propositions, many would be inclined to support those propositions
Defector01 on October 30, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Sadly, this garbage works because too many people are fools.
Fatrap on October 30, 2006 at 12:42 PM
btw
Proposition 85 is parental notification for abortion for minors
Proposition 90 limits the govt abuse of eminent domain
Defector01 on October 30, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Remember when The Daily Show used to do Great Moments in Pundrity where they has kids reading transcripts from The O’reilly Factor? Life imitating art?
BohicaTwentyTwo on October 30, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Seems to be that kind of stuff has been talked about before. Like here: “It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.”
ScottG on October 30, 2006 at 1:01 PM
EFG –
I liked the daisy ad, too. So I thought about your comparison in the spirit fair-mindedness, and concluded that they’re apples and oranges. You’ll see what I mean when you get a chance to see the ad.
– partial transcript –
Narator – “What do you think about George Bush’s special interest agenda for California?”
Kid 1 – “I think George Bush should take his oil-loving…”
Kid 2 – “… land-grabbing…”
Kid 3 – “… croney-promoting…”
Kid 4 – “… corporate-coddling…”
Kid 5 – “… war-mongering…”
Kid 6 – “… stem cell-vetoing…”
Kid 7 – “… constitution-bashing…”
Kid 8 – “… privacy-invading…”
Kid 9 – “… ideology out of California!”
[...]
—————————————
Both ads feature kids, but after that the similarity kind of evaporates. But thanks for bringing up daisy anyway. I hadn’t really considered why most kidsploitation ads bother me. What really bothers me isn’t the use of kids at all. It’s the product they’re selling.
Kadnine on October 30, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Yeah, damn that Bush for preventing those 14-yr-old girls from getting their rightful abortions without their parents knowing! It’s against the California way!
Seriously… what? Is the text from the props on the ballot? I assume people will see what the propositions are about and wonder what the hell it has to do with George Bush.
meep on October 30, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Only three letters describe this ad: WTF?
MarkyX on October 30, 2006 at 1:09 PM
I love brainwashing kids! Its fun!
lorien1973 on October 30, 2006 at 1:25 PM
I think I know why they used kids. They realized that no matter which adults they used, the ad was going to be ridiculed as petty and childish. But if children say childish things, they’re supposed to get credit for having the “wisdom of a child”.
How childish.
NellE on October 30, 2006 at 1:26 PM
This ad reminded me of an experience from a year or so ago. A new book had been released bashing President Bush and his cabinet. The cover of the book had pictures of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. (I don’t recall the name or author of the book). I was browsing some books on the adjacent table when this young, 10-12 year old boy walked by, saw Condi’s photo on the cover, and started pounding his finger on her face saying “I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.”
I was a little taken back that he would even know who she was. His mother saw his tantrum, was very embarassed, and said loud enough for anyone around to hear, “Now now, we don’t hate people.” Obviously she had just been outed in public about what goes on in her home. The kid obviously picked up on her vehement feelings about Condi and was parroting them in public. It was funny to see her discomfort at the scene and sad in that the kid was being indocrinated without realizing what was happening.
Mallard T. Drake on October 30, 2006 at 1:31 PM
oh hey!
i promised a “corker is racist” parody on friday.
here it is…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8izXYe0zbM
jummy on October 30, 2006 at 1:34 PM
I wonder how many Bush bashing idiots realize that some liberals are being touted for their conservativism. I wish some of our Republicans would wake up to the fact that liberals now understand, and that is America prefers, and votes for conservatives.
The label Conservative Democrat can be added to the list of Oxymorons.
DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 1:59 PM
DannoJyd
I can agree
I was one
then they chopped that wing off
and now I’m a republican
Defector01 on October 30, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Disposable kids from California…
Reminiscent of Holly Patterson – chic that was Pwned!
ar_basin on October 30, 2006 at 4:14 PM
Why did Hitler hate Jews? You’ll get at least as cogent a response.
LGF shows photos of Palestinian children holding guns under the title PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE (O-T, I’ve emailed Charles about this, in most of those photos they AREN’T real guns, but either toys or Airsoft pellet guns), by the same logic this video, which uses children to do their political dirty work who aren’t able to distinguish whether they are doing and saying things they’d actually agree with, is LIBERAL CHILD ABUSE.
Aside from the completely inane suggestion that two California propositions are Bush’s doing, and relate AT ALL to the charges mouthed by the kids, let’s consider the charges themselves.
Oil-loving. Hmm, yes, Bush is an oil man, so guilty as charged. So what? Oh wait, the real reason we went to Iraq was to steal their oil, I forgot. So, why haven’t we?
Land-grabbing. Where? Oh, you mean the Kelo decision of the Supreme Court? Not something you can beat Bush over the head with, except that he should write a Presidential order vacating it pending appropriate legislation to further limit eminent domain. - This is the ONE comment that has any potential tie to the subject of the ad, and Prop 90 is a stringent limit to the state’s eminent domain authority. Ironic.
Croney-promoting. Not a charge worth answering. Politics is politics. Nobody in history ever promoted their buddies more than Bill and HIllary Clinton.
Corporate-coddling. Ah yes, the socialist clarion. Government’s one proper purpose is to destroy business, thereby making all
comradescitizens equal.War-mongering. Check the facts again. Bush tried for 16 months to get Saddam to be reasonable, tried like crazy to get the U.N. to show some spine, and then followed the vision he established on 20 September 2001.
Stem cell-vetoing. Lies. President Bush has promoted immunological research well beyond what should be done by a president. His only opposition is on principle against government funding of destructive embryonic research which kills babies.
Constitution-bashing. I’ll grant that President Bush has been soft on issues that DO damage the Constitution, which it is his first duty to defend. For example, while signing the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill, he expressed his disagreement, then assured everybody that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Passing the buch can have repercussions. However, using decisions like that to call him constitution-bashing is sad.
Privacy-invading. Can anyone else remember, in the not-so-distant past, when you knew that long distance phone calls would be monitored by the operator? That if you uttered illegal, vulgar, or obscene words over the line you could expect a visit from the FCC? No relevant laws have changed, you have no expectation of privacy in such communications, just as you have no expectation of privacy in emails. International communications with suspected terrorists are and should be subject to governmental monitoring, in violation of NO LAWS.
Freelancer on October 30, 2006 at 5:22 PM
Thanks a million, Kadnine.
EFG on October 30, 2006 at 7:43 PM
Meep, they will see what is on the ballot. Each California election cycle a booklet is sent to each registered voter and every item that is to be voted is generally described. Also, under that general description, a column is provided for a group opposed to the measure to say why. And a column to the right provides space for a group in support of the measure. They allow each side enough space for about 400 words.
It’s a good system and makes it almost impossible for the politicos to dupe the electorate. I know this because I use to live in California, but now in Missouri.
The Missouri State Constitutional Amendment 2, that is on our ballot this cycle is very deceptive. It states boldly in the title that it bans cloning, but in fact does just the opposite within the five pages of small print not shown on the ballot. And on top of that, just to add insult to injury, if approved, it requires Missouri tax payers to pay for it. I wish we had California’s ballot system here.
But that’s the ONLY thing I want from California!
Maxx on October 30, 2006 at 9:51 PM
The Dems Jihadi buddies strap bombs to their children. This is the softer side of using your children for political gain. Just easier clean up.
seejanemom on October 31, 2006 at 5:58 AM
Comment pages: