[TheRealVille]

Let's hear yours. My three favorites are the Doritos, M&M and Skechers. I also liked the "sling baby" Doritos, but "mans best friend" was my favorite of the two.


[YOUTUBE="Doritos"]STb6ZSo5CPw[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="M & M"]q33drZUXSzY[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE="Skechers"]tAJrm_N1P1A[/YOUTUBE]

[nky]

[YOUTUBE="vEM9dodyABo"][/YOUTUBE]

Clint Eastwood Chrysler Commercial - It's Halftime in America

Pep talk for America:Sad04:

Although I was waiting for it to take a political turn that it never did

[nky]

[YOUTUBE="Clint Eastwood"]vEM9dodyABo[/YOUTUBE]

[Bear Nut]

Clint Eastwood Chrysler Commercial - It's Halftime in America
Pep talk for America
Dodge Truck......Mayan end of time.

[Stardust]

1. Clint Eastwood
2. Baby Heisting Doritio's
3. Naked M&M

[judgementday]

Man's best friend and Baby stealing Dorittos was my favorite.

[Hoot Gibson]

[YOUTUBE="vEM9dodyABo"][/YOUTUBE]

Clint Eastwood Chrysler Commercial - It's Halftime in America

Pep talk for America:Sad04:

Although I was waiting for it to take a political turn that it never did

I took it at as political payback from corporate welfare recipient Chrysler to the Chief Wealth Spreader Obama. Think of "Halftime" as a metaphor for first term. The Chrysler bailout cost American taxpayers $1.3 billion. The ad was the least the company could do for the failing presidency of a friend.

The Chrysler political ad was a very expensive one but as an ad to make people believe that the economy is just fine and will only get better in the "second half," it was very well done. Subtle and effective, albeit extremely misleading.

[TheRealVille]

I took it at as political payback from corporate welfare recipient Chrysler to the Chief Wealth Spreader Obama. Think of "Halftime" as a metaphor for first term. The Chrysler bailout cost American taxpayers $1.3 billion. The ad was the least the company could do for the failing presidency of a friend.

The Chrysler political ad was a very expensive one but as an ad to make people believe that the economy is just fine and will only get better in the "second half," it was very well done. Subtle and effective, albeit extremely misleading.

With an approval rating of 46- 50%, and polls saying that he would beat Romney if the election held today, failing might not be the best word to use.



Even in non political sections, you can't help but bring politics in huh?

[Hoot Gibson]

With an approval rating of 46- 50%, and polls saying that he would beat Romney if the election held today, failing might not be the best word to use.



Even in non political sections, you can't help but bring politics in huh?

If I saw the Chrysler ad as having a subtle political message, then why should it matter to a non-Obama supporter such as yourself? I will post where, when, and what I want as long as I am a member in good standing.

[nky]

If I saw the Chrysler ad as having a subtle political message, then why should it matter to a non-Obama supporter such as yourself? I will post where, when, and what I want as long as I am a member in good standing.

I did to. I was waiting for them to be a little more blanted and thank the American peopole for the bail out

[Mr. Pike Central]

I enjoyed the M&M one & the Samsung commericial that featured The Darkness.

Pretty epic.

[TheRealVille]

To be able to hire one of the sexiest women alive, I give that nod to Teleflora. :Clap:

[YOUTUBE="Teleflora"]uWrJgFjxlS0[/YOUTUBE]

[Panther Thunder]

M&M's by faaaaaar.

[Spud6]

M&M for me

[RunItUpTheGut]

The Clint Eastwood and M&M's commercial take the cake for me.

Clint Eastwood has the best voice of all time.
I dont know anyone who didnt get goose bumps listening to that.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Clint Eastwoods commercial did not have anything to do with the political aspects of this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-spe...34634.html

LOS ANGELES, Feb 6 (TheWrap.com) - Clint Eastwood is setting the record straight about his improbably controversial Chrysler ad that aired on Sunday's Super Bowl.

The "Gran Torino" director went on the defensive Monday, dismissing suggestions that the ad is a partisan love letter to President Obama.

Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Eastwood asserted, "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it."

Eastwood, who served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, in the 1980s, added that he is "not supporting any politician at this time" but noted that, if Obama or any other politician "want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

In the ad -- dubbed "Halftime in America" -- Eastwood extols the resiliency of the American spirit -- as exemplified by the auto industry's efforts to bounce back from its financial woes.

"This country can't be knocked out with one punch, we get right back up again," Eastwood growls in the ad.

This was somehow interpreted by some -- notably among them, former Bush administration senior adviser Karl Rove -- as a show of support for President Barack Obama and the auto-industry bailout.

Declaring himself "offended" by the ad during a Fox News segment, Rove opined that the ad was "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics."

"I was, frankly, offended by it," Rove said. "I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

Rove also suggested that Chrysler, et al, "feel the need to do something to repay their political patrons."

Eastwood's manager, Leonard Hirshan, was also dismissive of Rove and company's claim, telling New York magazine, "He rewrote it to make it suit his needs ... People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America, 'Get yourselves together - all of you - and make this a second half.' It's not a political thing."


I did like how liberals tried to make it seem that way....

[TheRealVille]

Clint Eastwoods commercial did not have anything to do with the political aspects of this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-spe...34634.html

LOS ANGELES, Feb 6 (TheWrap.com) - Clint Eastwood is setting the record straight about his improbably controversial Chrysler ad that aired on Sunday's Super Bowl.

The "Gran Torino" director went on the defensive Monday, dismissing suggestions that the ad is a partisan love letter to President Obama.

Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Eastwood asserted, "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it."

Eastwood, who served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, in the 1980s, added that he is "not supporting any politician at this time" but noted that, if Obama or any other politician "want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

In the ad -- dubbed "Halftime in America" -- Eastwood extols the resiliency of the American spirit -- as exemplified by the auto industry's efforts to bounce back from its financial woes.

"This country can't be knocked out with one punch, we get right back up again," Eastwood growls in the ad.

This was somehow interpreted by some -- notably among them, former Bush administration senior adviser Karl Rove -- as a show of support for President Barack Obama and the auto-industry bailout.

Declaring himself "offended" by the ad during a Fox News segment, Rove opined that the ad was "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics."

"I was, frankly, offended by it," Rove said. "I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

Rove also suggested that Chrysler, et al, "feel the need to do something to repay their political patrons."

Eastwood's manager, Leonard Hirshan, was also dismissive of Rove and company's claim, telling New York magazine, "He rewrote it to make it suit his needs ... People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America, 'Get yourselves together - all of you - and make this a second half.' It's not a political thing."


I did like how liberals tried to make it seem that way....

No, it was republicans that tried to make it a political ad. For example, just look at Karl Rove and our own little BGR here.

[Hoot Gibson]

Clint Eastwoods commercial did not have anything to do with the political aspects of this country.

http://news.yahoo.com/clint-eastwood-spe...34634.html

LOS ANGELES, Feb 6 (TheWrap.com) - Clint Eastwood is setting the record straight about his improbably controversial Chrysler ad that aired on Sunday's Super Bowl.

The "Gran Torino" director went on the defensive Monday, dismissing suggestions that the ad is a partisan love letter to President Obama.

Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," Eastwood asserted, "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it."

Eastwood, who served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, in the 1980s, added that he is "not supporting any politician at this time" but noted that, if Obama or any other politician "want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it."

In the ad -- dubbed "Halftime in America" -- Eastwood extols the resiliency of the American spirit -- as exemplified by the auto industry's efforts to bounce back from its financial woes.

"This country can't be knocked out with one punch, we get right back up again," Eastwood growls in the ad.

This was somehow interpreted by some -- notably among them, former Bush administration senior adviser Karl Rove -- as a show of support for President Barack Obama and the auto-industry bailout.

Declaring himself "offended" by the ad during a Fox News segment, Rove opined that the ad was "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics."

"I was, frankly, offended by it," Rove said. "I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best-wishes of the management which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back."

Rove also suggested that Chrysler, et al, "feel the need to do something to repay their political patrons."

Eastwood's manager, Leonard Hirshan, was also dismissive of Rove and company's claim, telling New York magazine, "He rewrote it to make it suit his needs ... People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America, 'Get yourselves together - all of you - and make this a second half.' It's not a political thing."


I did like how liberals tried to make it seem that way....

I am a big Clint Eastwood fan but IMO, he was the voice of a subtle Obama campaign ad, which was paid for by an Italian company using our own tax dollars. Chrysler is no longer an American company because the Obama administration insisted that Chrysler accept Fiat's offer to buy a controlling interest in the company. Members of Obama's inner circle enthusiastically approved of the ad, and I think that they have good reasons to do so.

[Bob Seger]

I am a big Clint Eastwood fan but IMO, he was the voice of a subtle Obama campaign ad, which was paid for by an Italian company using our own tax dollars. Chrysler is no longer an American company because the Obama administration insisted that Chrysler accept Fiat's offer to buy a controlling interest in the company. Members of Obama's inner circle enthusiastically approved of the ad, and I think that they have good reasons to do so.

That was the first thought that came to my mind when I saw the ad.

[TheRealVille]

I am a big Clint Eastwood fan but IMO, he was the voice of a subtle Obama campaign ad, which was paid for by an Italian company using our own tax dollars. Chrysler is no longer an American company because the Obama administration insisted that Chrysler accept Fiat's offer to buy a controlling interest in the company. Members of Obama's inner circle enthusiastically approved of the ad, and I think that they have good reasons to do so.

Chrysler Group LLC's U.S. dealers swung into action on Wednesday to rebut complaints that the auto maker's emotional Super Bowl ad provided support to President Obama's re-election campaign.

"We have no doubt that this ad had no political agenda of any kind but rather [was] a statement of fact and hope for the future for all of us and America," the company's National Dealer Council said following an emergency meeting.

The single airing of the auto maker's "Halftime in America" two-minute commercial on Sunday during the Super Bowl sparked debate from living rooms to dealerships across the country. The controversy boosted viewership with more than five million people viewing the ad on YouTube.

Oliver Francois, Chrysler's chief marketing officer and architect of the ad, said he finds the controversy perplexing. "It was designed to deliver emotions and I don't think emotions have a party. There was zero political message. It was meant more of a rally cry to get together and what makes us strong is our collective power and not our individual disagreements."

At issue is whether the ad's intent was to sell cars or to help President Barack Obama in this fall's presidential campaign. His administration provided bailout funding and ushered Chrysler and rival General Motors Co. through a quick bankruptcy protection process in 2009.

"To say it was a political favor is bull hockey," said Valdosta, Ga., dealer Cass Burch, who owns two Chrysler stores. "That comment makes me want to fistfight somebody. Here I was overwhelmed with emotion and pride…It is bush league for them to take something that is so heroic and so patriotic about our company and to make it political."

In the spot actor Clint Eastwood intones: "Seems that we've have lost our hearts at times. The fog of division, discord and blame, made it hard to see what lies ahead but after those trials we all rallied around what was right and acted as one. Because that is what we do. We find a way through tough times and if we can't find a way then we'll make one. All that matters now is what's ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together and how do we win?"

The following day, the advertisement became fodder for talk shows after Republican commentator Karl Rove told Fox News he was offended by the commercial. He described it as "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics and the President of the United States and his political minions are in essence using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."

David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager and Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communication director, praised the spot in tweets they posted to Twitter. Their reaction fueled complaints the ad touts the Detroit bailout ahead of the fall presidential election. The White House has said it wasn't involved in the ad.

So far, the firestorm has had little effect on the Chrysler brand or on its sales, according to dealers and research companies that track consumer sentiment by monitoring social media websites, blogs, news websites and message boards.

Zeta Interactive, a New York-based marketing firm that mines 200 million different blogs and social media sites, said the buzz around Chrysler's ad has been 83% positive. Collective Intellect, a tracking firm in Boulder, Colorado, said its research shows that since the spot aired, consumers' affinity and favor of the Chrysler brand has increased.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...lenews_wsj

[Hoot Gibson]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...lenews_wsj

For somebody who objected to me voicing my opinion that the Chrysler ad was a thinly veiled Obama campaign ad, you are certainly working hard to keep the issue alive. If you were the company whose Obama-supporting creative staff produced this ad, would you admit that it contained political overtones?

If you were a Italian automotive manufacturer trying to appeal to American auto buyers, would you admit that it was a great big thank you to Obama for sticking taxpayers with a $1.2 billion bill and pressuring Chrysler owners into selling the company to Fiat for a bargain basement price? I don't think so. There is a good reason why two of Obama's top political operatives were tweeting their approval of the ad Sunday night.

If you want to continue to post denials by the producers of the ad that it contained any political content, go right ahead - but you will not change the minds of those of us who immediately recognized it for what it was.

[TheRealVille]

For somebody who objected to me voicing my opinion that the Chrysler ad was a thinly veiled Obama campaign ad, you are certainly working hard to keep the issue alive. If you were the company whose Obama-supporting creative staff produced this ad, would you admit that it contained political overtones?

If you were a Italian automotive manufacturer trying to appeal to American auto buyers, would you admit that it was a great big thank you to Obama for sticking taxpayers with a $1.2 billion bill and pressuring Chrysler owners into selling the company to Fiat for a bargain basement price? I don't think so. There is a good reason why two of Obama's top political operatives were tweeting their approval of the ad Sunday night.

If you want to continue to post denials by the producers of the ad that it contained any political content, go right ahead - but you will not change the minds of those of us who immediately recognized it for what it was.

Bush started the auto bailouts, and said he would do it again. Chrysler has paid back their loan, it hasn't cost the taxpayers one dime.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush defended the emergency bailout funds his administration provided to General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC in a speech to car dealers, saying he would "do it again."

"I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment," Bush said Monday in the closing speech at National Automobile Dealers Association convention in Las Vegas, according to Bloomberg. "I didn't want to gamble. I didn't want history to look back and say, 'Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.' And so I said, 'No depression.'"

Bush's remarks come at a time when political debate is heating up over the loans provided by the administrations of Bush and President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2009. Obama has touted the bailouts as a success as the U.S. auto industry continues a dramatic recovery. But Republican presidential candidates, most notably front-runner Mitt Romney, have been steadfast in their criticism of the government's decision to wade into the private sector.
Late in 2008, the Bush administration signed off on emergency loans to GM and Chrysler. The bailout eventually totaled $17.4 billion. Upon taking office, the Obama administration enacted what amounted to be an $85 billion bailout.

According to The Detroit Free Press, Bush told about 22,000 dealers at the conference that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged him to take action late in his presidency to avoid the serious repercussions that could have come quickly. Bush wanted to stick to the free-market philosophies he championed.

"But sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy," Bush said, according to the paper. "I would make the same decision again."

<----snip----->

Meanwhile, Bush is not wavering on his stance nearly four years ago. He defended the bailouts using the same rationale when he explained it in his 2010 memoir, "Decision Points.""Nobody was more frustrated than I was," he wrote in the memoir. "It was frustrating to have the automakers' rescue be my last major economic decision. But with the market not yet functioning, I had to safeguard American workers and families from a widespread collapse."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/294659/2...ercial.htm

[Ballers]

Cant believe you all love the Clint Eastwood crap - ITS SO FAKE!

[Ballers]

When the Clint Eastwood commercial came on - I changed the channel..
Just like I did when Madonna performed.

[TheRealVille]

For somebody who objected to me voicing my opinion that the Chrysler ad was a thinly veiled Obama campaign ad, you are certainly working hard to keep the issue alive. If you were the company whose Obama-supporting creative staff produced this ad, would you admit that it contained political overtones?

If you were a Italian automotive manufacturer trying to appeal to American auto buyers, would you admit that it was a great big thank you to Obama for sticking taxpayers with a $1.2 billion bill and pressuring Chrysler owners into selling the company to Fiat for a bargain basement price? I don't think so. There is a good reason why two of Obama's top political operatives were tweeting their approval of the ad Sunday night.

If you want to continue to post denials by the producers of the ad that it contained any political content, go right ahead - but you will not change the minds of those of us who immediately recognized it for what it was.

You and a few others, tend to make stuff up to suit your needs. It's ok, the rest of us see through that. The commercial producers, and Eastwood(who was against the bailouts) have denied it was political, I'll go with the ones that know.

[Hoot Gibson]

With an approval rating of 46- 50%, and polls saying that he would beat Romney if the election held today, failing might not be the best word to use.



Even in non political sections, you can't help but bring politics in huh?

Bush started the auto bailouts, and said he would do it again. Chrysler has paid back their loan, it hasn't cost the taxpayers one dime.




http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/294659/2...ercial.htm

I believe that you post more factually inaccurate information than any other two members combined. Chrysler has not paid back $1.3 billion and together, the Chrysler-GM bailouts cost American taxpayers more than $23 billion, according to Obama's own Treasury Department. Even you shoud be able to confirm those numbers with a quick Google search. It is stupid to dispute facts that are a matter of public record, but if you want to do so, then I suggeest that you start a thread in the Politics and Current Events forum, although this is old news and really a matter of fact - not opinion.

[Hoot Gibson]

You and a few others, tend to make stuff up to suit your needs. It's ok, the rest of us see through that. The commercial producers, and Eastwood(who was against the bailouts) have denied it was political, I'll go with the ones that know.

I posted my opinion. I never expected everybody to agree with it. If you want to look at an example of just making up a set of facts, then I suggest that you look at your own post where you claim that the Chrysler bailout did not cost taxapayers any money. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

[TheRealVille]

I believe that you post more factually inaccurate information than any other two members combined. Chrysler has not paid back $1.3 billion and together, the Chrysler-GM bailouts cost American taxpayers more than $23 billion, according to Obama's own Treasury Department. Even you shoud be able to confirm those numbers with a quick Google search. It is stupid to dispute facts that are a matter of public record, but if you want to do so, then I suggeest that you start a thread in the Politics and Current Events forum, although this is old news and really a matter of fact - not opinion.

Of the 12.37 they borrowed, they've paid back 11.12. I'd say it's safe to say that they will pay 1.2 more, if they've already paid 11.1.

[Hoot Gibson]

Of the 12.37 they borrowed, they've paid back 11.12. I'd say it's safe to say that they will pay 1.2 more, if they've already paid 11.1.

I would say that you are wrong. Keep digging and you will uncover the truth. Obama's Treasury Department has said that they do not expect to recoup the rest of the money. Maybe you know something that he does not.