Important news! Joe Lieberman approved this message! A sensible person would assume, since Joe Lieberman delivered the message, his approval was inherent in his willingness to do that. Therefore, he only declared his approval to prove what a beaurocratic slave he is. What's that? I need to say I approve this message? Despite not the slightest bit of evidence suggesting voters have anything other than contempt for the phrase popularized by George Bush and used by every identical unthinking moron up for any election in 2004? Okey dokey, you're the boss, not me! You guys approved this message for me to say, after all."
Not only does he approve, he seems to always approve different messages with the exact same voice sound. He's like a bad mod file. It's almost as if he recorded the line once and didn't actually screen the messages he was approving before declaring approval each time. Almost as if the line is totally garbage and phony! I am here, though, to tell you it is more than almost!
Whenever I hear "I'm me, and I approved this message," all I think is "I hate you, you unoriginal hack. You're exactly the same as every person you're claiming to be better than." Even if I was hearing "I approved this message" for the first time, it would still be indicative of dipitude. Would it ever happen that one of these dipes might not approve a message, and say so during it? "I'm Joe Leebormin, and I do declare the preceding message was all lies and chicanery. I have to wonder why I even paid these people to put it together for me and why I read it aloud before a camera and allowed it to go on television."
The Liebermeister also says he believes a woman's right to choose is important, as do I. I think all humans deserve the opportunity to at least say which cupcake they want if presented with several. What fiend is trying to restrict this?!
He admitted that he knows a lot of people disagreed with his stance about the Iraq war, which came as a surprise to me. I thought I only disagreed with his stance on movie and video-game censorship, but it seems he thought a prolonged bit of battling was a grand notion. Just how many bad ideas has this guy had? I bet, with all that he's doing, he's the one who approved Poetry Club.
All he has going for him, besides the high reelection rate, is that he's less annoying than Ned Lamont, Lieberman's competition for the senate space. Ned's proclomation, in summary: "George Bush is bad. You shouldn't do George Bush, umkay." Ned would have to be fairly annoying to make me dig up a South Park reference I've only in the past heard used by the worst people I hope I ever meet. Ned is also 150% louder than every other ad, and 200% louder than whatever show his ad came on during. He might as well call himself Ned Lamo. He starts by saying he's a democrat. Why let your issues speak for themselves, after all? Since we're in Connecticut, which usually elects democrats, it's safer to not risk informing new voters who potentially know nothing and only copy whatever it is they've been bred to copy. As it almost goes without saying that whatever republican opponent after the same position is a slightly bigger scoundrel, I almost won't say it.
Ned, most importantly, also approved a message, which is good, I guess, because he delivered it. It would have been, as before, a tremendous waste of time to have gone that far and realize he didn't approve his own message. "I'm Ned Lamont, and I just realized I've been reading off a teleprompter for the past forty-six seconds. I do not approve, no sir."
Although Ned is not wearing a business suit in this ad, I can assure you he will be in the event he gets elected for anything.
In addition to being annoying, unoriginal, and a huge dork, Lemony utilizes two of my 300 least favorite advertising methods. I'm sure he's no less good for the job than Liebowitz, but since his ads are harder to ignore, even if less likely to cite dubious statistics, he becomes at this time my primary (but not the voting kind!) foe. The first technique is pretending all advertisements are filmed in one take, regardless of unprofessional errors, and broadcast live. "This commercial? We're still shooting!" Oops! Better cut the feed, clear the set and try again! Dah, we can't! This is airing live despite already having aired live 280 times since mid-May! All we can do is keep filming!
The other method of my displeasure is that of trying to attract followers by implying he already has the most. Regardless of whether he does, the implication is either "these people represent you" or "you envy these people and want to copy them because you saw them on tv." It just so happens the gang of geeks which "interrupt" Ned halfway through the message he might possibly not have approved are all avid supporters. Even though this is the first ad, they only needed to see the first 30 seconds (live, on their television sets, outside Ned's home) to know Ned was the best! When Ned approves his own message, as it would seem he has no choice but to say he does, the others call out "so do we!" And so do you! I don't! You do! Just like this meganerd wearing a Ned Lamont shirt and pinching his own nipples! He represents you!
Arck, pardon that outburst. I think the static saved me. I will try not to do that again.
The second ad of this saga gets much more specific, but it disparages Joe Lieberman instead of George Bush, because that's the other democrat in the primary election. George Bush no longer even matters, except regarding the issues on which he and Joe Lieberman appeared to agree a slight bit. Not until September, at which time whatever democrat failed in the previous time will pretend none of this ever happened and pledge allegiance to the winner. If you ever wonder why these people seem to have no legitimate morals or consistent logical beliefs once appointed to their jobs, stop. The voting has since occurred, and not only did Lieberman fail to win, he actually refused to pledge support. However, he further vowed to remain in the real election as an "independent" candidate, and through this intention plus several laughable sports metaphors he looks now like an ever bigger doofoid.
But for now, for then, we see various scenes of pro-Lieberman objects being replaced with Lamont knickknackery.
"This is you! This is you putting a Ned Lamont car sticker over your Joe Lieberman car sticker! This is you taking the Joe Lieberman sign off your freshly mowed lawn so you can put Ned Lamont's sign there instead! This is you putting on a Ned Lamont shirt over your Joe Lieberman shirt!" First of all, I'd be really hot if I wore two shirts in a temperate northern hemisphere region in June, especially if one is a sweathshirt, and second, I don't own any politician shirts. Or politician car stickers, or politician signs. Generally I want to throw beets at the whoever does. Pins are forgivable. Ehhh, but when persons see a residentially erected sign with just a political candidate's name and no other information on it, they can think several things:
1 Ah, that's the one candidate I hate least. I was already planning to vote for that one.
2 Bah, that's the one I hate. My vote is unchanged.
3 I don't know or care who that is.
4 I would like to vandalize this sign.
5 I can't read.
None of those five things make any difference as far as the campaign is concerned. Stop buying signs!
Now that I've mentioned it, I suppose it's possible that Ned is approving vandalism; what proof have I that the ones removing the objects own them?
Else, this ad says, to me, "hey,
goat, you knew this Lieberman guy was a hump, but since you'll follow and buy promotional rubbish from anyone who claims to be a leader, you needed Ned to come and save you! You, who this might as well be, lacking a head and wearing nondescript clothing! You, Mr. or Mrs. Mr. white 30-40 year old aluminum siding Average Connecticut Voter! " Far from "you trusted Lieberman and he betrayed you," because if I felt that way, why would I have gone to the trouble of putting up his sign at the first scent of insult season to begin with? A second possibility, that I put up the sign in 2000, left it there for six years, and nothing at all happened to it, is first, silly, and second, impossible, since the objects shown all say "joe2006.com" on them. Even if he was so progressive six years ago, I might still, in support, discard the sign, because if he's worth voting for, the URL is bound to have been changed to "joe2012.com" by now, rendering my sign obsolete. I don't understand how it benefits Ned Lamondo to remind people that Joe Lieberman has updated his website.
What I especially hate, regarding the car's sticker issue, is that the old one is scraped off only partially before the new one is put over it. So why bother scraping at all if you don't plan to finish? Someone carrying a scraping apparatus is shown approaching the vehicle, as if this person thought "I'm going to scrape off that sticker, so here I am with my scraping apparatus going to do that, because I know it will be too hard to just use my fingers," and then the bootbrain gives up after less than two seconds of working at it. How the helmuth did someone like that even learn to drive a car? It's not like the old sticker wasn't coming off- it would have been done in less than half a minute. You might say "well obviously there's not adequate ad-time to devote to that" but would you also say, in such a state of matters, that showing the person with the scraping apparatus walking to the car is worth the time? You should have just shown the first sticker, unscraped, being covered by the other, and then used the extra time to show the dog who barks at the Joe Lieberman sign jettisoning bowel material upon it.
Vote Ned! Dogs like his signs!
I acknowledge that advertisers appeal to the least possibly intelligent, philosophically independent, analytical and introspective people, but I want those people to stop being that way! What fiend of fiends would perpetuate nonsense like this?
Cars is the number one movie in the country! Last week 25 million nbc viewers made Deal or no Deal a hit! Taylor Hix is YOUR new American Idol!
STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! ARRRRRRRRGH! I SHOULD... HAVE... KNOOOOOOOWWWN!
Tweet tweets! Squawk squawks! Don't question the electric picture box!