Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
We are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Politically-Indoctrinating See 'N Say

An inexpensive way for the Republicans to recover the young vote and get their message out...
(+1, -1)
  [vote for,

Amongst others, the Republican Party in America these days has something of a demographic problem.

I propose they re-purpose the nearly-indestructible and ubiquitous See N Say toy with the party's talking points, which never change anyway. Accuracy is expected to be favorable in comparison to a sampling of conservative media.

In this way, the party can communicate their philosophy en masse without the expense of continuous media coverage (which can get expensive for pensioners and rural southerners), and they can capture the next generation, who will be subliminally-pulled towards familiar phrases by the time they are of voting age.

"Taxes are bad. Booo!"

"Here's what a semi-automatic rifle sounds like..."

"The immigrant says... 'bomb! steal! destroy!'"

"Listen to the elephant..."


"The donkey says 'tax... spend... abort!'"

"Markets save everything..."

RayfordSteele, Nov 28 2012


       Considering the roots of the term 'conservative' and 'liberal,' having a liberal version pine for the 'establishment' seems a little backwards in some fashion.
RayfordSteele, Nov 28 2012

       Concise, certainly.   

       Perhaps it could re-work poetry as well? Feed in   

       "Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

       and get   

       "Bugger off back where you came from. We're full".
8th of 7, Nov 28 2012

       Ah, the old "You'll have freedom of choice, whether you want it or not" paradox ...
8th of 7, Nov 28 2012

       The problem is one of scale, I'm afraid. In any industry where there is a low barrier to entry, free markets do create choice, since if the current participants don't, anyone can enter them in competition.   

       For something large enough or expensive enough like a cell-phone network or Wal-mart's network of stores and volume of orders, the level of initial investment to compete puts it largely out of the hands of potential competitors.   

       The debit card fee issue actually somewhat reflects this, because there are still local alternatives, which gave people somewhere to run to when they needed to.
MechE, Nov 28 2012

       these are regulated monopolies[21], not free markets. You wish you had a free market in wireless, you'd be paying $50 for a phone that works on any network long ago.   

       Markets, like democracy, are merely the best flawed way. Politicians, though, love to get their cut -- like the USF taxes -- originally put in to support wiring telephones in rural areas -- which are literally raping telecom service providers. And it's their interference in markets that largely reduces their effectiveness.   

       Speaking of markets, attended a dinner with about 6 doctors last weekend. Funny how not a single one of them wants their kids to be in medicine. That'll be fun a few years down the road. But we'll be covered, that's the good part.   

       And as to the sentiment -- I would say, let the sequester kick in and stop hyperventilating over the cliff. It was a law that was passed to cut the debt, shared sacrifice and all.   

       Ray, you're going to have a version for "pay their fair share and play by the same rules"? I could definitely use that when I eat something that disagrees with me, rather than stuffing two fingers down my throat
theircompetitor, Nov 28 2012

       //you'd be paying $50 for a phone that works on any network long ago//   

       Why do you think that? Nothing requires any company to allow a phone to access it's network.
MechE, Nov 28 2012

       because there would be competing networks (as there are already) where there's less regulation -- like in WiFi
theircompetitor, Nov 28 2012

       Why do you think that? A cell phone network large enough to cover a significant number of people (and their daily movements) is a massive expense, so very few competitors are going to be able to enter it. If you're talking about a network that covers the country, it gets even worse. There's a reason we have a few massive companies today instead of the many we had a decade or so ago, and it's primarily related to the advantage of already having a massive network.   

       And as far as more networks, that also means that your "any network" phone is going to have to access a very broad radio spectrum, which is going to drive the cost up. Unless you're talking about all of these providers (that are going to appear from nowhere) using the same spectrum and technology, in which case they will be stepping all over each other, and no one will be able to actually hold on to a call.
MechE, Nov 28 2012

       //so-called 'free market' system pushed on us by the 'Conservatives' is even more oppressive than what the government's doing.//. YAWN   

       That's why they had to build the Wall in Germany to keep all the West Germans from escaping from all that free market stuff to the certainty of a sensible government run system free for everyone.   

       BTW, politics don't go over well on the HB guys.
AusCan531, Nov 28 2012

       There's no such thing as a free market when there are too few competitors and too many barriers to entry, as given enough capital the market domineers can essentially buy the opinions of the consumers. Koch industries, for example.
RayfordSteele, Dec 07 2015


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle