- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 33,636
- Reaction score
- 25,371
Somebody get Wai a stepladder so he can holler into his mom's face instead of shouting up toward her chin
War Room Lounge v68: The insidious rumour of Belgium
- Thread starter Fawlty
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 17,424
- Reaction score
- 12,419
I think what’s rattled around in the old noggin’ is actually two different conceptions of ethics— or ethical concepts derived from two different systems, more accurately— rather than a two different classes of promise existing within one coherent ethical framework.
Sometimes people behave like consequentialists; sometimes the same people behave like deontologists.
It really, of course, just comes down to people feeling like they have a greater duty to the things they care about more— which is opposite of a coherent deontology, but such is life.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 43,364
- Reaction score
- 25,012
Jim Fowler died back in May, did you hear? Fuck death and fuck getting old. Anyway, here's something you might be interested in:
Brands In Cars Getting Coffee: Sponsorship Marketing
If you are of a certain vintage – like moi – you may remember this television show from your youth:
Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom ran from 1963 to 1988 and still runs online to this day.
But it almost never made it to air…
In the early 60s, producer Don Meier created a pilot of Wild Kingdom by investing all his life savings and taking out a second mortgage on his house.
(Image Source: NETNebraska)
He spent the next few years looking for a sponsor, showing the pilot to 84 different advertisers.
84 times he was turned down.
As fate would have it, his friend Marlin Perkins, the director of the St. Louis Zoo, was having a meeting with his friend V.J. Skutt, who was the president of a small and little known insurance company called Mutual of Omaha.
Skutt told Perkins he was looking for a television show to sponsor so his small firm could try and build a national profile. Perkins immediately called Meier, who flew to Omaha the next day.
Skutt and his team liked what they saw, and not long after, Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom premiered on NBC in January of 1963.
It began as a half-hour show on Sundays and it was an immediate success. As a matter of fact, the show's instant popularity surprised everyone.
Each week, Perkins and co-host Jim Fowler would take viewers on exciting journeys to explore the lives of different and fascinating animals.
(Image Source: MeTV)
A running joke was that Perkins made Fowler do all the dirty work, as in: "We'll watch Jim as he tries to shave the wild wolverine while I sip a banana daiquiri in the jeep."
Mutual of Omaha's advertising agency, Bozell-Jacobs, would create commercials for the insurance company, and Perkins would segue into the ads with lines like, "Just as the female ocelot must care for her cubs, you can protect your family with insurance from Mutual of Omaha."
At its peak, Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom had 34 million viewers every Sunday, and was shown on 200 stations in 40 countries.
The show won 4 Emmys, becoming one of the longest-running nature shows in television history.
But more than anything, it made that small Omaha-based insurance company a household name.
(Image Source: unexplainedufos)
Nobody thinks of the show as Wild Kingdom, they call it Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.
It was one of the few television show of my youth – especially in the 70s - that carried the sponsor's name in the title so boldly.
During the 22 years Marlin Perkins hosted the show, Mutual of Omaha's income grew into the billions.
When president V.J. Skutt died in 1993, his New York Times obit said he had built Mutual of Omaha into the largest provider of individual health insurance in the U.S.
And a huge part of that success was due to the Wild Kingdom sponsorship. It insured fame.
(Image Source: YouTube)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 94,501
- Reaction score
- 32,080
What are you talking about there? The story you link to say that both parties did that, and there doesn't appear to be anything "dirty" about it. Given that, I don't see how it would have influenced the outcome. What happened was that you bet against the polling, and the polling (properly interpreted) was right.
I think you should retract there because A) you're being an ungracious loser and B) your inaccurate claims are damaging to the system.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 43,364
- Reaction score
- 25,012
I liked "plowing through his own slime trail" better, but there is merit to your more prosaic description. Yes, he should definitely retract, to wit,
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,620
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 15,465
- Reaction score
- 3,009
What are you doing on New Years Eve?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you playing dumb? It's dirty politics to send paid organizers around to 10,000s of people's doorsteps to (1) get a feel for their political leaning + (2) persuade them to fill out an absentee ballot for the preferred candidate + (3) collect the 10,000s of completed absentee ballots + (4) take those ballots to the local precinct for deposit.
NB this was illegal in California before the 2018 election and is illegal in most states. Just because a tactic is legal doesn't mean it isn't dirty. When Romero's corner dumps ice all over the mat in between rounds thereby buying him an extra 30 seconds of recovery, that's dirty and legal. When Ponzinibbio and Jones extend their fingers toward their opponents' eyes without poking, that's still legal in most jurisdictions but is definitely dirty.
As the article pointed out, the Democrats were better at this tactic than the Rs last time. Also:
“Anecdotally there was a lot of evidence that ballot harvesting was going on,” Neal Kelley, the registrar for voters in Southern California’s Orange County, told Fox News.
What happened is: you blindly followed a 538 projection which dramatically overestimated the Democrat's chance/margin of victory. A week before the election you even backtracked and admitted the race was a "tossup".
I looked at multiple important factors that suggested the Democrat was less likely to win than the polls suggested but neglected to consider that CA had just legalized ballot harvesting and that the Democrats were far ahead of the Republicans in implementing this practice.
A) My claims about the ballot harvesting are taken directly from the MSM reporting.
B) I have been very gracious in congratulating you on your win.
C) Pointing out the reasons for a particular outcome is not the same as being "ungracious", but you are too wrapped up in your ego to appreciate the difference.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 16,094
- Reaction score
- 3,532
I. AM. DEAD.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
JamesRussian calling anything spam is funny
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 94,501
- Reaction score
- 32,080
A) Your link was to a Fox story. And while it was, of course, propagandizing for the GOP, the story quoted the state GOP spokesman saying:
“To say we were caught flat-footed by this is just not true. We were well aware of this, we even did it ourselves, we pay attention to election laws." and "Democrats’ desire to send a message to the president and the blue wave that occurred everywhere but in the US Senate, really affected the outcome." Also note that the mystery that you and they are trying to explain is ... why the outcome was exactly in line with expectations set by polling. And the tactic that you call "dirty" is simply making it easier for people to vote. I'd think that that's the exact opposite of dirty politics.
B) Hmm. You're making ridiculous excuses for getting the call wrong ITT, and you disappeared rather than sport the sig.
C) The reason for the outcome was that more voters voted for the candidate that you thought would lose. The reason that you made an inaccurate prediction was that you ignored the polling and thought you had an alternative method of predicting the race that was more accurate. I bet against that method and on the polling.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 20,380
- Reaction score
- 2,485
Hey, i 'm a 17 year old guy.
5'8 64 kg.
what type of martial art do you think it s better for my body?
My legs are weak and i m slow on feet. i have strong arm and explosive punches.
Do you think i have short arms? what about my gravity center.
That you grizz?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
It's very hard to take you seriously when you write nonsense like this.
"The reason he is in debt is because he has spent more than he saved."
Provably incorrect. I expect better from you.
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2015
- Messages
- 8,879
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh I’m sorry. I didn’t realize we were in the thread for half-naked 17-year-old boys. Sorry for distracting you, Reggie.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 94,501
- Reaction score
- 32,080
What is dirty about making it easier for people to vote? I'd think that dirty tactics would be ones that cause vote totals to be out of line with the preferences of the population (like voter ID laws, limiting polling places, limiting hours, etc.).
Yes, there was a longer point being made there. The point of the bet was that I believed that polling was a better way to predict the outcome of elections than your method. The outcome was evidence that I was right, and nothing about the outcome was unusual or needed a conspiracy to explain.
Where is this proof?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 55,332
- Reaction score
- 34,392
I read this at first as "imagine being 6 feet under" and thought to myself "I do it all the time"
- Status
