The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[flippyshark]

Yeah, the response from O'Neill is pretty silly - it strikes me as opportunistic, as well. ("Oh look, we can make this issue about US!")

I didn't see the actual ad until just now, though I know the backstory well enough. But by itself, the ad seems to me to accomplish almost nothing. If I didn't know who Focus on the Family was, I would have had no idea what to make of that ad whatsoever. And the tackling gag was unfunny (because it was lame), though I would never have perceived it as in any way promoting or glorifying domestic violence. (yeesh)

[scaeagles]

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.

A non-controversial ad from a very controversial group - end result, something incredibly pointless. I wonder if they thought their money was well spent?

No matter where you're coming from politically, religiously, morally - the Super Bowl is the wrong time to try to get people to re-think their core values. I hope this doesn't become a trend of vague ads from hot-button organizations. Not that I will be watching anyway. I remain blissfully TV-less!

[scaeagles]

I would gather they got their money's worth before the ad even ran with all the publicity it received before hand.

[Strangler Lewis]

If we as a society did not condone violence against men, there would have been no Super Bowl with which to sponsor an ad condoning violence against women.

And don't get me started on the conspiracy of silence regarding violence against Abe Vigoda.

[scaeagles]

That was one of the best two commercials (the Betty White/Abe Vigoda/Snickers one). That and the underwear casual Friday commercial for career builder.com

[Strangler Lewis]

Abe Vigoda: uniting force.

Okay, it's passed.

Speaking of condoning violence against women, will you be endorsing Linda McMahon's run for Senate in Connecticut?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Speaking of condoning violence against women, will you be endorsing Linda McMahon's run for Senate in Connecticut?

I honestly have no idea who she is.

ETA: McMahon of the WWE McMahons? Interesting. I know nothing about her except that now. I would figure at very least she can't be as corrupt as Dodd, so that's a step up.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I know I should be ignoring Sarah Palin entirely...but I can't help it.

I've enjoyed watching her squirm, trying to maintain her conservative credentials while being an activist for the first thing I agree with her on.

Then there's the teabagger speech, where she made fun of Obama for his reliance on teleprompters while A) reading her speech off a piece of paper, B) having been given the soft ball questions for the post speech press conference beforehand to review, and C) even having been given the soft ball questions beforehand to review, still needing to refer to notes written on her hand to answer.

You know, if the end result of Sarah Palin being put on the national stage is that the nutbags that idolize her are siphoned into some impotent independent party of nutjobs, maybe it's a good thing.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You know, if the end result of Sarah Palin being put on the national stage is that the nutbags that idolize her are siphoned into some impotent independent party of nutjobs, maybe it's a good thing.

It would sure be entertaining. (Unless they actually won!)