Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#127 Feb 10 2012 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
gbaji wrote:
The ad doesn't have to say "support Obama" to be political.
But it does have to say "Buy Chrysler" to be about cars. Good to know.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#128 Feb 10 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
But it never said BUY!!! It only said Chrysler! So it's obviously a political ad created by tricking Clint Eastwood!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#129 Feb 10 2012 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Guys, remember, it's positive and therefor about Obama.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#130 Feb 10 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Guess they don't have company ads in Republiland.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#131 Feb 10 2012 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Guess they don't have company ads in Republiland.


Don't need 'em. Rush and Hannity tell everyone what's acceptable and the homogeneous believers fall in line.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#132 Feb 10 2012 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Ruth Sherman articulated my feelings on the ad perfectly, so I'll just quote her. I'm lazy that way.

Ruth Sherman, who heads a media training firm in Connecticut, said Republicans may have made a misstep by jumping on a spot with an "America is back" message.

"Everyone wants to be on the side of Clint Eastwood," said Sherman. "In fact, the car business is back; the auto industry has rebounded ... and for the time being, things are looking up in Detroit.

"So I do think Axelrod co-opting it was the right move, a very good pivot," she said. And Rove "made a mistake by not seizing on it himself and saying, 'This is exactly what we're saying.' "



Edited, Feb 10th 2012 9:17am by Samira

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 9:18am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#133 Feb 10 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Although clearly I won't do it very well.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#134 Feb 10 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Samira wrote:
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?


No. But one which provides the Detroit Auto Industry as the example of how recovery can be obtained *is*.


I'll ask again: Which candidate do you think will mention (has already in fact) the Detroit auto industry workers as a positive theme during this campaign season? Obama, right? He's already claimed credit for that. So an ad linking that to what America should do going forward, complete with calls to join together to win, and that the second half is starting, is absolutely a positive message for Obama's policies.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Feb 10 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I don't understand why Gbaji is focusing on the lack of a direct mention of the company or a specific car in the advertisement. This is an extremely common technique. You build up a brand and a type of ad and then in the future you can be a lot more vague because people are already familiar. this allows you to build up other themes and pull on people heartstrings etc. This is in no way a surprising ad or anything out of the ordinary.


And the same thing happens in political ads too, right? You build up themes and then you don't have to mention them by name later. Do you see how mentioning recovery in Detroit, blaming failure on "division, discord, and blame", and calls to win in the second half are all tied in to Obama's message?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Feb 10 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#137 Feb 10 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, I know your argument hinges upon the weak assertion that no one could possibly know it was a Chrysler ad but, um, I've yet to see anyone who wasn't aware that it was a Chrysler ad.


Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for. Most people don't know what brands are made by which company (and the brands were only briefly on the screen). Most people wouldn't automatically associate Detroit with Chrysler, just with cars manufacturing. Ask most people which car company makes Dodge, or Buick, or Ram, and odds are you'll get random answers.


The association most people will get is to the auto industry as a whole, not to any one company. And that association, when related to an economic recovery plan leads to government bail outs. Because while most people couldn't tell you which companies make which cars, or even which companies got what money, nearly everyone knows that there was a bail out of the auto industry and would absolutely associate any talk about recovery in Detroit (Motor City, for those who also don't know what Detroit is known for) to liberal economic policies. Period.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#138 Feb 10 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It's amazing how some people deliberately find the absolutely most moronic angle to view, and then pick that one to go with.


Some people. But not me. And not in this case. Want to bet as to whether Obama uses Detroit auto worker recovery in his campaign and argues that this is what America needs more of to recover even more? You don't think people wont associate that with this? Then they wont think "Well, if Clint Eastwood says it's a good idea, then it must be a good idea".


That's why they used him in the **** ad.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Feb 10 2012 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
But not me.
No, of course not. Never you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#140 Feb 10 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
So any message of optimism and hope for economic recovery is to be taken as a re-elect Obama ad?


No. But one which provides the Detroit Auto Industry as the example of how recovery can be obtained *is*.


I'll ask again: Which candidate do you think will mention (has already in fact) the Detroit auto industry workers as a positive theme during this campaign season? Obama, right? He's already claimed credit for that. So an ad linking that to what America should do going forward, complete with calls to join together to win, and that the second half is starting, is absolutely a positive message for Obama's policies.



If it is, then it is on the facts. That's still no reason to lie down and take it. The Republican punditry machine dropped the ball on this one. Lee Atwater would have had 40% of America believing the ad pointed to the virtue of conservatism, as defined by Lee Atwater, by now. All Karl Rove can do is cry foul.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Feb 10 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Samira wrote:

If it is, then it is on the facts. That's still no reason to lie down and take it. The Republican punditry machine dropped the ball on this one. Lee Atwater would have had 40% of America believing the ad pointed to the virtue of conservatism, as defined by Lee Atwater, by now. All Karl Rove can do is cry foul.



No. That's a trap. If conservatives embrace the ad and claim that it supports their goal to help America recover, it will be followed by a stream of well thought out liberal op-eds speaking rationally about how the GOP has already embraced the use of government bail out as the means to American recovery, so why are they opposing <this idea, that idea, the other idea>. That will be followed with labels of conservatives as either hypocrites or that they are actively opposed to American Recovery.


Is this your first time around the merry-go-round? The whole "Find conservatives saying things which appear to support our position" tactic is pretty common on the left. If you can get conservatives to agree (or even just appear to agree) that Recovery is connected to government spending, then any future opposition to such spending can be labeled as conservative opposition to Recovery.

The pundits were absolutely correct to loudly and clearly reject the image of recovery presented in that ad. Doing otherwise would trap them down the line. By doing it loudly, and in fact making the claim that the ad was political (which forces the left to insist equally loudly that it wasn't), the conservatives gain the ability to point out every single time that any liberal uses Detroit recovery in their campaigns or in support of their agenda as proof that the ad was political, and that bailout money was used in a corrupt manner to aid their own reelections, agenda, etc.


Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink? The louder we make this connection *now*, the easier it is to point back to it later if/when Dems use language which ties into the language in this ad. That's how politics is done.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 5:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Feb 10 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for.

During the ad or after?

Because it wouldn't be the first ad that waited until the end to reveal a brand. It wouldn't be the 500,000th.
Quote:
Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink?

Heh. I don't think anyone has doubts on that one.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 8:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Feb 10 2012 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not "no one". But you're being silly if you thought more than a small percentage of those who watched the ad could have said at that moment what company it was for.

During the ad or after?


After, but before hearing buzz about "The Chrysler ad". The only reveal was the list of brands at the end of the ad. That was relatively brief, and most people couldn't tell you if "Jeep" is a Chrysler, GM, or Ford brand (and that was the most recognizable of the brands that I remember seeing). I'm sure if you watched it and really paid attention, perhaps pausing it to read all the brands, and then spent some time thinking about which car manufacturer those brands are associated with, you'd realize they were all Chrysler, but most people aren't going to do that and aren't going to care anyway.

Quote:
Because it wouldn't be the first ad that waited until the end to reveal a brand. It wouldn't be the 500,000th.


But Chrysler wasn't revealed at any point. ****. For all most viewers thought, it wasn't from any single car company, but was a conglomeration of car brands joining together to spend the high cost of a 2 minute superbowl ad on a "let's rebuild america" bit. It's not like that's never been done either. Um... Doubly so in a... wait for it... political ad. most of those have a list of the people who paid for the ad at the end (required to by law IIRC). So by providing that list of brands, they also covered the legal requirements of a political ad nicely, didn't they?


Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad". They thought more that it was a great political or psa type ad spot, and isn't it great that a list of car brands at the very end spent the money to do something that wasn't about trying to sell cars.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Feb 10 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad".
Sure, while the commercial was first airing they were thinking "What the fuck is this?" which after the end where the company name was shown (which showed for the standard 2 to 3 seconds, by the way. Not "brief" compared to any other commercial) they thought "Eh, when's the game coming back on?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Feb 10 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Why the **** do you think I'm raising such a stink?

Heh. I don't think anyone has doubts on that one.


So that every time Obama or any Dem or their liberal pundits take credit for the Detroit auto workers recovery and/or attempt to argue that this is how America should recover, I can point it out to you and say "I told you so". I'm sure it wont faze you at all, but others might just read it and realize that I was right to point this out back then.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 Feb 10 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
After, but before hearing buzz about "The Chrysler ad".

Well, sleep snug with that assumption I guess.
Quote:
But Chrysler wasn't revealed at any point

Aside from the word "Chrysler" at the end?

Maybe you should watch the ad every time you're getting ready to respond. This is the third time now you've made a stone-stupid comment about the content of the ad which was easily disproven.
Quote:
So that every time Obama or any Dem or their liberal pundits take credit for the Detroit auto workers recovery and/or attempt to argue that this is how America should recover, I can point it out to you and say "I told you so".

Well, you can do whatever you want. If you think Obama & Co weren't taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now, you... well, I guess that'd be pretty standard ignorance for you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 Feb 10 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
This looks like a Pro-Obama movie about how his administration took down Bin Laden to me.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#148 Feb 10 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most people watching that ad likely didn't think "That was a great Chrysler ad".
Sure, while the commercial was first airing they were thinking "What the fuck is this?" which after the end where the company name was shown (which showed for the standard 2 to 3 seconds, by the way. Not "brief" compared to any other commercial) they thought "Eh, when's the game coming back on?"


A list of brand logos popped up one after another in the last few seconds. I didn't catch anymore than Jeep in my original viewing. Watching it again and pausing it, I could see that it was Ram, Dodge, Jeep, and Chrysler (with Chrysler being last and only visible on the screen for about half a second). I'll point out again that most people couldn't tell you that all four are parts of the Chrysler company (except Chrysler itself of course). You see a list of brands and see a list of car company brands. Do you really think anyone read them and thought "those are all owned by Chrysler, so this was an ad for Chrysler cars"?


Really? Most people didn't associate that commercial with cars, or any specific car company. They associated it with jobs. Go watch it again. While there are cars in it, most of the images are of people, factories, buildings, flags, etc. It's not about cars. It's not about Chrysler.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Feb 10 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, you can do whatever you want. If you think Obama & Co weren't taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now, you... well, I guess that'd be pretty standard ignorance for you.


Um... kinda the point though, isn't it? If Obama and Co have been taking credit for the auto recovery for some time now (which is true), then isn't an ad touting that very auto recovery and then saying that's what America needs to do, and then ending with "our second half is about to begin" pretty obviously a political ad in support of Obama? You're not stupid, are you?


Is this really to complicated for you? Or you're just lying because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious truth? Politician campaigns on X. Ad talks about X and says that this is what America should do. Ad is obviously political. I mean, if it had mentioned in general the need for America to work towards recovery, you'd have a point. but when it says "Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us." is there any doubt that the point of this is to say "Obama is right"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Feb 10 2012 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
gbaji wrote:
I didn't catch anymore than Jeep in my original viewing.
Okay, commercial is 2:01 long. The brand logos start showing at 1:54, end at 1:57, and stay up for an additional four seconds. I'll correct myself on my previous mistake, and point out that in that entire seven seconds (instead of two or three) you couldn't follow it? You might want to get that checked out, sounds like you're having problems processing information. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Feb 10 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
So, for once it wasn't a political partisan thread. I should have known better, but I was actually quite startled at how quickly, and thereafter how drawn-out, it derailed into a political thread. Smiley: glare

Also: has gbaji now taken over varus's ecological forum niche?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)