Something happenedFollow

Wow gbaji, you've gone over the edge on this one. Your argument that the left twists words and arguments (and that they always do this) is based on one premise only - that Eastwood was duped.

Eastwood is a smarter guy than you. Maybe it's you that's been duped.







Edited, Feb 8th 2012 3:44pm by Elinda

The only way to even begin to believe that Eastwood had no knowledge or insight of the production is to insist that he is a no-name C-List actor desperate for work.

He can't possibly with a straight face think that this is proper grammar.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 1:15pm by Eske

I'm sorry. I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context. There were no cars being advertised in the commercial. Therefore, it wasn't a car commercial.



Yes, I did. WTF? I did watch the damn game.



So you agree that it's not a car commercial. Cause to be a car commercial, it would have to actually be trying to sell you a car.



Isn't that exactly what I said it was? And if it's a parallel of Chrysler and the US recovering, and Chrysler's recovery occurred as a result of a big government bailout, then isn't the commercial basically saying that big government bailouts are the way for America to come back? Isn't that what the commercial is advocating we do in the "second half"? I mean, think one step further and you've got it.


What do you think political ads are about? They associate positive things with the candidate (or agenda) you want to promote or negative things with those you want to oppose. Think hard. It's not about selling cars, and it's not even about selling the company. It uses the company's recovery as an example of how America can recover. The ad is about American Recovery. Not cars. And not car companies. It's about how America can/should move forward with recovery.

And the proposed method, while not spelled out in words in the ad itself, is the method used in Detroit. Ergo, the ad is promoting the policies connected with the Democrats agenda for victory in the "second half". People seriously can't see this? Or do people just choose not to? I mean, it's not even that subtle. Imagine the exact same ad with a "Re-elect Obama" text at the end instead of a list of brands. Would anyone not think that it was an effective ad for Obama?




It was a good commercial. Honestly, if you left out the specific mention of Detroit, it would have been a great non-partisan pro-America piece. By tying the proposed path forward to recovery with the path taken in Detroit, it makes it partisan and political. Even if Eastwood thinks it wasn't, it was. And it's what the audience sees that matters in this case.

By tying the proposed path forward to recovery with the path taken in Detroit, it makes it partisan and political. Even if Eastwood thinks it wasn't, it was. And it's what the audience sees that matters in this case.

Partisan? Let me do the math here. Bush in office, government hands Chrysler $4b. Obama in office government hands Chrysler $1.5b.

I guess you're right. The commercial was what, 120 seconds? Let's round the $1.5b to $2b, since I don't want to confuse you too much.

GOP - 80 seconds of ad time.
DEM - 40 seconds of ad time.

I am ******* outraged. Clint was clearly in on it, that fascist GOP *******. Can we move the **** on? Fiat paid for most of the bail out. They thought this would sell cars. The US government has on controlling interest in Chrysler. Every Budweiser ad in the history of the world can be seen in context as a GOP ad. Football, itself, as a paramilitary game of aggression, an be seen as a GOP ad.

If you're ******* insane.

You don't really understand advertising do you.

Let's do different math:

Dems in control of Congress, TARP gets bailouts for car companies inserted in by Dems, opposed by GOP.

Obama takes white house and Dems gain more control of congress, Stimulus bills toss more money at the car companies.


You get that this is about party agenda, right?


If I were to ask this forum which party they associated with helping the auto industry recover and which party they associated with opposing that recovery, is there any question what the answer would be? I mean, there isn't really any confusion on this, is there? Conservatives overwhelmingly were opposed to the auto company bail outs. Liberals were overwhelmingly for them. There really isn't any question then which "side" benefits by this ad then, is there?

We get that your ranting is party agenda, yes.

Honestly no. I never thought it was a political ad. I thought it was a patriotic ad.

You'll tell me I'm wrong, because you know better than me what I'm thinking, so... whatever.

So who wants to be the one to point out that when it's against Democrats, how the audience interprets it is more important than what the actual message and the producers of said message say, but when it's against Republicans its the message and the producers of said message that is most important to focus on?

I mean, the two arguments were barely a day apart.

My new goal is to get Samira to an above 5 karma score average.

There are probably more elegant ways to phrase that.

@Nads, Eminem -> Rap -> Black -> Obama. Jeez. I'm not sure how kenya and islam fit in though.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 9:34pm by Xsarus

Huh? Care to elaborate? And I think you got something backwards there.