From Moe Davis:

There was more patriotism in the Clint Eastwood ad than in any real political ad by either real party I’ve seen all year. I was ready to go kick ass and take names, and charge up the hill.

 

Could it be that Clint Eastwood just called out America for being so divisive?

Your reaction?

26 Thoughts to “The most patriotic ad? Hear the roar of our engines!”

  1. BSinVA

    The ad panders to our basic tribal instincts. “Us vs them”. “USA vs those other scalawags”. I’m all for bringing back manufacturing. I’m all for government support for Detroit so we can compeat with the effects of the Chinese government support for their industries but I also believe that the global economy reduces armed conflicts. The ad was very efeective for what it wanted to do.

  2. Need to Know

    Moon, your link has been taken down by the NFL or someone. Anyway, here’s the link to the ad on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEM9dodyABo

    I liked it! Too bad Clint is not on the ballot. I liked Bush, Sr. but the last time I was really enthusiastic about a president was when we had a former actor. Maybe we should try it again.

  3. Rick Bentley

    I too found the ad a bit “us vs. them” and disturbing and outright strange. The “Dirty harry” car ad.

  4. The link has been replaced. Thanks NTK. How weird that the original one was removed.

  5. marinm

    What I heard from it is that the American worker needs to suck it up, de-unionize and listen to our corporate overlords so we can kick ass once again.

    1. Are you in your colonial stage, marin?

  6. marinm

    THat would be last years Dodge commercial. 😉

    1. I don’t remember it. Link?

  7. marinm

    http://youtu.be/Ezk0e1VL80o

    How can you forget?? 🙂

    BTW, can’t wait for the RCC to start shutting down health care benefit plans. I want to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

    1. I don’t think I ever saw it.

      I meant colonial in a more general sense of the word. However, that was a cute commercial.

      Don’t they have to provide health care benefits?

      I don’t see how employers are allowed to cherry pick what they will cover and won’t. What if they decide they aren’t going to cover smokers, or “fornicators” or gays or whoever? JFK would have been sooo offended. Thank goodness my parents rescued me from such oppression is all I can say.

      At what point to we say

  8. George S. Harris

    @marinm
    How did you get that out of Eastwood’s commercial? Do you consistently live on the dark side of the moon?

    @Rick Bentley
    You bet Bentley–it is us v. them and we’re gonna kick their ass.

  9. Kelly3406

    @Moon-howler

    Being an employer does not imply giving up one’s first amendment rights. The fight is not over who they will cover (e.g. Gays or fornicators), but rather whether they are required to provide services that go against their religious convictions. They do not provide those services now, but the all-powerful Feds are trying to force them to do so.

    1. Tell the Quakers. I guess they don’t have the numbers.
      No one is asking anyone to give up first amendment rights. No one is interferring with the practice of one’s religion. The Catholic Church and others must seperate themselves as an employer from the practice of their religion.

      No one is forcing anyone to use these services. They must just be provided. I am horrified that we are even having this discussion in 2012. At what point are we as Americans going to be held hostage by 16th century thinking?

      Basics like contraception and sterilization are core ideas in western society. We aren’t an agrarian society where families grow and raise their own farm teams to work the land.

  10. marinm

    @George S. Harris

    Dark side? No, I’m looking at the bright side.. The ad is about coming together for a greater goal. Which is to say moving away from entrenched positions to ‘meet in the middle’. One of the obsticles for growth in Detroit is entrenched unionization.

    So maybe the idea of moving away from that towards a South Carolina model may be something that should be explored………

    MH, companies have to provide healthcare benefits or pay a fine. The RCC may simply elect to pay a fine and end up paying LESS than what they are currently paying for HC for it’s employees.

    While a company as large as those owned by the church may be forced to provide HC not all HC plans are the same. For example, my BCBS plan does not cover orthodic cranial devices (baby helmet) so I paid $3100 out of pocket for it. BCBS/Federal would have covered it with no issue. My BCBS covered fertility services. BCBS/Federal does not an instead encourages adoption.

    Even the govt has elected (cherry pick) to cover smokers at a different rate than others (I recall Alabama charging govt employees a rate and smokers a much higher rate).

    I think we need seperation of church and state and that to me means the state should butt out of the churches business.

    1. But Marin, it isn’t butting into the religious side of church’s business. It is butting in to the employer side of church’s business. What if the Church decided just to ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act or various Selective s?ervice laws? You can’t do that. No one is telling the church to changes its beliefs (except me and I don’t count.)

      I don’t approve of the patchwork of coverage. There should be levels of care that are consistent to all, pretty much like Medicare is run.

      The idea that coverage should cover adoption rather than fertilization programs is absurd. Now, do I think fertilization programs should be on every policy? Not necessarily. There are areas for compromise where people should be able to buy in. I don’t have all the answers but no church’s rights are being stomped on. Stem cell research? How about the church just not pay that part of their taxes…oh wait…they don’t pay taxes. Now there’s a big rip off right there.

      Church butts into much govt business at every turn and keeps a tax free status. hrumpphhhhh

  11. Kelly3406

    @Moon-howler

    What about the Quakers? They were always allowed to serve as medics rather than in combat so as not to violate their religion.

    The RCC should not be required to cover birth control or morning after pills. Employees (in fact, everyone) should buy their own. If they do not like it, they can go work somewhere else.

    You have evolved from contraception should be freely available to we should all pay for it on demand. I disagree with that view.

    1. kelly, why should everyone buy their own contraception? Does that include pay out of pocket for one’s own surgical procedures for sterilization? Why?

      Do you feel that you should get to decide what prescriptions are permissable for us? Now it moves to surgical procedures?

      I actually think that takes one hell of a nerve.

      The average cost of birth control pills is around $50. That’s pretty steep for students and poor women. Depro and other long lasting prevention is around $200.

      Why do you think people should buy their own? Most people in the world aren’t squeamish in the least about contraception.

      Thius ‘on demand’ thing reminds me of another sound bite. Exactly what do you mean? If I have an rx plan and birth control is covered, I expect it paid for.

    2. Quakers are asked to violate their beliefs on war with every dime of tax money that goes to war. No one cares if they are offended.

  12. kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    There are plenty of things that insurance plans have not typically covered, regardless of what HHS is trying to force. There is no absolute requirement that contraception be covered. If people cannot afford birth control pills or depro, condoms provide a cost-effective solution.

    I myself would choose to use a catastrophic health plan combined with a health savings account. But the regime is making that hard to do, because it wants my cash to cover depro for poor women.

    I am willing to contribute to food and shelter for the poor (I donate a much higher percentage than Obama and Biden), but I resist at subsidizing contraception for the poor.

  13. Elena

    Kelly,

    Newsflash, you cover a whole lot more expensive consequences for unintended pregnancies than birth control!

    How about SCHIP for starters! The list goes on and on and on, trust me, birth control pills are a helluva lot cheaper!

  14. I can’t imagine why you would want the poor to reproduce. I would give as much as I could to contraception for those who would take it. It is far more productive and cost effective to educate and train the poor than it is to support them and their children.

    Is this for religious purposes?

    Poor children have a rough row to hoe.

  15. marinm

    “I can’t imagine why you would want the poor to reproduce.”

    I have no issue with the poor or rich reproducing as long as they take responsibility for the child(ren).

  16. kelly_3406

    @Elena

    News flash. You don’t have a shred of evidence (other than intuition) that suggests that free birth control prevents unintended pregnancy.

    The definition of poor these days is different because most of those below the poverty line now have wide-screen TVs, cars, smart phones and many accompanying gadgets and expenses. In most cases, the poor can afford to pay for their own contraception. But if they are not responsible enough to budget for personal contraception, what makes you think they are responsible enough to maintain contraception on hand, to use it correctly and in the right dosage, and to use it consistently every single time without exception?

    I would not be all that surprised if a study proved that free contraception led to an INCREASE in unintended pregnancy due to a lack of discipline to use it correctly and consistently.

  17. @marinm

    The poor have a harder time taking care of their kids. Food, shelter, health care, schooling, day care, etc etc.

    I don’t want them having children because there are no alternatives.

  18. @kelly_3406

    Kelly, I would say you haven’t known many poor people. What you describe applies to some people but certainly not all poor people. Really poor people can’t afford those things. Marginal people do afford them, rightly or wrongly.

  19. Rick Bentley

    “it is us v. them and we’re gonna kick their ass”

    I see it that way too. But that viewpoint could use a better spokesperson than Dirty Harry, quivering voice full of anger. It rubbed me wrong – trying to project anger towards other people rather than trying to be the best that we can be.

Comments are closed.