It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Liberal Attack Ads

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:14 AM
How can I sum them up.....

Grabbing for straws?
Trying to stay afloat?

Not only are the TV spots pathetic, but the web seems to be getting its share.

A 12th ad, stating that Harper would put “soldiers with guns” in Canadian cities, disappeared from the Liberal party website late this afternoon.

The funny thing is that their own ads contradict what they say in their own ads ! Amazing.

One ad that I saw ended with a female voice saying "We are not allowed to make this stuff up"


One of the ads however, suggesting Harper would put military personnel in Canadian cities, was later pulled, with the Liberal Party saying the ad had been circulated in error.

Error? How do you make an error in publishing a planned ad? Maybe it was because it was an outright lie?

Give me a break.

I look forward to seeing the rest of these crappy short films......

So what can you expect from these ads?

The new ads each feature unflattering close-ups of Harper's face, are accompanied by war-like drumming, and end with the newly-minted Liberal campaign slogan, "Choose Your Canada."

A female announcer challenges his credibility in a number of areas. Perhaps the most far-flung of the ads suggests conservative U.S. donors played a key role in Harper's career.

"Who paid for Stephen Harper's rise to the head of the party?" asks the voice. "We don't know. He refuses to reveal his donors. What do you suppose he's hiding? We do know he's very popular with right wingers in the U.S. They have money, maybe they helped him. We just don't know. He just won't say."

The ads also attack Harper's position on Atlantic Canada. One ad quotes Harper as saying "unfortunately many people in Atlantic Canada feel that it's only through government favours there will be economic progress."

Another closely compares Harper to former Ontario premier Mike Harris.

"Like Stephen Harper, Mike Harris had a right wing agenda. Remember the Common Sense Revolution? Remember the environmental neglect, the shattered social programs, the crumbling schools and hospitals, the huge deficits? Yeah, that Common Sense Revolution. Do we really want to go down that road again?"

The ads also:

* Attack Harper's comments to an American think-tank in Montreal when he called the U.S. a light and inspiration to Canadians and the world;
* Claim Harper will either have to raise taxes or run a deficit to pay for his campaign promises;
* Claim Harper and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe have a close relationship that will not benefit national unity;
* Claim that Harper once said Liberal ridings in the west of Canada are either dominated by recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada;
* Report comments Harper made to an American audience, advising them not to feel bad for Canada's unemployed, who receive "generous social assistance and unemployment assistance," and that Canada is content to become a second-tier social country;
* Quote a U.S. newspaper editorial that described Harper as the most pro-U.S. leader in the western

Keep an eye on

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 12-1-2006 by sanctum]

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:19 AM

Look for ad's here:

And going along with my image..... this is what you read if you "click here"

In this election campaign, Mr. Harper has torn a page from President George W. Bush’s campaign strategy of 2000.

He is running on a platform of “conservative choice,” away from his right-wing record on taxes, federalism and rights in an attempt to lay claim to the Canadian centre.

This is what President Bush did in 2000. He ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism,” away from a record of religious radicalism in an attempt to lay claim to the American center.

Is the Liberal party Anti American?

mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 12-1-2006 by sanctum]

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:38 PM
Im surprised nobody else is talking about these ads.

They are brought up in the news quite a bit. Seems like a new one comes out every day.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:45 PM
I dunno, aren't these the same ads we see every election? It was just a matter of time before they broke them out. I can't remember an election where there wasn't attack ads, from both sides.
It's not like the Conservatives are taking the high road or anything. They've got their own ads running.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:13 PM
These ads are getting a lot of negative attention.
It seems to me that the Liberals are trying to stir up the same fear that kept them in power last election.

What I don't get is that “soldiers with guns in Canadian cities' ad. Why make up stuff like that just before the election? Surely this will only drive more voters to the Conservative party.
Then there was Martin's mistake in the French debate the other night. Where he was making accusations to Jack Laton but really the accusations were meant for Harper.

It's like the Liberals are giving votes away intentionally

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:45 PM
I tried to find out more about the soldier with guns in Canadian cities thing, because it would be really stupid to just make something like that up. I think it's based on this statement Harper made:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says major cities across the country should be given a regular army presence by creating territorial defence units to help deal with emergencies in urban areas.

At a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Mr. Harper said such units would be composed of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists if the Tories win the Jan. 23 federal election.

“A large number of our cities have no military presence,” he said after announcing plans to beef up the military's capabilities in the West.

globe and mail

Which actually isn't that bad of an idea. In BC, we have no army at all. We have some navy, but they aren't even on the mainland. But I guess they are navy so they have boats for the crossing....

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:14 PM
What is it that frightens fundamentalists so about liberals? I realize that fear can cloud one’s senses to the point of making it impossible for the scared person to think clearly. Having said that, let’s take a look at the actual definition of a liberal. I will do this in my own words but I will be paraphrasing Bertrand Russell not that most fundamentalists will recognize the name.
Def: a liberal is that individual who has the ability and willingness to actually listen to and give consideration to a point of view whether or not the point is one with which the liberal agrees. The liberal also has the ability to think for themselves and change their mind about something when presented with verifiable evidence contrary to that upon which they originally relied to arrive at their current position.
Now, fundamentalists (many republicans) can degrade this ability, and have done so often, by choosing a derogatory and inaccurate term which gives them comfort when attempting to respond to discomforting positions, such as flip-flopping.
The fact is that true believers, not people with a reputation of thinking for themselves, can call a reasonable attitude anything they wish, the name calling changes nothing.
Question! What is so bad about a mind set that will listen to a point and consider it before deciding? I just can’t find anything wrong with that, republican fears not withstanding.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:43 PM

Are you talking about Canadian Republicans or US Republicans? They're two completely different things.

Canadian Republicans are liberal in the most traditional sense. They want to change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, hence the name Republican.

India seems to be the Canadian Republican's role model for government.

I'm a bad speller.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:22 PM
Basically, I’m talking about our staunch republican party faithful. They seem to have decided that a mind set that allows polite consideration of opposing view points is somehow threatening and therefore bad. I just can’t find anything wrong with that individual who can reason two opposing view points simultaneously.
On Canadians, I find them polite and very good neighjbors. Canada played a very important role in the cold-war 60's supporting NATO.
I be likin me some Canadians, fellow Americans, one and all.

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:54 PM
What I find bad about these liberal attack ads (and yes attack ads are nothing new, and they are done by all parties) is that they are largely based on nothing.

No, Im not making this stuff up. Im not allowed to make this stuff up. ( joking, like the ads say )

Quote from the latest Liberal babble:

Mr. Harper seeks to move us toward a Canada where people are forced to fend for themselves.


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:57 PM
Oh I found a good little bit from

It is their explanation on why every ad is telling the truth. Funny though, they leave out the soldiers one. hah.

Good read.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:14 AM
I never thought any of the political ads were based in anything other than fantasy and word-twisting.

Maybe I've just become too used to being lied to.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:45 AM
It would be nice if the liberals would put quotes of where they found their information in the ads.

You shouldnt have to research to just find out if there is a scrap of evidence behind a claim.

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 01:03 PM
Found this funny little article on liberal ad spoofs.

"Stephen Harper likes to wear black. You know who else liked black? Darth Vader? We're not making this up."

top topics


log in