Something happenedFollow

Don't know what video you're watching, but I've got the youtube one linked in this thread open right now. At 1:54 the first logo (RAM) begins fading in. At 1:55, the second logo begins fading in (Dodge). At 1:55 the third logo begins fading in (Jeep), and the first logo gains full brightness/visibility/whatever. Oddly though, the fourth logo (Chrysler) doesn't being fading in until 1:57. The commercial lets the first 3 fade in all the way and *then* brings in the Chrysler logo. Just like the others, it takes a full 2 second to fully appear. The ad then goes fully black at 2:00.

The Chrysler logo is only really visible for that last second and a half. It's dark and hard to see. And again, how many people are going to read the equivalent of fine print at the end of that ad?



I just went frame by frame through the video. Something no one watching on TV would likely do. You're trying to argue that because we can pause and skip ahead frame by frame and clearly read the logos and determine who made the commercial that even a smallish percentage of the people watching this live on TV made note of, much less actually read those logos?


You're really stretching here. Like I said, I only caught the Jeep logo when I first watched it live. I absolutely didn't see Chrysler. Let's not forget that the Chrysler logo itself is probably the least recognizable of the set. And it's at the very end. And that still doesn't change the reality that most people aren't likely to know which brands fall under which company either. So you see a list of four car brands. Do you assume they're all one company? Maybe. Maybe it doesn't matter. You just think a group of car companies did the ad, but probably didn't pay attention to (or care) about which ones.


It was a terribly ineffective ad for the purpose of selling cars. It was an incredibly effective ad for the purpose of selling a political agenda. It ties directly into an existing plank of the Democratic Party.

Fucking right Obama will use references to this ad now that you and fellow GOP members have drawn attention to it.

Is it yours? Nothing you've said so far has refuted my contention that the right should (from their perspective, not mine) take control of the conversation, and crying is not the best way to do that.

They used to be infuriatingly good at this. Since they've apparently set themselves on a contrarian course, they've completely lost the ability to stick out their chins and declare victory on the most tenuous grounds. Rove used to be pretty good at that. Now he's just joined the Grand Old Pity party.

Gotta love self-fulfilling prophecies.

I think gbaji is just as vile in his worldview as varrus. He just couches his ideas in blander terminology.

Rhetoric is a hell of a drug.

Dude, I don't even like cars and I know that Chrysler owns all the other brands. I know you conservatives are ignorant about a lot of things, but American cars too? Really?

The III SNL spoofs of the Superbowl Chrysler Adds were hysterical. They can be found here.

Off topic, The Nick Cage thing during weekend update actually made me lol.

Edited, Feb 12th 2012 9:53am by Omegavegeta

Was it Joan Rivers again? I couldn't look myself in the mirror for a week after that little prank.

Wait wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

WAIT.

SNL still airs?

No. I didn't make it partisan. It already was. Chrysler admitted that its ad was about the bailout. If it wasn't, then why make the point that Rove attacked the Ad, but Bush was praising the bailout at the same time? If the ad really isn't about the bailout, then an attack on the ad wouldn't be about the bailout, and there'd be no reason to compare what Rove said about the ad to what Bush said about the bailout.


It's just an amazing example of doublethink going on here. Everyone clearly *does* associate an attack on that ad in a political manner, but then they turn around and attack the attackers because they're pointing out the political associations in the ad. Um... Doesn't the response prove us right? I guess what I find the most amusing is the absolute certainty that none of the journalists and pundits insisting that it's just plain wrong for conservatives to associate the Detroit recovery with Democrat economic policies with regard to an ad calling for American economic recovery to draw from the model of Detroit will either be silent, or argue the exact opposite position when a Democrat running for office makes the exact same connection.


Why is that? Isn't that dishonest? If those people were really so upset about that sort of connection being made, then we can assume that they will be equally upset any time Obama attempts to use the Detroit recovery as an example of why his policies are better for American economic recovery, right? But we all know that's not going to happen. So can we stop buying this false outrage? The left tried to slip a political ad out in the form of a car ad. They got caught doing it. Can we move on?



Good luck crying about us pointing out your side being so afraid of clearly stating their own positions and agenda that they have to hide them by pretending that it's just a car commercial. I've always seen this pattern in the behavior of the left, but isn't this ridiculous? You'd think that someone who has to help his "side" conceal what they stand for from the rest of the country might just start to question whether what he's doing is really such a great idea. But that's becoming increasingly more common on the left. It's why you have to relabel benefits as "rights", and spending as "tax credits", and tax deductions as "welfare", and now apparently your political ads are really just about selling cars!


Lol. Even you don't really believe that, do you?

Oh, I'm fine with you wasting your energy crying about car commercials. In fact, I'll openly suggest that you continue to do so.

It's hilarious how you type these things and yet they go right over your head.

Edited, Feb 13th 2012 10:11pm by Jophiel