Bank ad off key

Posted by clyde on March 28, 2008 at 2:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe the schools should be teaching reality instead of how to put a condom on a banana. You know, little things, like balancing a checkbook, understanding what credit is and avoiding the Tooth Fairy promises. Let's get a little substance into our education system.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee, Clyde, sounds to me as if the commercial IS right in line with the whole fundamental structure of conservative-Republican reality: Totally unrestricted, unrestrained, unregulated free enterprise; and some real "Tooth Fairy promises"; such as the one about how wonderful it will all be when the rich and powerful deign to pissdown on the lower classes.

Wanting - and GETTING - it all, NOW, is the sum and "substance" of Republicanism.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old_Pouch, it's more like the tax-and-spend Dummycrats. They want all you and I have, and they want it now for all their "entitlement" programs. How else can the rich Billarys, Obamas, Fat Teddys, along with the rest con their constituants into believing thier lie?

Posted by vudumom on March 28, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The very reason no bailout for lenders,bankers and homeowners. If a homeowner is not financially stable to refinance their loan ,then thay should go into foreclosure.
Remember when it was really easy to claim bankruptcy?There were people charging and running up debt and filing bankruptsy after bankruptsy. They made it harder and made people more responsible for their debts. Now we have a situation that the people buying homes , the brokers and lenders took advantage of lax lending rules,no regulation for brokers and a general free for all with no consequences.Most of the home buyers took the equity out of the house at closing time,got to live there for a year or so and walked away.No consequences.
We have many people who are carrying mountains of credit card debt. Yes the credit card companies will charge you an outregeous interest rate if you are late on a payment or better yet someone with a bad credit history can get a card for 27% interest rate.I have no sympathy for people who have bad credit and are paying outrageous credit card interest,those are the exact people the credit card companies want , stupid people. Unfortunately the regular folks end up paying higher interest rates on credit cards because of so many people walking away from them also.
The only people who will get through this economic downturn, caused by millions of people stupidity and greediness,not George Bush, are the people who have always handled credit and have always had good credit. Also people who know not to pull the credit card out when they " want " something but do not "need" it.
My husband and I have not had a credit card nor have we paid any interest on a credit card for well over 5 years.Though we are not rich by any means,we live within our means and are comfortable.
My children will be taught by us about money,finances,balancing a checkbook,manageing money,saving,interest rates,credit cards,how to buy a home,how not to go into debt,living within their means and how to decide what they need instead of what they want.Most people have not learned that one emotional skill. The schools don't teach it and the kids grow up not having these skills and the cycle continues.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

vudumom, don't you have some cat litter to clean?

Posted by kathyM on March 28, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No sense of humor....I guess ad agencies will soon be required to put this disclaimer on their commercials: "Warning: Contains humorous content. Do not take seriously."

BTW, the song is by Queen, who wrote many humorous, satirical, don't-take-this-seriously songs. That's supposed to add to the humor of the commercial, but I guess you missed that, too.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB

Probably the same way as the super-rich Bush, Regan, Cheney, McCain, Romney, and other Republican leadership con - or certainly try to con - the voters into believing their lies. Or are you trying to tell us that these folks are just good old hard working people, who want the best for everyone else?

Posted by Konyok on March 28, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old_Grouch:
How do you explain George Soros and the legacy foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Pew, etc.)? Do they suffer from false consciousness?
Or, could there be a teeny, tiny little flaw in your "super rich" Republican vs. working class Democrat paradigm?

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old_Pouch

Frankly, I have no use for Bush and Chaney (McCain's ok as a senator, Romney I don't know much about), or most of the Republican party, any more than I have any use for the super-rich Billarys, Obamas, or Fat-Teddy Kennedys, Peloser, or most of the Democrat party.

As a registered "Unafiliated" voter, I vote for the person (Republian, Democrat, etc.), not the party. It will be the Unafiliated voters who will eventually determine who runs the country for the next 4 years, and from what I've seen from both parties, I'm more likely to write in Colin Powell's name. At least he stood his ground against Dubya and has more integrity than Billary, or Obama.

Unlike you, I don't alow any single party determine who I vote for.

Posted by mytwosense on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB, even if you absolutely hate his guts, I strongly recommend the documentary "An Unreasonable Man" about Ralph Nader, and what led him to run for president. And what makes him continue to run every year despite being vilified for doing so. Every Independent voter should watch it, you will be shocked at how the two parties both undermine any attempts to get a third party candidate on the ticket.

It reinforced my happiness that I left the Democrat party, I can tell you that.

No matter our political beliefs, we should all respect the efforts of the people who, against all odds, still run for President in this country even though they don't have the huge resources of one of the two big parties behind them.

Posted by T1anda on March 28, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief Jim Austin!! You're upset over a song in a damned ole TV ad??? Did you just wake up from coma??? Haven't you noticed there are more pressing needs for American citizens to be concerned about??

But then...there is impotence, balding, herpes, weight gain, toothpaste, shiny cars, very healthy drugs you can ask your doctor for. You know the one's with symptoms such as...death, itching, bitching, twitching, blah, blah, blah...
Commercials even offer advise about contacting a doctor in four hours if you're a working stiff! Gee I guess we really should make TV ads a prioity here!!

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB,

Then why do you allow a "single political party" to determine your approach to campaign propaganda?

Posted by CWW on March 28, 2008 at 9:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If I recall, during that commercial the man pulls out his cell phone to check his bank balance to see if he can afford to buy the new TV. I think that tempers the "I want it all" message.

Posted by Eli on March 28, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A while back a commercial for Veramyst included a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen saying that the way the spray worked wasn't entirely known. I highly recommend this video for everyone here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zquPe...

Posted by primafacie on March 28, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"BTW, the song is by Queen, who wrote many humorous, satirical, don't-take-this-seriously songs."

Somehow, I doubt subtlety is likely a key component of the ad in question. Especially since the song isn't played in its entirety for context. The clear intent is to get people to apply for a card and buy things.

And if it works, bully for Chase. You know, the whole free speech and free enterprise thing.

Posted by JimmyB on March 28, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old_Pouch

Why do YOU allow a "single political party" to determine YOUR approach to campaign propaganda?

No political party, or group, has a monopoly on propaganda. Democrats and Republicans (as well as other parties) are well practiced at bending, stretching and manipulating the "truth" in order to garner votes. I would go so far as to say, they would lie to get what they want.

I choose to learn as much as I can about an individual, by listening, reading about and observing a candidate, before I vote. I chose to vote for the "person" who is most in tune with my beliefs regardless of party affiliation (hell, I even voted for Carter), while it's quite obvious to even the casual observer, YOU would never vote for anyone who is not (by reading your posts) a "socialist", let alone a Republican, even if that person's stance is identical to yours.

Unfortunately for you, and others of your belief, those of us who don't share your beliefs, have a right to our choices, be they Democrat, Republican, Independent, Unaffiliated, etc., just as you have the right to believe as you do.

If my voting for the "person" and not the party YOU prefer offends you, too bad so sad for you.

Posted by John_II on March 28, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hate that commercial as well. Not because of the song but because of the way it portrays men. The trend in advertising and television entertainment is to portray men as mindless, whipped, simpletons that can easily be content with a life of boobs, beer, and big screen televisions.

Notice how the woman has to give the man permission to finally buy a new television. Notice how mindless the man looks in the store staring at the big screen television with a child-like fascination.

The commercial follows the same pattern of commercials like the ones Budweiser puts out. Notice how Budweiser portrays men as dumb simpletons who crave beer and boobs and nothing else. I still remember one of their commercials showing a man running into a window where beer was on display, much like the bird he witnessed doing the same thing.

Home Depot has a series of radio commercials that follows a common theme: the woman decides something is needed in the house; she tells the man, does not ask him, that she is going to buy some kind of useless crap from Home Depot; the husband feebly assents to his wife's command.

In one Home Depot commercial, the husband and wife are chatting on the phone with each other while shopping at the store. The husband is childishly drawn to a "cool" lawnmower. The wife admonishes him, asking if the lawnmower will do laundry. I found myself answering with, "Will the washing machine mow the lawn?"

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 28, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JimmyB,

I always enjoy folks who tell me what I'm "going to do" from what they read into what I write, and then go on to say they are "trying to learn". If you know all there is to know about something, or someone else - including what his/her politics and future actions "will be" - already, as you seem to do from what you write, what is there to learn?

And, just what in your already infinite and infallible knowledge leads you to say that I would vote only for a "socialist". Is that a matter of my voting must be for a "socialist", because I don't merely echo the crap put out by "conservative" Republicanism? Or is that a matter of the person for whom I must vote being, necessarliy a "socialist", because YOU say he, or she, must be, since I vote for him/her?