The ad was not pro-Obama, it was pro-America. If the commecial accidentally makes Obama look good, it was because President Obama has been pro-America. People probably wouldn't have even noticed, if the Republicans had not been behaving so anti-America about it.
So, I take it that you won't do any banking with any of the large banks that took federal money. No banking with JpMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial Services, Capital One, American Express, Discover Card, Hartford, etc, etc, etc.
Not to mention the numerous insurance companies, investment companies, and mortgage companies hat you won't be doing any business with.
Such a high horse you sit upon, must make it really hard to do everyday business.
The commercial is there to spur sales in Chrysler cars. It's designed to give people a sense of confidence in America and being an American.
Sloppyjoes claimed it became political the moment federal government bailed out Chrysler. If that's the yard stick to gauge wether it's political then the same can be said about the banking, mortgage, and insurance companies regardless of wether they make a commercial to spur sales and confidence.
No, the banks just decided to start charging the very people whose money they stole (thank you, Bush) and try and charge people $5/month to have a debit card so they can USE the money the bank didn't steal.
Personally, I prefer a commercial.
/Happy Credit Union customer, no bailouts needed because greed isn't a problem here.
sloppy... let me get this right, there were a bunch of right wing attacks about the ad being politically motivated, to the point that the person in the ad, someone known to not be endorsing Obama, by his own words, who also said that the ad had no political motivation, that the intent was something along the lines of - we as a nation need to get our act together. Again, this is coming directly from Clint Eastwood, yet you still went off the rails saying that of course it is obvious what the intent was... its not what the makers of the ad, or the very, very well respected person in the ad, says it was, but it is this other thing. Its this other motivation that you have come up with yourself.
Somehow, I think I'm going to believe them, not you... unless... are you secretly Clint Eastwood?
Fascinating theory, but I just have one question: How do Hollywood or liberals have anything to do with this ad, and why are you against the message of unity and industriousness? Oh, I guess that was two questions.
Sloppy, you can feel it was political motivated even though Clint Eastwood clearly said that wasn't the intent of the ad nor was he endorsing president Obama. That is your right.
We have the right to clearly see that you are nothing more than a tool. That is our right.
Sloppy Joe's take is clearly that anything that inspires confidence in America, American institutions, the US economy, or buying American made products is clearly political -- this year.
When you have a President that he supports illegally funding propaganda under the table that endorses his failed/failing agenda by bribes to media personalities/reporters, well, that's just not political at all.
Look at just about any failed, misguided Bush policy and you will find an underhanded, illegal government-paid, clandestine media propaganda program behind it.
Instead of buying ad tie, they bought, literally, reporters and media pundits, and got them to espouse Bush administration views in exchange for cold, hard cash.
That is illegal in the US, as our country did not want to go down the same road as Nazi Germany having fought it at such great costs 70 years ago.
Well, apparently, some people forget.
Ironic, considering who the Bush family was doing the banking for at the time of World War II.
You would think they would be paying more attention to what their customer was doing in the news.
anomaly100Feb 9, 2012Buried
He didn't make it political, they did.
langfordFeb 9, 2012Buried
The ad was not pro-Obama, it was pro-America. If the commecial accidentally makes Obama look good, it was because President Obama has been pro-America. People probably wouldn't have even noticed, if the Republicans had not been behaving so anti-America about it.
killersquirelFeb 9, 2012Buried
So, I take it that you won't do any banking with any of the large banks that took federal money. No banking with JpMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, PNC Financial Services, Capital One, American Express, Discover Card, Hartford, etc, etc, etc.
Not to mention the numerous insurance companies, investment companies, and mortgage companies hat you won't be doing any business with.
Such a high horse you sit upon, must make it really hard to do everyday business.
bluenose2Feb 9, 2012Buried
Karl Rove chasing his tail again.
killersquirelFeb 9, 2012Buried
The commercial is there to spur sales in Chrysler cars. It's designed to give people a sense of confidence in America and being an American.
Sloppyjoes claimed it became political the moment federal government bailed out Chrysler. If that's the yard stick to gauge wether it's political then the same can be said about the banking, mortgage, and insurance companies regardless of wether they make a commercial to spur sales and confidence.
urdumania1Feb 9, 2012Buried
He didn't make it political, they did.
nmw6Feb 9, 2012Buried
When I saw this commercial I felt proud that america was returning to success. I didn't notice "political undertones"... then Karl Rove came along.
martin92003Feb 10, 2012Buried
Way to go Clint!!! A Republican telling the hard core extremist to get your act together!!!
mlw4428Feb 9, 2012Buried
No, the banks just decided to start charging the very people whose money they stole (thank you, Bush) and try and charge people $5/month to have a debit card so they can USE the money the bank didn't steal.
Personally, I prefer a commercial.
/Happy Credit Union customer, no bailouts needed because greed isn't a problem here.
dividebyoFeb 10, 2012Buried
sloppy... let me get this right, there were a bunch of right wing attacks about the ad being politically motivated, to the point that the person in the ad, someone known to not be endorsing Obama, by his own words, who also said that the ad had no political motivation, that the intent was something along the lines of - we as a nation need to get our act together. Again, this is coming directly from Clint Eastwood, yet you still went off the rails saying that of course it is obvious what the intent was... its not what the makers of the ad, or the very, very well respected person in the ad, says it was, but it is this other thing. Its this other motivation that you have come up with yourself.
Somehow, I think I'm going to believe them, not you... unless... are you secretly Clint Eastwood?
bookantFeb 9, 2012Buried
At least you seem to *realize* that your "explanation" is so laughably simplistic that it's only useful for talking to children.
tomt127Feb 9, 2012Buried
I wish Clint Eastwood would run for president.
"Go ahead Iran, make my day"
The_SovereignFeb 9, 2012Buried
Fascinating theory, but I just have one question: How do Hollywood or liberals have anything to do with this ad, and why are you against the message of unity and industriousness? Oh, I guess that was two questions.
killersquirelFeb 10, 2012Buried
Sloppy, you can feel it was political motivated even though Clint Eastwood clearly said that wasn't the intent of the ad nor was he endorsing president Obama. That is your right.
We have the right to clearly see that you are nothing more than a tool. That is our right.
wjappeFeb 10, 2012Buried
Rove is such a sleazebag.
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012Buried
Sloppy Joe's take is clearly that anything that inspires confidence in America, American institutions, the US economy, or buying American made products is clearly political -- this year.
When you have a President that he supports illegally funding propaganda under the table that endorses his failed/failing agenda by bribes to media personalities/reporters, well, that's just not political at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda#Government_produced_.22news.22_2
Eh?
Clearly, the man has a double standard and he just cannot see it.
freedom74Feb 10, 2012Buried
sarcasm doesnt translate well online...
delphium226Feb 10, 2012Buried
/s
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012Buried
I read your post backwards and for an instant I thought, "See, even Karl Rove thinks it is not political!".
I was so wrong; predictably. LOL
People still dance to his drum?
Bah. (like you mean it, people!)
johnnysoftwareFeb 10, 2012Buried
Bush practically invented the practice in the US at least in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_propaganda#Government_produced_.22news.22_2
Look at just about any failed, misguided Bush policy and you will find an underhanded, illegal government-paid, clandestine media propaganda program behind it.
Instead of buying ad tie, they bought, literally, reporters and media pundits, and got them to espouse Bush administration views in exchange for cold, hard cash.
That is illegal in the US, as our country did not want to go down the same road as Nazi Germany having fought it at such great costs 70 years ago.
Well, apparently, some people forget.
Ironic, considering who the Bush family was doing the banking for at the time of World War II.
You would think they would be paying more attention to what their customer was doing in the news.
Oh, sorry. I mean employer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Union_Banking_Corporation