Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#52 Feb 07 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
"Innocent" should be on that list.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Feb 07 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I liked the Clint Eastwood commercial.


When I saw that my immediate reaction was something like: How the **** did they trick Clint Eastwood into doing a political ad in favor of re-electing Obama under the guise of a Detroit Auto Industry ad? Apparently, I'm not the only person who got that impression from the ad either.

Do you think that anyone who's strays from the 'old-boy' republican party line has just been fooled into their political beliefs?


Huh? Has nothing to do with that. If Clint Eastwood had been approached and asked to do a political ad advocating for a second term for Obama, he'd have said no. He'd have said no. Not because he's a rank and file Republican, or cares about issues like **** marriage (interesting that that's the issue folks lept to), but because he's a small government conservative and Obama is the exact opposite.

Tell him that they want him to do a commercial about a classic American industry getting back on its feet through hard work and effort, and he'll be all over it. Give him a script with a tie in to football (halftime in America) and keep the context as one of America fighting to improve itself, and he'll be ecstatic.

Toss in socialist images (you saw the union workers with their signs, right?) and the right music and cuts in the monologue, and you could have slapped a "Give Obama a second term" text box at the bottom and no one would have questioned whether this was a political ad. The did what the left always does: Twist words and ideas that have strong meaning to many Americans into something that most Americans don't support at all. Eastwood was a victim of that process IMO.

Quote:
Have you ever considered the alternative?


That there are many people who don't agree with Obama, but who aren't rank and file Republicans? Yeah. I've considered that alternative. Have you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 07 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
or cares about issues like **** marriage (interesting that that's the issue folks lept to)

You find it interesting that people would "leap" to an issue Clint Eastwood explicitly cited as a principle reason for him no longer being Republican?

If you think that's "interesting", I envy the sense of childlike wonder that must accompany your every waking moment.

Quote:
Tell him that they want him to do a commercial about a classic American industry getting back on its feet through hard work and effort, and he'll be all over it. Give him a script with a tie in to football (halftime in America) and keep the context as one of America fighting to improve itself, and he'll be ecstatic.
[...]
Eastwood was a victim of that process IMO.

Well, at least you don't pretend to respect other people's ability to think or make their own choices. Of course, Eastwood has since defended the ad and his manager had defended it as well but OBVIOUSLY they don't really mean it because they done been ensorcelled by liberal magicks, right? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 5:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#55 Feb 07 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Mr. Eastwood also categorically denies the Super Bowl commercial has anything to do politically, which goes to show that he's obviously lying about everything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Feb 07 2012 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
or cares about issues like **** marriage (interesting that that's the issue folks lept to)

You find it interesting that people would "leap" to an issue Clint Eastwood explicitly cited as a principle reason for him no longer being Republican?


Except he is still a Republican. It's the issue he most disagrees with other Republicans about. Or, more correctly, he (like me) doesn't believe it's really a Republican issue in the first place.

What's interesting about it is that this one issue is being treated as the defining one for the GOP. If you don't take a particular stance on **** marriage, you aren't a Republican. But that's not true. It's not true for Clint Eastwood. It's not true for me. It's not true for most Republicans. It appears to be true only in the minds of liberals who desperately *want* that to be the defining issue.

Quote:
Quote:
Tell him that they want him to do a commercial about a classic American industry getting back on its feet through hard work and effort, and he'll be all over it. Give him a script with a tie in to football (halftime in America) and keep the context as one of America fighting to improve itself, and he'll be ecstatic.
[...]
Eastwood was a victim of that process IMO.

Well, at least you don't pretend to respect other people's ability to think or make their own choices. Of course, Eastwood has since defended the ad and his manager had defended it as well but OBVIOUSLY they don't really mean it because they done been ensorcelled by liberal magicks, right?



Yes. Because he didn't think it was political. But it clearly is, right? Hence the whole "he was tricked into making a political ad" bit. See, I can quote him too. How about this article?

Quote:
“I’ve always been very liberal when it comes to people thinking for themselves,” said Eastwood, who supports **** marriage, abortion rights and environmental protection. “But I’m a big hawk on cutting the deficit. I was against the stimulus thing too. We shouldn’t be bailing out the banks and car companies. If a CEO can’t figure out how to make his company profitable, then he shouldn’t be the CEO.”


Sound like someone who'd make an ad that pretty blatantly praises the bail out of the Detroit auto industry? Of course not.

Quote:
I’m here to testify that it’s awfully difficult to be disappointed when you meet Eastwood. He has a self-deprecating charm that wears well, even if you’re on the other side of the political spectrum. When I push back at his criticism of the auto company bailout, he flashes one of his trademark Eastwood squints, the kind of squint that has made hundreds of bad guys quake in their boots.

“Look at me,” he said evenly. “I’ve had to make films for less money or go out and find my own money. On ‘Mystic River,’ I had to cut my salary and everyone else’s to get it made. I know the score. If I start to grind out two or three turkeys, I’ll be unemployed, just like anyone else.”



That sound like someone who'd make that commercial (the way it came out)? Nope. Not even close.


Quote:
Whatever happens, he isn’t expecting any handouts. When times are hard, he says, “People are forced to figure things out — it makes you more creative at what you do.” Even though he was talking about Wall Street bailouts, he was also talking about himself. When you’re in Clint Eastwood country, it’s the strong who survive.



This is the spirit he was clearly calling upon when he did that ad. And if you read the script, it fits into that "raise yourself by your bootstraps" mentality. Unfortunately, when the ad was finished, and cut scenes were added, it comes off strongly as a praise of the auto bailouts and a plea to America to support Obama for the "second half" of his presidency. Eastwood could easily have missed that just reading the script, but it's incredibly hard not to see that message when you actually see the finished product.

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 4:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Feb 07 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,753 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
or cares about issues like **** marriage (interesting that that's the issue folks lept to)

You find it interesting that people would "leap" to an issue Clint Eastwood explicitly cited as a principle reason for him no longer being Republican?

If you think that's "interesting", I envy the sense of childlike wonder that must accompany your every waking moment.




Smiley: lol

New keyboard. You owe me it.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#58 Feb 07 2012 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Mr. Eastwood also categorically denies the Super Bowl commercial has anything to do politically, which goes to show that he's obviously lying about everything.


No. It shows that he didn't intend any political aspect to it when he did the ad. But pretty much everyone who watched the ad saw a political message in it, didn't they? So. If Eastwood didn't think it was political, but the result of the ad *was* political, then either he intended the political message and is lying about it *or* he thought it wasn't going to be political, but it turned out to be.


Given his past positions on bail out and Democrat presidents, the first case is extremely unlikely. Which leaves us to him being tricked into doing a political ad. I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time. For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Feb 07 2012 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,753 posts
gbaji wrote:

But pretty much everyone who watched the ad saw a political message in it, didn't they?.


If you interpret "pretty much everyone" as strictly butt-hurt pubbies, then yes. You know, given that several of us pretty much stated that wasn't what we saw.


gbaji wrote:
For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.


For you, jumping to a conclusion that conforms to your agenda is pretty much instantaneous.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#60 Feb 07 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,847 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Mr. Eastwood also categorically denies the Super Bowl commercial has anything to do politically, which goes to show that he's obviously lying about everything.


No. It shows that he didn't intend any political aspect to it when he did the ad. But pretty much everyone who watched the ad saw a political message in it, didn't they? So. If Eastwood didn't think it was political, but the result of the ad *was* political, then either he intended the political message and is lying about it *or* he thought it wasn't going to be political, but it turned out to be.


Given his past positions on bail out and Democrat presidents, the first case is extremely unlikely. Which leaves us to him being tricked into doing a political ad. I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time. For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.


Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#61 Feb 07 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except he is still a Republican.

Well, you obviously know better than the guy who said he's now a social libertarian, not a Republican.

After all, you already know better than the guy who was featured in the ad and continues to say that the ad wasn't political.

Smiley: laugh

Keep talking. Better yet, go talk to Clint Eastwood. Maybe eventually you'll convince Eastwood that you know him better than himself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Feb 07 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time.
You're a very talented parrot. Yes you are. Oh yes you are! You can mimic both the Republicans and me. I do feel honored that you hold me to such high esteem.

It's too bad you're too stupid to actually think for yourself and go for these inane conspiracy theories. You could probably do the world good if you could just figure out how to breath automatically. For instance, for it to be a trick it would require that he had gotten his lines the day of recording, had no insight or interaction with the rest of production, and still had not seen the commercial itself to release his statement about it not being political. See, if you could think for yourself, that scenario would mean that either he did make a political ad, but that he did it voluntarily with no coercion and he just can't stand Republicans anymore, or that it wasn't political at all but gosh darn the Republicans need something to liberalbash with and they had nothing legitimate in their **** I know you'll try to sneak in a third option, but the only other options require most people to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes.
gbaji wrote:
For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.
Must be nice when other people tell you what your conclusions are so you don't have to waste time thinking for yourself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#63 Feb 07 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Kakar wrote:
gbaji wrote:

But pretty much everyone who watched the ad saw a political message in it, didn't they?.


If you interpret "pretty much everyone" as strictly butt-hurt pubbies, then yes.


The liberals weren't butt-hurt about it. They thought it was a great ad. See how that makes it political?

When the White House communications director says "Saving the America Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on", it's pretty clear how he viewed the ad, isn't it?

Quote:
You know, given that several of us pretty much stated that wasn't what we saw.


Didn't see anything political about it? I thought most people disagreed that he was "tricked" into doing it. But you can't really deny that there were political undertones to that ad. Like I said earlier, if the tag line at the end had held text saying "Obama for a second term", would anyone have been surprised? We'd all be talking about how effective a campaign ad it is. Just because it didn't say that, doesn't mean it doesn't carry the same message.


Seriously? Who doesn't think this ad has a political message?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
For me, the conclusion was pretty much instantaneous.


For you, jumping to a conclusion that conforms to your agenda is pretty much instantaneous.


What agenda? Honestly assessing something I see? That ad screamed "Look at how wonderful the Obama stimulus was, let's give him four more years so he can finish what he started". How else can you interpret it? Did you actually watch the **** thing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Feb 07 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Seriously? Who doesn't think this ad has a political message?

Mr. Clint Eastwood. Because the liberals done witched him!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Feb 07 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts

The liberals weren't butt-hurt about it. They thought it was a great ad.


I didn't notice it until the faux outrage machine started whirring. In retrospect, though, I suppose it does underline the massive, runaway success of government intervention into the auto business. We should pull up some posts from back when and see what each of us thought would happen.

I'm sure you were right on the money as always. I know study after study has shown that conservative voters are terrified of everything from brown skinned children to the government getting it's dirty hands on their precious light bulbs, but I have to attest that your fear that progressives were slyly winking at each other when that add ran are wildly off base.

It was a car commercial. Honestly. Now the billion dollar slush fund the auto industry set up to fund Democratic superpacs, THAT'S what we wink about. Sometimes I look over at Nexa and shoot her with my finger when I see a Fiat 500 drive by. You know we love all things European. We even imported a daughter.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 Feb 07 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess sometimes I forget that most people have to have these things spelled out for them one slow plodding step at a time.
You're a very talented parrot.


How can I be parroting, when that was my interpretation of the ad while I was watching it? I didn't go check with some GOP sources to see what they thought. I saw it and when "holy hell? How'd they get Clint Eastwood to do a pro-Obama campaign ad?". Honestly, what did you think when you saw it? Can you honestly say that you didn't think it reflected positively on current economic policies in the context of economic recovery?

Even if you didn't think "this is an ad for the Obama campaign" you had to think it was a positive message about the process of recovery in Detroit, right? I mean, that's what it was about. Now maybe Eastwood isn't familiar with how the Detroit recovery came about. Maybe he was sold a line about how they did it all themselves (why else do the commercial if he's stated publicly in the past he opposed the bail outs?). Who knows. The point is that there's no way to watch that commercial and fail to get that it's about how America can recover from its current economic woes by using Detroit as a model.


If you don't see the political connotations, it's likely because you aren't familiar with how Detroit "recovered" in the first place. But ignorance on your part doesn't change the issue here.

Quote:
For instance, for it to be a trick it would require that he had gotten his lines the day of recording, had no insight or interaction with the rest of production, and still had not seen the commercial itself to release his statement about it not being political.


Um... Which is pretty much how commercials are done. Are you aware how common it is for actors to not realize the content or message of an ad they're in until it airs? Sure. They should insist on seeing the completed product and having executive control over the content. But most either can't do that, or don't have the time to do that. He was probably hired to do the spot. Was told that it was about American can do, and a rallying cry to Americans to get off their butts and work their way out of our current problems. He was probably told all sorts of stuff that appealed to his own personal politics. And even if he saw the result (or a version of it), he would still interpret what he saw within the context of what he had been told it was about.


But when a huge number of people, unbiased by what they think the message is supposed to be, see it and come to the same "OMG, it's a pro-stimulus ad" result, what he thought it was about is kinda irrelevant.

Quote:
See, if you could think for yourself, that scenario would mean that either he did make a political ad, but that he did it voluntarily with no coercion and he just can't stand Republicans anymore, or that it wasn't political at all but gosh darn the Republicans need something to liberalbash with and they had nothing legitimate in their ****

Or... Some clever ad execs figure out a way to make Eastwood think he was doing a pro-workethic piece, while actually doing a pro-stimulus piece. This sort of thing happens all the time. It happens in Hollywood even more often. Want to know how many authors and writers pull their names from Hollywood films because the result, while technically based on their work, presents it in a way that the author doesn't agree with? Lots. Yes, that's a technical term.

Quote:
I know you'll try to sneak in a third option...


Sneak? You mean the option I started with? Way to cover all the bases there!!!


[quote]... but the only other options require most people to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes.


No. It requires that people only be aware of some common patterns out there. How many times on this forum has the whole "OMG! Here's a conservative saying he agrees with us liberals!" been used to support something? Lots (yeah, there's that term again!). It's a common liberal tactic. Make what they're doing seem perfectly normal and acceptable and make anyone who disagrees look like some radical. Getting someone like Eastwood to do this spot is a huge coup for the liberal media. You really don't see that?

If it were some liberal mouthpiece doing the exact same spot, it would have been dismissed as liberal political rhetoric. But you get a staunch conservative like Eastwood to do it? That means that the stimulus really must have bi-partisan support. And Obama must be on the right track. Cause we all know that Eastwood isn't some liberal mouthpiece, right!


You really don't see that? Perhaps you should take off the blinders. What do you think the whole bit Joph dug out about how Eastwood doesn't agree with the GOP on **** marriage was about? It's about trying to argue that the GOP has lost it's way. Even other conservatives think they're wrong about this, that, and the other thing. And look! Here's Eastwood agreeing with the stimulus bill! So they must be wrong about opposition to that too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Feb 07 2012 at 9:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It was a car commercial. Honestly.


This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim. There were no cars in the commercial. No mention of products to buy. No offers. No deals. Unless you read the fine print at the end, you didn't even know what specific brands of products were even involved.

It was an ad for American Economic Recovery. Period. And it used the Detroit auto industry as an example of how that recovery is possible. And then, just in case anyone missed the point, it tells the audience that it's "halftime in America" and implores the people to stand up and do what they can to bring about American economic greatness again.

Can it be more obvious? WTF? What else is at "halftime"? The Obama presidency. He's looking for a second half/term. So highlighting an example of one of his policies as the means to recovery is pretty blatant, isn't it? I know you're not this much of an idiot, Smash. This thing practically beat the audience over the head with "re-elect Obama, so we can continue the recovery" message.

Quote:
Now the billion dollar slush fund the auto industry set up to fund Democratic superpacs, THAT'S what we wink about.


Yeah. What do you think funded the 2 minute commercial? Do you think that any car company would have done that commercial if their objective was simply to increase sales? It's laundering of money from the taxpayers into re-election ads for Obama, disguised (thinly) in a "yay America" message. You know this. I know it. Everyone should know it, who isn't either lying or amazingly obtuse. The difference, is that I'm being honest about knowing it, while you're straight up lying about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Feb 07 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
How can I be parroting, when that was my interpretation of the ad while I was watching it? I didn't go check with some GOP sources to see what they thought.
Well, of course you're going to say that. You don't have any pride in your shilling and go out of your way to try to convince everyone you don't. I mean, there is no doubt you're stupid, but not varusX level of stupid.
gbaji wrote:
But ignorance on your part doesn't change the issue here.
You must be desperate, you're using your entire stock of "grade school level arguments." I use quotation marks here because I've actually heard more varied arguments from first graders. If you can't use facts, use assumptions!
gbaji wrote:
And even if he saw the result (or a version of it), he would still interpret what he saw within the context of what he had been told it was about. [...] But when a huge number of people, unbiased by what they think the message is supposed to be, see it and come to the same "OMG, it's a pro-stimulus ad" result, what he thought it was about is kinda irrelevant.
Ha, that's adorable. So the situation is that the people that made it say you're wrong; the person starring in it says you're wrong, reality pretty firmly calls you intellectually impotent, and you have absolutely zero evidence other than gossip and conspiracy theories, but your conclusion is the correct one. And by "your conclusion," I mean "Karl Rove's conclusion that you're claiming you came to all by your lonesome." On top of all that, you want people to believe you aren't just crying in tune with your party, but you jumped to this conclusion all by your lonesome? Even though 99% of anything you post can be found at least a half a day before you from actual politicians and political analysts? You're making it too easy to highlight the flaws in your thinking processes.
gbaji wrote:
Or... Some clever ad execs figure out a way to make Eastwood think he was doing a pro-workethic piece, while actually doing a pro-stimulus piece
Yeah, that was the "you have to be clinically brain dead for twenty minutes" option I talked about. Funny how that was the option you went with. Your being dumb enough to fall for "there's candy in the van" doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Your brain dead option also requires Clint Eastwood to be so retarded that even after days of recording the commercial that he still doesn't get the conspiracy that you got .0001 seconds after seeing it.
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you should take off the blinders.
Says the guy who jumps to the conclusions he's told to jump to every time a Republican says liberal.

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 10:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Feb 07 2012 at 9:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I didn't go check with some GOP sources to see what they thought. I saw it and when "holy hell? How'd they get Clint Eastwood to do a pro-Obama campaign ad?".

Classic indoctrination.
Quote:
But when a huge number of people, unbiased by what they think the message is supposed to be, see it and come to the same "OMG, it's a pro-stimulus ad" result, what he thought it was about is kinda irrelevant.

So when enough people say "Puff the Magic Dragon" is about smoking weed, it doesn't matter what the writers/performers of the song intended, it HAS to be true because it's just soooo obvious to them?

Heh. Interesting.
Quote:
What do you think the whole bit Joph dug out about how Eastwood doesn't agree with the GOP on **** marriage was about?

It was about me typing in something like "Eastwood republican" into Google and taking one of the first hits in which Eastwood speaks about his political views.

I realize that your argument hinges upon the belief that it was actually some master plan I laid out and that, if you're going to insist that Clint Eastwood doesn't know what his own commercial was about, you'll never accept that I might know better than you why I grabbed that cite. But, hey, you're the one who has to live with the buzzing of crazy-hornets in your head, not me.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 8:09am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Feb 07 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It was a car commercial. Honestly.


This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim. There were no cars in the commercial.

Really?



They show the factory where the cars are being built. In the middle, they show a Ram truck. Toward the end, there's a row of Chryslers coming off the assembly line.

You didn't see the commercial, did you? No, it's not about selling the cars. It's a parallel of how Chrysler and the US are at halftime and making a comeback. That's all.

Also, my husband loved the commercial. Not because he thought it carried a political message, but because he has a man crush on Clint, like a lot of hetero men in this country.
#71 Feb 07 2012 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji was too blinded by Obama-hate to notice... ummm... all the cars and trucks in the ad.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Feb 07 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
You guys are idiots. It's clear as day. Obama is black. Black people steal cars. Therefore there are no cars in the commercial. You're liberals who just think they saw cars. They weren't really there.

Cuz Obama stole them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#73 Feb 07 2012 at 10:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The liberals put cars into the commercials after the fact to trick people who thought there were no cars. Just like how they all tricked Clint Eastwood.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Feb 07 2012 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The liberals put cars into the commercials after the fact to trick people who thought there were no cars. Just like how they all tricked Clint Eastwood.

Who knew poor ole Clint was so stupid?
#75 Feb 07 2012 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, Limbaugh also said Eastwood got scammed. So when you get a couple independent thinkers like that...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Feb 08 2012 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
Screenshot
.

Heh.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#77 Feb 08 2012 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I find it hard to beleive Clint Eastwood wasn't involved in the production of the commercial given he doesn't do a movie anymore unless he's part of the production team.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#78 Feb 08 2012 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,839 posts
gbaji wrote:

Tell him that they want him to do a commercial about a classic American industry getting back on its feet through hard work and effort, and he'll be all over it. Give him a script with a tie in to football (halftime in America) and keep the context as one of America fighting to improve itself, and he'll be ecstatic.

Toss in socialist images (you saw the union workers with their signs, right?) and the right music and cuts in the monologue, and you could have slapped a "Give Obama a second term" text box at the bottom and no one would have questioned whether this was a political ad. The did what the left always does: Twist words and ideas that have strong meaning to many Americans into something that most Americans don't support at all. Eastwood was a victim of that process IMO.


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
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#79 Feb 08 2012 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I find it hard to beleive Clint Eastwood wasn't involved in the production of the commercial given he doesn't do a movie anymore unless he's part of the production team.

The production team used their liberal roofies on him Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Feb 08 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Feb 08 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim.
You can't possibly with a straight face think that anybody here gives you that much credit.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 1:01pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#82 Feb 08 2012 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim.
You can't possibly with a straight face think that anybody here gives you that much credit.


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

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 1:15pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#83 Feb 08 2012 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
He accidentally the whole thing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Feb 08 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It was a car commercial. Honestly.


This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim. There were no cars in the commercial.

Really?



They show the factory where the cars are being built. In the middle, they show a Ram truck. Toward the end, there's a row of Chryslers coming off the assembly line.


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.

Quote:
You didn't see the commercial, did you?


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

Quote:
No, it's not about selling the cars.


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.

Quote:
It's a parallel of how Chrysler and the US are at halftime and making a comeback. That's all.


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?


Quote:
Also, my husband loved the commercial. Not because he thought it carried a political message, but because he has a man crush on Clint, like a lot of hetero men in this country.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Feb 08 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context.
Said like a true conspiracy theorist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Feb 08 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,302 posts

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 bastard. 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.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#87 Feb 08 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you think that's "interesting", I envy the sense of childlike wonder that must accompany your every waking moment.


Have I mentioned lately how I adore your snark?

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

#88 Feb 08 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
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.
You don't really understand advertising do you.
____________________________
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
#89 Feb 08 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Half the time Super Bowl commercials don't even mention what product they're advertising. Maybe not so much this year, but pre-recession it was like a Mad Ave potlatch.

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

#90 Feb 08 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

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.


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?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Feb 08 2012 at 8:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
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.
You don't really understand advertising do you.

Why stop at advertising?
#92 Feb 08 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
You get that this is about party agenda, right?
We get that your ranting is party agenda, yes.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Feb 08 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
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.
You don't really understand advertising do you.


I'm not the one(s) pretending that there was no political message in that commercial.


Seriously. Replace the list of brands at the end of the ad with text saying "Re-elect Obama", and does anyone here think this isn't an effective political ad? Be honest. So does not putting those words there make it less effective? I'd argue it's just as effective, but a lot less obvious.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Feb 08 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
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.
#95 Feb 08 2012 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,223 posts
Nadenu wrote:
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.



Patriotism is political. And when liberals pretend to care about their country, it's hypocrisy and probably gay.

Come on, Nad. You know this stuff. Smiley: oyvey

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

#96 Feb 08 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
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.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Feb 08 2012 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
I'm not going back over this whole thread, but was it mentioned that Chrysler ran the same ad last year, only it was with Eminem?
#98 Feb 08 2012 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
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
____________________________
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
#99 Feb 08 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I'm not going back over this whole thread, but was it mentioned that Chrysler ran the same ad last year, only it was with Eminem?


Well, except that they actually highlighted a specific car (the 200), didn't make a clear correlation between the Detroit auto industry and America as a whole, and this one magically came up with the whole "It's halftime in America" during the election year which will determine if Obama gets a second term.

So yeah, it was the same ad! Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 7:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Feb 08 2012 at 10:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,554 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
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.


Huh? Care to elaborate? And I think you got something backwards there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Feb 08 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh? Care to elaborate?
Yeah, it is the lack of elaboration that is the problem.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Demea, Anonymous Guests (40)