i) Moving this thread was undemocratic and purely served the POV of the moderator.

2) you can't stop corporations advertising without a blanket ban on all paid for political advertising, which would really be a good thing.

3) you can fight back!

azulene wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 10:05am:


for someone who trys to come across as intelligent and educated you can be REALLY DUMB. you confuse ELECTORAL advertising with POLITICAL advertising.  the difference is enormous and you shoudl be capable of understanding it. Your problem remains that you are so bigoted you dont believe anyone has to right to loudly proclaim a viewpoint you dont support. That is undemocratic.

Templar wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 1:15pm:


I knew the smoking campaign would not work for getting people to suddenly support smoking.

Unfortunately, like smoking itself, I believe it had some nasty side effects.

It portrayed the government in a very aggressive, negative, selfish, unaccountable and intrusive way. An obnoxious woman wearing something that appeared to be a Nazi uniform, making harsh demands over someone who "sounded" reasonable.

What percentage or proportion of the advertisement said something about smoking and what proportion said something else? Do you think most people came away from that advert thinking smoking is a good idea? Or were they thinking on some level "God that Gillard woman is real nasty and the government really gets up my ass?". I am lucid aware of how these things are designed and I still fell for it on some level.

Then you come to places like this and some people have subconsciously picked up on the notion of things like "nanny state", and they say things like they are sick of the government interfering with their lives. I am completely unaware of how the government has become any more intrusive in recent times. Maybe I don't see it. Have there been any new laws or any actual changes of this sort lately?

The advertisements are easily dismissed on the lucid rational level but I can assure you they do have an emotional effect on anyone capable of feeling empathy. This is how they can change the way people feel and it gives them access to tipping issues in their favour.

The advertising people have realised that instead of making us buy things we don't need on an individual basis, they can make us unite (by making us all feel the same way) and force the government to do what the corporations want. This is very scary and disturbing. The reason it is going on so easily without people noticing is because we are conditioned to relatively harmless consumerism in this way, pretty much all our lives. Uniting to try to bring down the government for the good of corporations is a terrible abuse of the power of media. Such a thing happening controlled by people outside of our democracy is even more disturbing.

azulene wrote on Aug 19^th, 2011 at 8:14pm:


no it is NOT the law. that refers to ELECTORAL advertising, not political advertising. and your comment on foreign interference is pathetic. you seem to have little understanding of Freedom of Speech and an even poorer understanding of the Law.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 20^th, 2011 at 1:01pm:


he took the GST to an election.  that makes all the difference.