Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Something happenedFollow

#152 Feb 10 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
I've got it!

It's a plot to exploit the democratic electorate, that's how they got Eastwood to go along with it!

Seriously think about it, they used language they knew would appeal to the democrats. It sounds just like an Obama speech, and those Dems love Obama. Now whenever they have those wet Obama dreams, they'll wake up screaming "Chrysler! Chrysler! Chrysler!" They'll go out and buy heaps of 'em.

That when the plot thickens. 5 years down the road the crappy cars will start to fall apart. These Obama fanatics will have to drop heaps of cash just to keep their worthless piles of junk on the road. You know what that means?

Less political donations to the Democratic Party!

It'll be bigger then the time they exploited the government out of all that bailout money. Sheer brilliance I tell you, and not one of them sees it coming. They all think it's an Obama plot.

Sheer!

Brilliance!

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 7:05pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#153 Feb 10 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
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.


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?

Quote:
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


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Feb 10 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.

Why do you keep saying 'most people'? Do you honestly think that?
#155 Feb 10 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
gbaji wrote:
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".
Fucking right Obama will use references to this ad now that you and fellow GOP members have drawn attention to it.
____________________________
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

#156 Feb 10 2012 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're not stupid, are you?

Well, I'm not, no. As evidenced by my not demanding that everyone sees what a big political ad this was.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Feb 10 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Gbaji wrote:
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.


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

#158 Feb 10 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
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?
No, I'm arguing that either (a) you're deliberately going for the absolute most moronic angle that someone else found for you and running with it or (b) you have a severe processing disability. Either or your going into conniption fits over something that most people that exist in reality and outside your (and by "your" I mean Karl Rove's) imagination aren't giving two fucks over is amusing to no end.

Oh, just for kicks, I watched this one. Maybe I'm just super human and can process information much faster than you, but the logos all look fully formed and easy to decipher by the end of the commercial to me.

Edited, Feb 10th 2012 10:29pm 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.
#159 Feb 10 2012 at 9:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Fucking right Obama will use references to this ad now that you and fellow GOP members have drawn attention to it.
Gotta love self-fulfilling prophecies.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#160 Feb 10 2012 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,623 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
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?


Yeah, funny how my sports topic turns into a political flashpoint Smiley: bah.

And gbaji's niche isn't quite the same as varus's...less bile and rancor, more cluelessness. Not saying that varus wasn't clueless, just that the bile and rancor kind of blocked out any actual content he might have had.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#161 Feb 10 2012 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
I think gbaji is just as vile in his worldview as varrus. He just couches his ideas in blander terminology.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#162 Feb 10 2012 at 10:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Like Samira said, the GOP could have taken the ad and easily spun it their way. The fact that they chose to cry about it instead and insist that it's a dem ad just makes them look silly, and ultimately associates positive messages with the Democrats, which isn't really what you want.
____________________________
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
#163 Feb 11 2012 at 12:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Rhetoric is a hell of a drug.
____________________________
"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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#164 Feb 11 2012 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,772 posts
Quote from the Head of Chrysler’s Dealer's Association from today's NY Times Business Section.

Quote:
Mr. Kelleher said his fellow dealers, Republicans and Democrats alike, were so angered by criticism of the ad that he convened an emergency meeting of the dealers’ council this week and, for only the second time in his memory, the council issued a public statement on behalf of Chrysler’s 2,300 dealers. The video “was designed to relate to those still suffering the effects of the recession, that they may be buoyed by our example and they may find the courage to endure through to similar success going forward.” the dealers said. “We have no doubt that this ad had no political agenda of any kind but rather a statement of fact and hope for the future for all of us and America.”


If you haven't read your full 20 quota of NY times Articles, this article is worth read in full.
____________________________
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
#165 Feb 11 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
*****
19,496 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.


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?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#166 Feb 11 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Technically, his argument is that everyone else is so stupid they can't tell a car commercial when they see one. Apparently only the GOP can save not only Clint Eastwood but also the American Super Bowl watching public from their own stupidity as they're all witched by a supposed "car" commercial.

We thank gbaji for coming down from his ivory tower long enough to assist the retarded American public Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Feb 12 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
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
____________________________
"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 crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#168 Feb 12 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I got distracted halfway through when I had to stroke one off to a GoDaddy commercial.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Feb 12 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,623 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I got distracted halfway through when I had to stroke one off to a GoDaddy commercial.

Was it Joan Rivers again? I couldn't look myself in the mirror for a week after that little prank.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#170 Feb 13 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Quote from the Head of Chrysler’s Dealer's Association from today's NY Times Business Section.

Quote:
Mr. Kelleher said his fellow dealers, Republicans and Democrats alike, were so angered by criticism of the ad that he convened an emergency meeting of the dealers’ council this week and, for only the second time in his memory, the council issued a public statement on behalf of Chrysler’s 2,300 dealers. The video “was designed to relate to those still suffering the effects of the recession, that they may be buoyed by our example and they may find the courage to endure through to similar success going forward.” the dealers said. “We have no doubt that this ad had no political agenda of any kind but rather a statement of fact and hope for the future for all of us and America.”


If you haven't read your full 20 quota of NY times Articles, this article is worth read in full.


It's always interesting when people's own words prove exactly the point they're trying to deny:

Quote:
Chrysler executives were incensed by Mr. Rove’s remarks. “The former spokesperson was attacking not only a short video, but the essence of the bailout of Chrysler and G.M. while his former boss, the former president, was saying exactly the opposite,” a Chrysler spokesman, Gualberto Ranieri, pointed out to me.



That's the point. Chrysler feels that the "essence of the bailout" is something to be defended and is something being attacked by those who attack the ad. If the ad wasn't about the bailout, then why associate an attack on the ad as an attack on the bailout (and the political assumptions which surround it as a political agenda)? It's clear that they view this ad as a pro-bailout, pro-stimulus message. So why be offended merely by others pointing this out? Is it really so important for Chrysler to pretend that it's not being partisan here? Why? Why is deception so necessary for liberal policies to be embraced by the public? Why does the left feel like they must cloak what they're doing in half-true language?


Why not just say "We think the bailout was great and we should have more of that kind of thing to help other industries recover"? Why not be honest? That *is* the message of the ad. They just don't want to come out and say it. Why be so coy?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#171 Feb 13 2012 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
Wait wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

WAIT.

SNL still airs? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#172 Feb 13 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
Is it really so important for Chrysler to pretend that it's not being partisan here?
Chrysler Guy wrote:
“The former spokesperson was attacking not only a short video, but the essence of the bailout of Chrysler and G.M. while his former boss, the former president, was saying exactly the opposite,”

Is it really so important for you to make it partisan?

Well actually, given how the election is shaping up, I guess it is. Wow, it must sting being on your side. Anyway, good luck with crying about car commercials.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#173 Feb 13 2012 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Is it really so important for Chrysler to pretend that it's not being partisan here?
Chrysler Guy wrote:
“The former spokesperson was attacking not only a short video, but the essence of the bailout of Chrysler and G.M. while his former boss, the former president, was saying exactly the opposite,”

Is it really so important for you to make it partisan?


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?

Quote:
Well actually, given how the election is shaping up, I guess it is. Wow, it must sting being on your side. Anyway, good luck with crying about car commercials.


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?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#174 Feb 13 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
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.

Why are you so racist?
____________________________
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.

#175 Feb 13 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
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.

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.
Quote:
So can we stop buying this false outrage?

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

Edited, Feb 13th 2012 10:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#176 Feb 14 2012 at 5:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
I had an outrage once. It might be in the garage somewhere.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#177 Feb 14 2012 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
My mother was outraged at me once.

Just once.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#178 Feb 14 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Did you make a car ad that was so obviously a partisan Democratic Big Union political ad?

In related news, Romney just ran an(other) op-ed in a Detroit paper that the administration should have let the domestic auto industry go bankrupt. Going to be embarrassing to lose his "home" state to Santorum.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Feb 14 2012 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,623 posts
Manufacturing is such an old-fashioned, twentieth-century economy. It's all about services now. We're poised to become the barista capital of the world!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#180 Feb 14 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
In related news, Romney just ran an(other) op-ed in a Detroit paper that the administration should have let the domestic auto industry go bankrupt.


So he and Clint Eastwood have a position in common? Just wanted to verify that we're on the same page here.

Quote:
Going to be embarrassing to lose his "home" state to Santorum.


/shrug

I'm sure that's the line everyone's tossing around the liberal water cooler. The reality is that in this election the GOP candidate has to be able to distinguish his positions from those of Obama. I don't think it hurt Romney in the long run to take this position.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Feb 14 2012 at 5:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that in this election the GOP candidate has to be able to distinguish his positions from those of Obama.

That's half of it. The other half is having positions anyone wants to vote for. Right now, Romney can't even get the Republicans in Michigan to vote for him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#182 Feb 14 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that in this election the GOP candidate has to be able to distinguish his positions from those of Obama.

That's half of it. The other half is having positions anyone wants to vote for. Right now, Romney can't even get the Republicans in Michigan to vote for him.


Can't get *any*? Or *some*? Isn't this the norm in a primary contest though? If a single candidate had 100% of the party support, then you wouldn't have a primary. I don't recall you making a big deal about how Obama couldn't get Democrats to vote for him at this stage in the 2008 primary, so why make a big deal out of something that is completely normal this time around?


Seems like you just want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Shocking!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Feb 14 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Can't get *any*? Or *some*?

A majority (or plurality). Maybe you don't understand how elections work.
Quote:
I don't recall you making a big deal about how Obama couldn't get Democrats to vote for him at this stage in the 2008 primary

At this stage in the 2008 Democratic primary, Obama was sweeping seven states and making it mathematically improbable that Clinton could catch up. But good point.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 6:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 Feb 14 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Can't get *any*? Or *some*?

A majority (or plurality). Maybe you don't understand how elections work.


Yes. And I understand that not winning every single primary or caucus isn't a disaster for a candidate. So singling out one state which he may or may not do well in, doesn't really mean much.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't recall you making a big deal about how Obama couldn't get Democrats to vote for him at this stage in the 2008 primary

At this stage in the 2008 Democratic primary, Obama was sweeping seven states and making it mathematically improbable that Clinton could catch up. But good point.


At this stage? Or at this time? The 2008 primary season was pretty compressed relative to this time around. We've had 9 states so far. 4 have gone for Romney, 4 for Santorum, and 1 for Gingrich. Is this unusual? In 2008, the Dems had 6 states prior to super Tuesday. And for an ironic twist two of them had such problems with their rules and whatnot that their delegates weren't allowed to be seated at the convention. Kinda make the issues with the GOP this time around look tame really. But at that point, Obama won 3, Clinton won 2, and one was a tie (for delegates anyway). Pretty similar split, huh?

And on Super Tuesday? Obama won 12, Clinton 10. Yeah. He was so much the clear winner at that point, wasn't he?

My point is that you didn't even mention relative delegates won or states won. You just pointed to one state and somehow insisted that this one mattered (apparently more than anything else). Do we point to any of the 10 states that Obama didn't win that Tuesday in the same manner? How about Florida and Michigan? Do we point out those because Obama failed to win them as well?


Really? I'm just not sure what you think this means. It's like you're just repeating some rhetoric you heard somewhere and not engaging your own brain.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Feb 14 2012 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So singling out one state which he may or may not do well in, doesn't really mean much.

Yeah, there's no difference at all for Romney between Michigan and, say, North Dakota. Not in either a primary election sense nor a general election sense, right? They're just "one state".

Quote:
At this stage? Or at this time?

Honestly, trying to compare the 2008 Democratic cycle to this one is pointless on multiple levels. Different calendar, different means of assigning delegates, the field was down to two right out of the gate, etc, there were massive differences in voter enthusiasm, etc. No one was especially worried that the liberal wing of the party was going to be deeply disappointed with Clinton nor Obama on the basis of who spoke out against Iraq first or whose universal health plan was more universal. Neither candidate had a string of "Anti-Candidates" the ideological wing was desperately trying to field to stop the person no one really wanted.

Fun fact that you'll discount but it was interesting anyway: No other US presidential election in the history of polling had had this many "front-runners" (there's been six so far). The previous record was the GOP primary in 1963 which had four. Spoiler Alert: the GOP lost that one.

Quote:
And for an ironic twist two of them had such problems with their rules and whatnot that their delegates weren't allowed to be seated at the convention. Kinda make the issues with the GOP this time around look tame really.

You're kidding right? Florida and Michigan had the same issues with the national GOP. The only difference was that the GOP only forfeited half their delegations and the Democratic part chose to forfeit all of them. And then they were all allowed to attend anyway once their delegates wouldn't matter just as everyone knew they would be.

For that matter, Florida forfeited half their delegation to the GOP again this year. In both case though, it's nothing remotely comparing the the ridiculously poor job the GOP has done actually running the elections in multiple states this year.

Quote:
It's like you're just repeating some rhetoric you heard somewhere and not engaging your own brain.

I like how anything you're uncomfortable hearing is "rhetoric".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#186 Feb 14 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So singling out one state which he may or may not do well in, doesn't really mean much.

Yeah, there's no difference at all for Romney between Michigan and, say, North Dakota. Not in either a primary election sense nor a general election sense, right? They're just "one state".


You're the one who singled out a state Joph. I'll note that you didn't say that Romney couldn't get the Republicans of New Hampshire, or Florida, or Nevada, or Maine to vote for him. Why is that? Hell. Why mention Michigan at all? I'm still not sure what you thought this meant. So a candidate in a primary wont always win every state. Is that it? Because if that is, then can't we just chuck that on the pile of "true, but meaningless facts" and move on?

Quote:
Quote:
At this stage? Or at this time?

Honestly, trying to compare the 2008 Democratic cycle to this one is pointless on multiple levels.


Exactly, sure. But all I was doing was showing that the winner of the last Dem primary *also* was unable to get people of his own party to vote for him in a number of states.

In case you're confused, the point was to show how meaningless your earlier statement was. Do you understand this yet? Or do I need to go on?


Quote:
You're kidding right? Florida and Michigan had the same issues with the national GOP. The only difference was that the GOP only forfeited half their delegations and the Democratic part chose to forfeit all of them.


That and the GOP came up with a sensible adult decision right off the bat, while the Dems bickered over it like children, and played games after the fact with the delegate count. The GOP went into those states knowing that the penalty for the early primaries were the half vote thing. No one complained. No one made a huge deal out of it. They accepted the reality, adjusted to it, and moved on.

The Dems were a cluster@#%^ though. First they stripped all the delegates. Then some folks campaigned anyway. Some withdrew. Some didn't. It was screwed up top to bottom. Then they had to decide how to seat them and how many after the fact, which of course led to more wrangling and fighting within the party.

You're pretty dramatically downplaying the vast differences between how the two parties handled the states shifting their primary dates forward Joph. It was certainly not the Dems brightest hour at all.

Quote:
In both case though, it's nothing remotely comparing the the ridiculously poor job the GOP has done actually running the elections in multiple states this year.



And I'm sure that's the message you've been told this week. Next week it'll be something else. Like rumors Romney has cancer or something. I'm sure you'll lap that up (whatever it is) just as readily.

Quote:
Quote:
It's like you're just repeating some rhetoric you heard somewhere and not engaging your own brain.

I like how anything you're uncomfortable hearing is "rhetoric".


Nope. Anything that's so obviously media manipulated messaging is though. You honestly don't stop and think about how your media sources all manage to decide to write the same thing at the same time, then magically shift to the exact same opinions on something else next week, and the week after that, etc? It never occurs to you that there just might be some coordination going on there?

Last week it was Santorum surging. The week before that it was about Bain Capital. This week it's GOP election mishandling. What do you suppose it'll be next week? Don't worry. The guys on TV will be sure to tell you what you're supposed to repeat when it's time for you to know.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 7:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#187 Feb 14 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why mention Michigan at all? I'm still not sure what you thought this meant.

Hahahahahaha.... seriously? You're actually in the dark about this?

Quote:
The Dems were a cluster@#%^ though. First they stripped all the delegates. Then some folks campaigned anyway. Some withdrew. Some didn't. It was screwed up top to bottom. Then they had to decide how to seat them and how many after the fact, which of course led to more wrangling and fighting within the party.

There wasn't any real "wrangling". It was well known that FL and MI would seat their delegates once their delegates no longer mattered and the rest of it was kabuki theater. Guess it fooled you though.

Back during the 2008 primaries, I wrote:
MI/FL will be seated. It'll happen after it's certain that their delegates will have zero effect on the actual nomination but they will be seated. I assume some deal will be reached in MI to give Obama some percentage of the delegates.
[...]
And I doubt there's many voters in MI who aren't aware of the delegate situation. Really, it's a nonissue. If the MI delegates never get seated, maybe it'll matter but that won't happen.
[...]
There's less to argue there because the question for FL is simply whether or not to seat the delegates per the FL results. They'll almost certainly be seated.


Gasps, shock and horror! I must have been a wizard!

Quote:
Nope. Anything that's so obviously media manipulated messaging is though.

Good little Palin acolyte Smiley: smile

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 9:37pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#188 Feb 14 2012 at 10:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why mention Michigan at all? I'm still not sure what you thought this meant.

Hahahahahaha.... seriously? You're actually in the dark about this?


Um... Yes. Unless you're stepping like 8 steps ahead of the whole bit about Romney saying that we shouldn't have bailed out the auto industry? That's the only thing I can think that might be related. But then I'm sure you got some gaps filled in by your helpful media sources who made sure you knew exactly what that would mean.

Or are you talking about something else?

Quote:
There wasn't any real "wrangling". It was well known that FL and MI would seat their delegates once their delegates no longer mattered and the rest of it was kabuki theater. Guess it fooled you though.


Except that it was 3 months later when it became apparent that their delegates no longer mattered. And during that time period, there certainly was a lot of fighting about the issue. The fact that the Obama lead in delegates was sufficient by early April to make the delegate differential in FL and MI irrelevant doesn't change the fact that up until that point, it was a problem. Your argument is like saying that it was ok that a ref blew a call early in the game and gave a team a score it shouldn't have because they ended out winning by more than that score differential anyway.


I don't think many people would think that wasn't still a problem.

Quote:
Back during the 2008 primaries, I wrote:
MI/FL will be seated. It'll happen after it's certain that their delegates will have zero effect on the actual nomination but they will be seated. I assume some deal will be reached in MI to give Obama some percentage of the delegates.
[...]
And I doubt there's many voters in MI who aren't aware of the delegate situation. Really, it's a nonissue. If the MI delegates never get seated, maybe it'll matter but that won't happen.
[...]
There's less to argue there because the question for FL is simply whether or not to seat the delegates per the FL results. They'll almost certainly be seated.



Yup. So it means that you were just as invested in minimizing this back then as you are now. Um... You still don't see a problem with that? Seating delegates isn't just about prestige Joph. It's about taking part in the process. So we wont let your votes count if they'll make a difference (ie: matter), but count them if they wont? What kind of a solution is that? Aren't you still basically saying their votes don't matter? And what would they have done if the race ended out being closer than it was? You don't think the lack of a clear solution agreed upon by all parties prior to the primaries in those states might not have been a bit of a problem.


The Dems lucked out is what happened. That's hardly an accomplishment to hang your hat on.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 8:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#189 Feb 15 2012 at 12:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But then I'm sure you got some gaps filled in by your helpful media sources

Man, you are just desperate to hammer that home. Protip: No one here is as proud of willful ignorance as you are nor ashamed that they actually educate themselves about the world.

(1) Romney calls Michigan his "home" state
(2) Romney's father was governor of Michigan
(3) Michigan is exactly the sort of state a GOP candidate needs to show electability in to win in November

Need I go on about why Michigan matters?

Quote:
So it means that you were just as invested in minimizing this back then as you are now. Um... You still don't see a problem with that?

Do I see a problem in me accurately predicting exactly how FL/MI would pan out? No, I can't say I do. I see how it hurt your "argument" though. Maybe you should say "media sources" some more.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Feb 15 2012 at 1:09 AM Rating: Excellent
If I understand gbaji correctly; if 90 sources say one thing and 10 say the opposite...the 90 are all biased?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#191 Feb 15 2012 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji just complains about "the media" for anything he doesn't like hearing. Then he says his counter view doesn't need support because it's just "common sense" or "simple logic".

On the off chance he's right about something (situation changes, people read it wrong) he trumps it up. On the much more common chance that he's shown wrong, he blames "the media" for tricking everyone into doing the wrong thing. "Oh, they only voted for him because the media was predicting they would for months so they were all brainwashed into thinking they had to do it and all the other side was brainwashed into staying home".

Unless, of course, he finds a source from some conservative-leaning source, preferably an opinion column. Then it's "You're all wrong, now granted this is an opinion column from The Heritage Foundation but it agrees with me so it's right and everyone else is wrong."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Feb 15 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
Would you two just jerk/suck each other off and get it over with?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#194 Feb 15 2012 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
I think Gbaji is holding out till their wedding night for full penetration.

Flea will seek consolation with Pigtails, and Almalieque will say, "SEE?".

Edited, Feb 15th 2012 8:28am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#195 Feb 15 2012 at 7:37 AM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think Gbaji is holding out till their wedding night for full penetration.

Flea will seek consolation with Pigtails, and Almalieque will say, "SEE?".


Then they'll all have a nice coed shower and share a bunk?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#196 Feb 15 2012 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
Would you two just jerk/suck each other off and get it over with?

While I must have missed your previous scintillating contributions to the forum, I won't make the same mistake twice and shall wait with bated breath for both entertainment and intellectual stimulation.

Or maybe the above was as good as it's going to get.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#197 Feb 15 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Would you two just jerk/suck each other off and get it over with?

While I must have missed your previous scintillating contributions to the forum, I won't make the same mistake twice and shall wait with bated breath for both entertainment and intellectual stimulation.

Or maybe the above was as good as it's going to get.
You make him want to be a better duck.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#198 Feb 15 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Less brown?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Feb 15 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
Articulateduck?
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#200 Feb 15 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,623 posts
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Would you two just jerk/suck each other off and get it over with?

While I must have missed your previous scintillating contributions to the forum, I won't make the same mistake twice and shall wait with bated breath for both entertainment and intellectual stimulation.

Or maybe the above was as good as it's going to get.

It's still better than your political slapfights with gbaji. I mean, this thread was originally about football, after all.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#201 Feb 15 2012 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:

(1) Romney calls Michigan his "home" state
(2) Romney's father was governor of Michigan
(3) Michigan is exactly the sort of state a GOP candidate needs to show electability in to win in November


If I'd asked you a week ago which state was the most important for Romney to win, would you have listed Michigan? Would you have listed it in the top ten?

Quote:
Need I go on about why Michigan matters?


It matters because this week the folks in your TV told you it matters. Had they not told you, you wouldn't think it matters that much.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT
feelz, JennockFV, RavennofTitan, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (56)