34

‘It’s just the beginning’


 

The latest spot from the Conservative side. The Bull Meter has already taken this one apart. Michael Geist, meanwhile, questions the copyright levy the government is already imposing (and has no plans to rescind).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3rkXKbyes&feature=feedu


 

‘It’s just the beginning’

  1. The CPC often has little to offer except unsound speculation.

  2. The CPC often has little to offer except unsound speculation.

    • That's funny considering the LPC has been campaigning against Stephen Harper's Super Scary Hidden Agenda™ since 2003.

  3. Cons are scraping the bottom of the 'tricks' barrel….they've already used this gimmick with 'a tax on everything' in the last election.

    Not true then, not true now.

  4. Cons are scraping the bottom of the 'tricks' barrel….they've already used this gimmick with 'a tax on everything' in the last election.

    Not true then, not true now.

  5. If you have any questions concerning the usage or licensing of Apple trademarks, contact the Trademark department by email at appletm@apple.com or by phone at 408-974-6638.

  6. If you have any questions concerning the usage or licensing of Apple trademarks, contact the Trademark department by email at appletm@apple.com or by phone at 408-974-6638.

    • I'm guessing Apple would also be against the iPod tax.

    • Why yes. Yes he did.

  7. Why yes. Yes he did.

  8. "The Coalition's High-Tax Agenda"?

    Apparently, pegging the corporate tax rate to where is was in 2010 (under Harper's Conservatives, btw) and 10 points lower than it was in 2000 is now considered "high tax".

    When did we all become so f-ing stupid?

  9. "The Coalition's High-Tax Agenda"?

    Apparently, pegging the corporate tax rate to where is was in 2010 (under Harper's Conservatives, btw) and 10 points lower than it was in 2000 is now considered "high tax".

    When did we all become so f-ing stupid?

  10. That's a really good ad.

    And no, the bull meter was wrong on this one.
    It claims to have been bull because
    -the amount of the tax is disputed
    -they changed their policy in December

    The bull-meter is bull on this one. Just because they changed their policy doesn't mean they never wanted it at all, and in fact they only changed their policy to avoid ads like this one. The opposition wanted this tax, so now they own it. Secondly, it doesn't really matter if the tax is $75, $50, or $100. Just because the amount is uncertain does not mean that you cannot use an estimate.

  11. "When did we all become so f-ing stupid?"

    Answer: January 23, 2006.

  12. That's a really good ad.

    And no, the bull meter was wrong on this one.
    It claims to have been bull because
    -the amount of the tax is disputed
    -they changed their policy in December

    The bull-meter is bull on this one. Just because they changed their policy doesn't mean they never wanted it at all, and in fact they only changed their policy to avoid ads like this one. The opposition wanted this tax, so now they own it. Secondly, it doesn't really matter if the tax is $75, $50, or $100. Just because the amount is uncertain does not mean that you cannot use an estimate.

  13. The ad (correctly, but quite discretely) states that the 3 opposition parties "back-ed" (as in past tense) an Ipod tax.
    Yet the graphics state "You'll pay more for [insert device]", which is surely misleading since no one is currently proposing such a tax.

    I mean if this is acceptable, then some one should post some negative ads about the Conservatives proposals for Cap and Trade.

  14. ipodtax.ca? Oh yeah, Apple's not going to sh!t a brick over that one…

  15. ipodtax.ca? Oh yeah, Apple's not going to sh!t a brick over that one…

    • um, no. That's not a trademark violation, because they're actually using the word ipod to describe real live apple ipods. There's nothing illegal about using a trademark the way it's supposed to be used: to identify the product.

      • Tell that to Apple's legal department. They aren't very understanding about unauthorized use of their trademarks.

        This ought to be hilarious.

        • You just used one of their trademarks without authorization. Not only that, you did it using media that is intentionally publicly viewable worldwide.

  16. "no one is currently proposing such a tax"

    So what? Dion said there would be no coalition in the 2008 campaign. Two weeks after the election, there it was. Since the Liberals have had this as a policy as recently as December, there is no reason to believe it won't be resurrected – clearly it's something they favour.

    "Yet the graphics state"

    Yes, "You'll pay more for x" if there is an ipod tax. They're explaining the tax so people know what they're talking about. You've correctly pointed out that the ad is not misleading.

    If the opposition wants to post some negative ads about the Conservatives proposals for Cap and Trade, then I don't see why not, except for the fact that they'd be criticizing themselves at the same time.

  17. "no one is currently proposing such a tax"

    So what? Dion said there would be no coalition in the 2008 campaign. Two weeks after the election, there it was. Since the Liberals have had this as a policy as recently as December, there is no reason to believe it won't be resurrected – clearly it's something they favour.

    "Yet the graphics state"

    Yes, "You'll pay more for x" if there is an ipod tax. They're explaining the tax so people know what they're talking about. You've correctly pointed out that the ad is not misleading.

    If the opposition wants to post some negative ads about the Conservatives proposals for Cap and Trade, then I don't see why not, except for the fact that they'd be criticizing themselves at the same time.

    • Harper said he wouldn't appoint unelected Cabinet ministers, and did days after he was elected. He says he won't slash transfers for health care. Ergo, he will slash transfers to health care. Neat trick, scf. It's useful for all kinds of partisan subterfuge.

      • Yes, but the whole trick of an attack ad is to be credible. The ipod tax is credible because the Liberals really, really did want to impose an ipod tax, and they haven't had their chance to do it yet.

        Soldiers, in our cities.

        If you want to run an attack ad saying Harper will slash health care transfers, go ahead. It won't have much of an impact.

  18. um, no. That's not a trademark violation, because they're actually using the word ipod to describe real live apple ipods. There's nothing illegal about using a trademark the way it's supposed to be used: to identify the product.

  19. That's funny considering the LPC has been campaigning against Stephen Harper's Super Scary Hidden Agenda™ since 2003.

  20. I'm guessing Apple would also be against the iPod tax.

  21. Harper said he wouldn't appoint unelected Cabinet ministers, and did days after he was elected. He says he won't slash transfers for health care. Ergo, he will slash transfers to health care. Neat trick, scf. It's useful for all kinds of partisan subterfuge.

  22. Tell that to Apple's legal department. They aren't very understanding about unauthorized use of their trademarks.

    This ought to be hilarious.

  23. Yes, but the whole trick of an attack ad is to be credible. The ipod tax is credible because the Liberals really, really did want to impose an ipod tax, and they haven't had their chance to do it yet.

    Soldiers, in our cities.

    If you want to run an attack ad saying Harper will slash health care transfers, go ahead. It won't have much of an impact.

  24. You just used one of their trademarks without authorization. Not only that, you did it using media that is intentionally publicly viewable worldwide.

Sign in to comment.