Bad Ads - Kia

The formula for this type of ad is usually pretty simple.

The pretty girl likes our product, so you should buy our product because of some reason. I guess maybe the pretty girl will get mixed up about what it is that she likes and will accidentally think she likes you because you are eating/drinking/driving our product?

Anyway, this ad tweaks that formula a bit. For some bizarre reason, they went with "pretty girl likes soccer, so you should buy a car?"




I had to see these ads several times before I even realized they were ads for cars. I thought they were promos for the World Cup, maybe ESPN spots? It can't possibly be an effective ad campaign if I'm confused as to what the ads are for.

I did final;ly figure out that they were car ads, but that didn't really make them much better. Because when I went to YouTube to find the video, I searched for "Hyundai World Cup ad." So, good job, Kia, the one car-related thing your ads made me think of was that Hyundai is the official car sponsor of the World Cup. Money well spent, Kia!

This is supposed to be scary?

So, I guess this map has been making the rounds of the so-called "news" programs lately.






Apparently, it's supposed to show ISIS's 5-year plan for  (insert scary music) WORLD DOMINATION!!!!

So, for a moment, let's pretend that the source for this map isn't incredibly dubious.
Lets' pretend that the networks aren't seriously reporting on something they saw on Twitter.
Let's say this map is for real.

So what?

Maybe ISIS really does have a 5-year plan for re-conquering the Ottoman territories. So what? Anyone can make a plan for world domination. These guys did it every week:

 

At the Chaos Compound, we make plans to take over Europe every couple of days, and yet we still live here in Atlanta, and not in Versailles.

So what if they have some stupid plan for taking over the Mediterranean. Does anyone seriously think they have any chance of pulling it off?

It's one thing to walk in to the fucked-up power vacuum of a shambles of a country like Iraq and take over (and they have yet to pull that off), but who really thinks that this rag-tag bunch of Medieval thugs would stand a chance of taking over a rich, well-organized country like Saudi Arabia? Let alone Spain or Greece?

So why are we pretending that this is serious? Could it maybe be that the agenda of the American media id possibly being driven by folks that would love nothing more than to involve us in another pointless war? Because maybe war is good for ratings? And maybe some of their sponsors maybe make tons of money off of military contracts? Or maybe even the companies that own the networks also might make monies off of military contracts?


Or are we really supposed to be scared that these guys are capable of world domination?

 

 

Oh, and by the way, Che Guevarra called, he wants his look back.

Dumbest Person Gives Dumbest Defense

I thought I had heard the absolute dumbest defense of the Washington Football team name when the Missus told me that she heard some doofus on the radio explaining that the name can't possibly be racist, because it's been around for 90 years, and nothing racist lasts that long. 

You know, unless you count slavery. Or Jim Crow. Or the Native American genocide. But yeah, racist things never last long.

But no, that was not actually the dumbest defense. That defense can only be delivered by someone as dumb as Dennis Prager.

And the only person as dumb as Dennis Prager is, of course, Dennis Prager.

Why the Left’s Preoccupation with the Redskins?

Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014

 

 

Buckle your seatbelts, folks, it's gonna get pretty stupid in here!

 

Given how much evil there is in the world; given how many signs of moral, intellectual and economic decline there are here in America; and given the increasing irrelevance of America to world events, it is fair to ask why the American Left is preoccupied with the name Washington “Redskins.”

 

 

Yes, with all the terrible things going on in the world, why would someone waste their time worrying about the Washington team name, asks the man who is writing his column about the Washington team name.

 

The Washington Redskins have been in existence for 82 years. For about 80 of those years, virtually no one, including the vast majority of American Indians, was troubled by the name.

 

And no one knows what did and didn't bother the Native American community than this guy!

 

 

 

The pressure is relentless. There is more concern in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times — not to mention the rest of the left — with the Redskins than with Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for investigation

 

Well, yeah, that is true. There is more concern about a racist sports team name than there is with that thing that didn't happen. That thing that only the most pathetic hacks even bother to pretend actually happened.

 

 

Pictured: The most pathetic hack

The angry will tell you that the name “Redskins” is profoundly offensive to American Indians and that they — the angry — are simply more sensitive to racial slurs than others.
This explanation is self-serving, but insufficient.

No, that's sufficient. The name is offensive, that's pretty much all the explanation necessary.

 The great majority of American Indians understandably just don’t care.

Um. . . says who? We're just supposed to take your word for it, Prager? Do you even know any Native Americans?

Like heterosexual AIDS and so many other crises, this has been entirely manufactured by the left.

Um, what? Are you under the impression that heteroes don't get AIDS? Do you think it's some sort of myth manufactured by the Left?

Since 1947, there has been a movie theater, the Redskins Theatre (with the same logo as the football team), in Anadarko, Oklahoma, a city whose population is divided evenly between Indians and whites, and which calls itself the “Indian Capital of the Nation.” Why, in 67 years, have the Indian populations of Anadarko and Oklahoma not changed this theater’s name?

Because the left hadn’t made it an issue. It’s not an Indian issue; it’s a left-wing issue.

Oh, well that settles it, then. There's a movie theater with that name, so it can't possibly be offensive. That really makes sense.

And why is the left so preoccupied?

It isn’t because they are more morally sensitive to injustice. That is what the left believes about itself. But there are other reasons for the manufactured hysteria about the Redskins name. Here are some:

Um, I don't think you have any idea what the word "hysteria" means.

hys·te·ri·a

/hɪˈstɛriə, -ˈstɪər-/ Show Spelled [hi-ster-ee-uh, -steer-] 

noun

1. an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.

I don't think saying "hey, that name is racist, you should change it" really qualifies as "hysteria." But please, do go on with your "reasons."

First, there is a rule in life: Those who do not confront the greatest evils will confront much lesser evils or simply manufacture alleged evils that they then confront.

No, that's not a rule. That's just some gibberish you made up, On what are you basing this?

This has been a dominant characteristic of the Left for at least half a century. The greatest evils since World War II have been Communism and, since the demise of Communism in the Soviet Union and most other Communist countries, violent Islam — or, as it often called, Islamism.

Okay, let's talk about World War II. Who was it again that wanted to go fight Hitler? And which side of the aisle was it that wanted to be isolationist, and tried to prevent FDR from assisting England in their struggle against the Nazis? And for that matter, was it the Left or the Right that voluntarily went to Spain to fight against Franco's fascist takeover? Ah, who remembers? Oh, wait. Everyone remembers, you disingenuous little weasel.

 Islamism is the belief that Sharia (Islamic law) must be imposed wherever possible on a society, beginning, of course, with Muslim-majority countries. These Islamists are, as the British historian Andrew Roberts has noted, the fourth incarnation of fascism — first there was fascism, then Nazism, then communism, and now Islamism.

I thought we were talking about the football team and its racist name? But, sure, why pass up a chance to conflate fascism with communism and both of them with Islam?

For many years, most of the Western left was supportive of communism, and after the 1960s, it was simply hostile to anti-communists. The left was far more concerned with attacking America than with attacking the Soviet Union. So, too, today, the left is far more concerned with attacking America — its alleged racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia and economic inequality — than with fighting Islamism.

 Damn those lefties and their lack of desire to attack the Soviet Union! We'd have been greeted as liberators!

Also, we've spent the last, what, thirteen years fighting wars that are ostensibly battles against Islamism, what the fuck more do you want? And I'm pretty sure we can fight Islamism and also critique the US's racism, sexism and homophobia at the same time. We're multi-taskers.

Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do.

Yes, that's why those who do not fight fires always hate firefighters so darn much!
And those who don't fight criminals hate the cops who fight them on our behalf.

 

 

Pictured: The most hated men in America.

 



 Second, the corollary to the above is that those who do not fight the greatest evils invariably loathe those who do. The left hated American anti-communists much more than it hated communists. The left today hates traditional America much more than it hates traditional Islamists. The Redskins name is a symbol of that hated America

Yeah, the left hated anti-communists because they tended to be right-wing reactionaries and a lot of Lefties were a bit naïve about what life in the USSR was really like. But if you're saying that the Left likes the people who stone adulterers, ban homosexuals, and force women into burkas, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what a Leftie is.
And the Redskins name, how is that a symbol of America? The Bald Eagle is a symbol of America. Uncle Sam is a symbol of America, the term "Redskins" is a racial slur directed at the people that America tried to wipe off the face of the continent.

Third, the left has huge nostalgia for the sixties. In the left’s eyes, virtually every one of its causes is as morally urgent as the civil rights battles on behalf of blacks (for which it falsely claims exclusive credit).

 

 



Seriously, show me one example of anyone claiming exclusive credit for the civil rights gains of "the blacks." Also, whenever anyone refers to black people as "blacks," it automatically sets off the racist alarm. Not that the term is necessarily racist, but it just tends to be used by the Archie Bunker types.

Fourth, aside from tearing down another American tradition, and showing how awful America was and remains, the motivating issue here is left-wing self-esteem. Remember it was the left that developed the self-esteem movement. And nobody feels as good about themselves as the left does when it finds another American moral flaw, especially when that flaw is another example of “intolerance,” and racism.

Yeah, and they really had to do some fucking detective work to find the hidden racism in the use of a fucking racial slur as a team name.

Fifth, and finally, the left is totalitarian at heart. Whenever possible, they seek control of others; and they love to throw their considerable weight around. The left-wing president does it so often that the Supreme Court has unanimously shot down his attempts on a dozen occasions.

Wait, would this be the left-wing president whose healthcare plan came from the Heritage Foundation? The Left-Wing President who has reduced the deficit every year? The left-winger who bailed out the banks and the auto-making corporations without holding any executives accountable for any of their misdeeds? The left-wing president under whom the stock market has hit record highs? That dirty commie?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under huge pressure from leftists, just dropped conservative Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist George Will.

Let me re-phrase that. The St Louis Post-Dispatch, under pressure from decent human beings just dropped right-wing hack and rape apologist George Will. Although to date, they are the only one out of the scores of papers who run his drivel that has seen fit to rid themselves of this smug little prick, so yeah, those leftists sure have a lot of clout!
That's better.

Under pressure from left-wing professors and students, Brandeis and other universities dropped the few conservative speakers they had invited to this year’s commencement exercises.

Or, one could say that under pressure from decent human beings, Brandeis and other universities saw fit to cancel their plans to have war criminals give commencement addresses.

Forcing the Redskins to do their will is just the left’s latest attempt to force its views on the vast majority of its fellow citizens. That’s why it’s worth fighting for the Redskins. Today it’s the Redskins,tomorrow it’s you.

So, to sum up, the reason the Washington football team should not change its blatantly racist name is that, um, lefties want it to and they're a bunch of jerks, so keep the racist name because Injuns don't mind being called slurs? Am I close here?


Oh, and also, First they came for the NFL team with the racist name and I said nothing because I was not an NFL team. . .

Dumbest defense ever.

 

Finally, A Voice For Men!

This is apparently a real organization




Because God knows we fellas have been silent long enough! It's like we barely even have anyone to speak for us. Fir example, here's the weekday schedule of programs on our local talk radio station here in Atlanta:

Atlanta's Morning News

Atlanta's Morning News with Scott Slade

Weekdays 4:30a – 9a with live team coverage of the top stories

Herman Cain

Hear Herman Cain’s one-of-a-kind commentary on WSB weekdays from 9am - Noon.

• Neal Boortz joins AMN at 8:45am

The Rush Limbaugh Program

You can hear the Rush Limbaugh Program on WSB Weekdays from Noon-3pm.

The Clark Howard Show

Weeknights from 8pm - 10pm, Clark teaches you how to save more, spend less, and avoid getting ripped off! 

The Sean Hannity Show

Listen 3pm - 5pm & 7pm - 8pm weekdays on WSB

Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson is host of the Atlanta’s Evening News with Erick Erickson on WSB weeknights 5-7pm.

• Call the show: (404) 872-0750

Mark Arum

He has been a member of Triple Team Traffic since 1997 and currently hosts a show weekdays from 10pm-Midnight on WSB.

Neal Boortz

You can still catch Neal Boortz daily on WSB at 8:45am during Atlanta's Morning News for his commentary.

And, sure, that may seem like a lot of male voices, but just look at that top picture. There are at least TWO WOMEN on the morning news team. TWO! At least! How are men supposed to make their voices heard over all that female talking?

Fortunately, A Voice For Men is here to try and un-tip that balance of power. For instance, they may be the only group with the courage to talk about the victims of domestic violence. The male victims.

It’s day 7 of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. A Voice for Men, Shrink4Men and DAHMW are committed to raising awareness about male victims of domestic abuse, the invisible victims.

 (And yes, there are apparently at least teo other organizations concerned about this horrific trend)

And they recently held a conference so that finally would talk about the issues that MEN care about. Finally!

 

AVFMS Report: The First International Conference on Men’s Issues, sponsored by A Voice for Men

So, let's look at some of the people pictured there on the dais.

First up, there's Adam McPhee of the not-at-all-ironically-named Canadian Association for Equality who knows all about issues of sexual violence, given that, as he says,  "I have been raped, assaulted, and sexually harassed by females in my life as a male."
And who could doubt that? I'm sure it happens all the time, women using their superior physical strength to force a man to get an erection and stick it in their hoo-hahs. It's probably the most common occurrence in the world.

And you can tell how seriously he takes the subject by his use of this illustration to accompany the article:



There's Jonathon Taylor, who looks sort of like a 12-year-old Jerry Seinfeld, the founder of  A Voice for Male Students, an organization dedicated to these principles:

The mission of A Voice for Male Students is to advocate educational equity for men and boys. It seeks to:

• Raise awareness of  the structural and cultural barriers men and boys – and in particular male students – face in receiving an equitable education;
• Promote advocacy and activism in behalf of male students, and support men’s issues groups in academia which generally accept the nine values of this site;
• Host and distribute resources beneficial to male students who are at-risk or victims of abuse, suicide, discrimination, and so forth;
• Thoughtfully, tactically, and aggressively foster a culture of accountability toward those who display and promote institutional bias against men and boys.
• Recruit individuals and build networks to more effectively delegate a wide array of talent to carrying out the above tasks.

 Because obviously, it's really hard for male students to get a fair shake, what with all those female students, um. . . also, um, being there? I guess? I don't know, but its patently obvious that this anti-male bias is the reason I didn't do better in college. That and having to work full time, and maybe drinking a bit too much, and not really caring enough. But mostly girls!

While those who oppose a voice for men and boys in our education system often suppress their freedom of expression, this website does not encourage retaliating with the same underhanded tactics

Those underhanded tactics apparently consist of not wanting males students to be rapists which is obviously Misandry! #NotAllMen

Next up, there's Dr. Warren Farrell, a man with stunning insights such as:
.

In America and in most of the industrialized world, men are coming to be thought of by feminists in very much the same way that Jews were thought of by early Nazis. The comparison is overwhelmingly scary.

 I know I'm terrified! 

Feminism justified female 'victim power' by convincing the world that we lived in a sexist, male-dominated, and patriarchal world.

I know, because who could possibly have more power than a victim?

 

 

I've been trying to tell ya!

 

 

And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women.

 

 

Wait, what? Complex? How could. . . you know what, no. I don't want to know.


 Then we have Paul Elam, who has really figured out the way things work:

"The problem we see is a culture that still puts women first in so many ways, and men come in last," Elam, who is based in Houston, told The Huffington Post. "Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, if you look at the numbers, men come in last every time."

And you might think, from reading that above quote that Elam is maybe a kind of unintentionally funny guy. Let me disabuse you of thsat notion with this much more horrific quote:

(TW: rape, misogyny,  pretty much every horrible thing you can think off)

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shitfaced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
 

 Hmm, what do we say about a guy who has an "I'm an evil, violent, hateful sexual predator, please jail me" sign above his?

Okay, this whole Voice for Men thing stopped being funny quite a while ago, but holy fuck, this guy is a monster!


So, I really can't even look at this shit any more tonight, maybe we'll look further into this tomorrow?


a

Why is this a thing?

So here is a new product that I can't imagine anyone really wanted:







Which is basically a flesh-colored bikini top (if you're Caucasian) with nipples painted on it.

No kidding.

 

I don't know who the target market is for this. I mean, aren't most women  already annoyed by men (#NotAllMen) staring at their breastses anyway? Why give them extra reason to ogle?

And here's the really weird part. It's not being marketed by some sort of Frederick's of Hollywood sleaze merchant. The organization selling these tops apparently thinks they're doing Goddess's work.

Here's the motto from their website:

See everything. Do everything. Read everything.

 Find your own truth.

Sounds like good advice, but what does it have to do with wearing fake nipples? Hell if I know.

The TaTa Top is far more than nipples on a bikini top. As a brand we work to promote questioning the social norm and digging deeper when it comes to society's expectations. 

Apparently, it has to do with the #FreeTheNipple campaign, which is a thing that exisits on social media and may have been started by Bruce Willis's daughter?

Scout Willis sparks #FreeTheNipple movement in NYC

Scout Willis has started a movement in NYC after she famously strolled topless in public and tweeted a picture of her selfing using #FreeTheNipple.

 Although, if she is Bruce's daughter, I have to think there's a good chance she didn't realize she was topless until someone told her and she slurred "oh, yeah, I totally meant to do that! Free the Nipple, man!"


Now, I certainly have no problem with the ol' baby feeders. They're perfectly lovely and definitely not "dirty" or " lewd" or whatever, but is this really something that a lot of women feel strongly about? In this day and age, when women still earn something like 75cent to a man's dollar, when rape culture not only exists, but seems to get worse and worse each day, when reproductive choice is a pipe dream for women in many states, who thinks that what women really need to fight for is the right to walk around topless?

Do very many women even want to walk around topless?

I'm pretty sure that if you walked up to 100 women on the street and said "hey, did you hear? They changed the law, you can take your top off in public now," about 99 of those 100 women would say something along the lines of "in your dreams, lech!" while reaching for their pepper spray.

(pictured: The 100th woman)

But maybe if you are the wealthy daughter of Hollywood royalty, maybe this is the biggest complaint you have. No one is paying you less than they should because you don't ever have to have a real job. If you ever need to terminate a pregnancy, you can take the private jet to whichever state has the fewest Republicans running things and be in and out and back home for dinner. So maybe the biggest complaint you have is "no one ever gets to see my tits." Or maybe "not enough people are paying attention to them. I mean me. Paying attention to me."

Maybe it runs in the family.











a
a