Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 16, 2006, 11:33:30 am
-
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/08/so_its_not_just.html
wtf....
-
:lol:
-
Indeed, :wtf:.
-
"Where would you go on a Hummer adventure?"
That's where I started choking on my food from laughing.
-
I think that MacDonald's have realised that they can do whatever they like while Burger King continue to use "The Burger King" as their mascot.
Cause quite frankly he scares the **** out of me. I keep expecting him to run off to blow up the Houses of Parliament or something.
-
...I don't get it. OK sure, America consumerist excess LOL, but since when is that news?
edit:
(http://www.orochi.com/kiru/Vking.jpg)
-
(http://img.search.com/3/36/300px-Destroyed_humvee.jpg)
Where would you go on a Hummer adventure?
or
(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2005/11/03/20051103_petrol-pump.jpg)
Where would you go on a Hummer adventure?
-
some conspiracy-theory minded person noted that it IS the military edition of the hummer....
-
It clearly is. So what?
-
It clearly is. So what?
Well, children make smaller targets and save money thanks to smaller kevlar vests. Plus, you only need to wait 6 to 8 years for the next batch, rather than 18-20 for adults.
-
the conspiracy theorists idea was that it was just prepping them to live in constant warfair and be recruited
-
Honestly, I don't know why someone feels like they need to blog about a stupid kidmeal promotion. It is a waste of time. Then I realize they have some connection to Massachuesets. *all becomes clear*
I personally don't see how a hummer promo would be effective US military recruiting tool.
Personally, BF2 and Americas Army do a far better job.
-
Honestly, I don't know why someone feels like they need to blog about a stupid kidmeal promotion. It is a waste of time. Then I realize they have some connection to Massachuesets. *all becomes clear*
I personally don't see how a hummer promo would be effective US military recruiting tool.
Personally, BF2 and Americas Army do a far better job.
If you want to be cynical, AA and BF2 aren't really too suitable for the young-kiddies that get Happy Meals.
Yes, I've been told Massachusets is a very nice, clean, friendly state with rather ****ty neighbouring states who just happen to be of the opposite political persuasion. Albiet told by someone moving to Cumbernauld.
-
Honestly, I don't know why someone feels like they need to blog about a stupid kidmeal promotion. It is a waste of time. Then I realize they have some connection to Massachuesets. *all becomes clear*
yeah because the only state in the union that aren't total and complete bigots have something wrong with them, yup - TOTALLY!
the person blogs about advertising in general
-
And yet such a bunch of those non bigots and "smart people" continue to elect Ted Kennedy? Also, most people in Mass. are considerably wealthy IIRC. I could be wrong about that last one.
@Aldo: I don't think that a happy meal is going to get kids to join the military. But games like BF2, albeit not for your children and at the risk of sounding like jack thompson, are far better influence and recruiting tool. But if this were an attempt at military indoctrination, then it is a poor attempt, no offense intended.
-
Honestly, I don't know why someone feels like they need to blog about a stupid kidmeal promotion. It is a waste of time. Then I realize they have some connection to Massachuesets. *all becomes clear*
You know, we do have a conservative Republican governor.
Also, speaking of Massachusetts, I have some exciting news to share with everyone: It seems that Forbes Magazine just rated the county I live in to be the single most overpriced county in the entire nation.
-
No offense intended FP, but I find it a screwed up place. Regaurdless of political affiliation, anyone who re-elects a guy as sketchy and debaucherous as Ted Kennedy, I am a little suspicious of. Again it is not the political views that I care about, it is stuff like The Big Dig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Dig) that concerns me.
-
Well, y'know the drill. He's a Kennedy, he's supposed to be there, etc. I don't mind him because I like it when he lambasts religious conservatives on the Senate floor.
-
Thats the truly sad thing about too. It is assumed that he should be there. Like that assumption that Bush should be in office as well because his father was in office. Believe me, I heard that one during the election.
Let me clarify my Big Dig comment. It was not very well though out.[The Project That Is]
-
some conspiracy-theory minded person noted that it IS the military edition of the hummer....
I'd also point out that it's the only edition of the Hummer worthy of the name. The H2 and H3 are much lesser vehicles, in terms of off-road capablity, reliablity, and durablity. They were after all built to civilian standards on civilian truck bodies, so they're really fake Hummers.
-
...I don't get it. OK sure, America consumerist excess LOL, but since when is that news?
edit:
(http://www.orochi.com/kiru/Vking.jpg)
Heh, I actually frequent the forul from where that came from.
-
the kennedy's don't hold a CANDLE to delay and the rest of the right-wing crop of corrupt arsewipes
what do you REALLY have one kennedy? he got in a car accident once long ago, and he has a drinking problem that he doesn't try to hide, he tries to deal with
what else you got?
as for the big dig.... yeah that's a cluster****, but so is any project that big in an area of such dense urbation
ngt1mr: yup. the civilian hummers are for people with penis size problems
-
@Aldo: I don't think that a happy meal is going to get kids to join the military. But games like BF2, albeit not for your children and at the risk of sounding like jack thompson, are far better influence and recruiting tool. But if this were an attempt at military indoctrination, then it is a poor attempt, no offense intended.
not indoctrination; softening. i.e. creating a positive impression of the military; it's just using the logic that kids play soldiers, so why not capitalise upon it? Even if it's not creating actual recruits in 10+ years, it's creating (in concept) a positive attitude towards the militaries actions. Let's not pretend this 'advertising' is anything new.....
-
bingo aldo
-
the kennedy's don't hold a CANDLE to delay and the rest of the right-wing crop of corrupt arsewipes
what do you REALLY have one kennedy? he got in a car accident once long ago, and he has a drinking problem that he doesn't try to hide, he tries to deal with
what else you got?
as for the big dig.... yeah that's a cluster****, but so is any project that big in an area of such dense urbation
ngt1mr: yup. the civilian hummers are for people with penis size problems
The man gets into drunk tirades. That car accident, however, resulted in a woman's death. His "testimony" that he swam home is BS primarily because he was heavily in toxicated and showed up in a neck brace a few day later.
-
The man gets into drunk tirades. That car accident, however, resulted in a woman's death. His "testimony" that he swam home is BS primarily because he was heavily in toxicated and showed up in a neck brace a few day later.
and most of his drunk tirades are more intelligent and honest than all the republicans in congress combined
"swam home"? umm... he testified he swam to shore, not home
ennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred.
several hours later he alledgedly swam the 500-foot channel
*****ing about kennedy based chappaquiddic is just one of the dumbest things on the planet - he got in a car accident in 1969 FFS!
-
And they didn't call the police for help either. There was a phone. Politics aside, they man was responcible for her death on so many levels. And only got a slap on the wrist. Yes it happened in 1969, that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. The statute of limitation doesn't cover man slaughter or criminal negligence. Even after "several hours" he would have been in no condition to swim a 500 ft channel especially after being in an accident.
Kazan, you defending him is like me trying to defend Bush, if I were to actually do so..
-
And they didn't call the police for help either.
he didn't immediately, they went back to the site to try and save her - think phone technology in 1969.. and they were on an island and the ferry had shut down for the night
he also called her family before calling the cops
Politics aside, they man was responcible for her death on so many levels.
he got in a car accident, that may or may not have been alcohol-induced (nobody can say for certain)
And only got a slap on the wrist.
the only thing they had evidence to charge him for
Yes it happened in 1969, that doesn't change the fact that it did happen.
you're right, it doesn't change the fact that kennedy got in a car accident - beyond that NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING - the entire attempt to use it as a criticism of him rests on conjecture and "who didn't know he's not drunk, therefore he was drunk" and absolutely ASSININE assertions that it was somehow intentional... right
The statute of limitation doesn't cover man slaughter or criminal negligence.
neither of which he was indicted for despite the fact that a grand jury was enpannelled to investigate the accident
Even after "several hours" he would have been in no condition to swim a 500 ft channel especially after being in an accident.
assuming he was injuried or assuming he was drunk
either way you're making an assumption - i'm fairly certain the first one is demonstrably false, the second one nobody can prove either way, all you can do is vaguely suggest "he's an alcoholic therefore he MUST have been drunk!!!" - i know an alcohol that NEVER, EVER has driven drunk
Kazan, you defending him is like me trying to defend Bush, if I were to actually do so..
no - defending kennedy on this is easy - the entire attack consists of presumptions, vague suggestions that nobody can prove or even reasonably state, and bull****
bush has demonstrably, repeatedly, knowingly violated the law and the constitution
if you want to criticise kennedy, then do it with something concrete, not vague consipracy theorist nutjob chappaquiddic idiocy
-
Ted kennedy doesn't drink, btw.
-
oh... i must have been confusing him with a relative on the alcoholism thing (or heard it from a liar)... so that make the chappaquiddic thing EVEN LESS of a serious complaint
-
Not being convicted in a court of law does clear anyone of any culpability. Because Bush will never convicted in a court of law for the war in Iraq or the thousands that have died as a result of his fool hearty actions, does that mean he isn't responcible? Of course not. Should we not think of Kennedy as responcible for that woman's death because he was never convicted or endicted? I don't think so.
-
can you give ONE SHRED of evidence that it was anything other than an accident?
-
Not being convicted in a court of law does clear anyone of any culpability. Because Bush will never convicted in a court of law for the war in Iraq or the thousands that have died as a result of his fool hearty actions, does that mean he isn't responcible?
Most of those on your side of the fence would say no.
Should we not think of Kennedy as responcible for that woman's death because he was never convicted or endicted? I don't think so.
Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?" I guess that goes out the window when you'd like to win your own points in arguments, huh ?
-
He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.
Also I don't have a fence to side on.
@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent. Especially when you consider the fact that, even if there was no law enforcement official on the island, there was a fire house that likly would have been manned. I don't think limitations of the telecom systems of 1969 would have prevented them from calling the firemen. On a side note, he also called his lawyer before calling the police as well. The whole situation is incredibly sketchy, but alot of evidence IS circumstancial.
-
He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.
Whoah whoah whoah. Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?
-
@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent.
no it's not, he made a wrong turn down an unlit road with a bridge at an odd angle to the road that had no guard rails. If you want to try to maintain getting into a car accident is criminal negligence i'll make sure that you get prosecuted for such
....
basically: you have no evidence of any wrong doing, none at ALL - NONE, zero, zilch, nada, null, nichts. You don't have any evidence he did anything wrong, so why don't you shut your mouth while you're ahead. Having to make shady, unsupportable implications against a senator because he got in a car accident smacks not only of desperation, but of biased dishonesty.
Why don't you take that zeal to go after senators for wrongdoing and apply it to the ones that we know for a fact have been accepting bribes and are corporatist whores
-
Whoah whoah whoah. Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?
yeah.. chappaquiddic references are just right-wing red herrings to distract from the fact that pretty much every republican congresscritter has been wholly-owned by the corporations for a long time
sure, there are dishonest sleazy congresscritters on both sides, it just happens to be that democrats ostracise their corrupt members while republicans all stand in this one united front and deny that they did any wrong doing when they're caught redhanded with bribes
-
I love reading the first post in a thread, letting it grow a few pages, and then reading the last post to see how far it skews off. This ones done not too bad.......
-
He is innocent in a court of law because he was never charged which could be for any number of reasons including lack of evidence. But like OJ, it ultimatly doesn't mean that he is not responcible for that persons death.
Whoah whoah whoah. Not that I really give a **** in this debate, but isn't the whole point of having a court of law to make decisions like this?
Except the courts can be abused by hiring enough highpriced lawyers.
-
@Kazan: The accident is proof its self or being criminally negligent.
no it's not, he made a wrong turn down an unlit road with a bridge at an odd angle to the road that had no guard rails. If you want to try to maintain getting into a car accident is criminal negligence i'll make sure that you get prosecuted for such
....
basically: you have no evidence of any wrong doing, none at ALL - NONE, zero, zilch, nada, null, nichts. You don't have any evidence he did anything wrong, so why don't you shut your mouth while you're ahead. Having to make shady, unsupportable implications against a senator because he got in a car accident smacks not only of desperation, but of biased dishonesty.
Why don't you take that zeal to go after senators for wrongdoing and apply it to the ones that we know for a fact have been accepting bribes and are corporatist whores
Regaurdless, you cannot deny the fact that he tried to cover it all up by not contacting the people that would been able to save her.
-
Regaurdless, you cannot deny the fact that he tried to cover it all up by not contacting the people that would been able to save her.
Horse**** - he tried several times to save her himself, returned to where they started from and got help and went back to the crash site to try and retrieve her AGAIN
You have nothing but hogwash accusations
-
Why did he try to do it himself? The firemen would have been able to do that.
-
probably because that would take less time than waiting for the emergency crews to get there?
just admit it dude - you have absolutely no evidence that it was anything other than a car accident - not to mention the fact you're missing motive.
-
It is a small island. It wouldn't take that long. Not to mention he had the opportunity to make the call as well.
Never said there was a murder, but criminal negligence or man slaughter both of which really don't need a motive.
-
It is a small island. It wouldn't take that long. Not to mention he had the opportunity to make the call as well.
Never said there was a murder, but criminal negligence or man slaughter both of which really don't need a motive.
how much clearer do i need to make this: you have no evidence to support you claims. None, zero zilch, nada nichts null, bupkis
you weren't there, the grand jury charged with investigating and potentially bringing charges against him didn't charge him with a damn thing
-
His actions of record are enough.
You want to assume grandjurys never make mistakes, or cannot be swayed by outside factors.
-
enough to fuel pathetic bull**** speculation? yes
enough to provide any scrap of evidence of wrong doing? not so much. he tried to save her himself, went for help and returned, tried again and gave up knowing she was dead. Called her family, called his lawyer, called the authorities, then pled guilty to leaving the site of an accident.
to me that sounds like: he got in an accident, he tried to save her, got help and tried again, realized that he'd failed she had been under too long, called her family to break the bad news and apologize, called his lawyer to hell him what was going on and that he was going to do (plead guilty to the charges that were to be pressed), and then went to the cops and told them what happened.
No conspiracy here - it was a car accident.
[edit]
You want to assume grandjurys never make mistakes, or cannot be swayed by outside factors.
grand juries are 24 people, it would take some major talent to stack a grand jury.
the simple fact of the matter is you have bull**** and you're just fueling this entire argument off blind hate
-
A car accident that the rescue personal were not contacted and got his friend to help him. Why else would you go out of your away, farther than necessary to get help unless you wanted to try and keep in quiet. He tried to cover it up.
A simple accident would be if he went off the road, and then immediatly went to the near by residencies and asked to use a phone to call authorities and rescue personal. That would be simple and logical. But that is not what happened is it?
I never said he stacked the jury. I said that it is possible that they might have made decisions based on something other than evidence or lack there of.
-
A car accident that the rescue personal were not contacted and got his friend to help him. Why else would you go out of your away, farther than necessary to get help unless you wanted to try and keep in quiet. He tried to cover it up.
full stop at "go out of your way" - BECAUSE HE DIDN'T!
A simple accident would be if he went off the road, and then immediatly went to the near by residencies and asked to use a phone to call authorities and rescue personal. That would be simple and logical. But that is not what happened is it?
because they probably didn't have one? IF there were residences AT ALL
I never said he stacked the jury. I said that it is possible that they might have made decisions based on something other than evidence or lack there of.
you said a bunch of bull**** that you have NO EVIDENCE to back up and you just keep pulling out more and more bull**** in your shrill attempt to try to criticize ted kennedy OVER A ****ING CAR ACCIDENT because you have nothing else to criticise him on because you don't know ****
-
A car accident that the rescue personal were not contacted and got his friend to help him. Why else would you go out of your away, farther than necessary to get help unless you wanted to try and keep in quiet. He tried to cover it up.
full stop at "go out of your way" - BECAUSE HE DIDN'T!
A simple accident would be if he went off the road, and then immediatly went to the near by residencies and asked to use a phone to call authorities and rescue personal. That would be simple and logical. But that is not what happened is it?
obviously you know nothing about the history of the telephone system
Ok, enlighten me about the phone system. what would have prevented them from either A. calling the fire house B. getting more people like the fire chief what was 1/2 from the accident C. going to the fire house them selves. It is a very small island. D. going to the other local residence near by?
(http://www.ytedk.com/chappa4.gif)
-
i'm going to trust an image from that site? HAHAHAAH you must take me for an idiot
YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONG DOING
it was A ****ING CAR ACCIDENT - get over it seriously you're pathetic, you insult our intelligence by even spouting this bull****
the man got in a CAR accident... do you understand the concept of an accident?
-
You guys are losing sight of the real issue here, which is obviously that my state is better than everyone else's.
-
@FP: :lol:
@Kazan: And you quoting Ted Kennedy's public apology is better? Now that I am revved up about the issue, I might just contact the public library in the area and request town records showing where the fire house is and where the fire chief lived etc. Or are you going to call me a liar and the records fakes?
Do you always rely on insulting people?
-
Do you always rely on insulting people?
only when they're nutjob conspiracy theorist crazies who don't have an argument that holds water in the first place
-
In that case, why not save face and not bother at all? I think its deeper than that personally.
-
because dishonest conspiracy theorists are a disservice to democracy and should be derided at every opportunity
-
It's interesting to see how a potential political discussion has now deteriorated into personality-based mudslinging. Strikes me as very much a microcosm of 'democracy' in action.
-
:lol:
-
But back to the original subject. I don't think the little children are going to link the hummer and the military. Now mount a 50cal machine gun or a tow missle on the top and give it a camo paint job. But that would be to obvious. I think it is more related to embedding into peoples minds that they want a big car because of the general attitudes turning against large automobiles.
-
without looking back.. i'm pretty sure it was the military (original) edition hummer with a desert paint job..
-
If it is, it is several shades off. But it *could* be coincidence, as well. Generally, the military version of the hummer is kooler looking.
-
by the time any of the kids who see this thing have enough money to buy a hummer, well be out of gas. ha! :D