RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Vendaval -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:02:57 PM)

About the naming of football, imagine if you will the confusion mum I felt when viewing Gaelic football on the tele and wondering what exactly we were watching.   It was a process of elimination going,
"Well, it is obviously not American football or soccer but it does not look like rugby either?  Uh...Gaelic football perhaps?" [sm=wontshare.gif]


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Yes, let the event be one where the worst debating and fighting is about the game, ffs!




...exactly......so why the hell do you call it football when you throw the ball and why do you call proper football soccer?

It's all about the game [;)]




TheHeretic -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:22:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
This is a divisive subject, no matter what side of the debate you fall on. The Superbowl is one of the few events in the US that brings the country together. i can't think of a worse time to accentuate the differences in society.



      Perfect answer, Phil.  If only all our media moguls had such sense.

    I thought the ad was very good.  I'm sure we will see it elsewhere.




philosophy -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:35:00 PM)

Heh...try Aussie rules football....is it a game or a type of warfare?




philosophy -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:36:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
This is a divisive subject, no matter what side of the debate you fall on. The Superbowl is one of the few events in the US that brings the country together. i can't think of a worse time to accentuate the differences in society.



     Perfect answer, Phil.  If only all our media moguls had such sense.

   I thought the ad was very good.  I'm sure we will see it elsewhere.


.....i'm sure they'll be able to get the ad out somewhere......and, if we value free speech, we ought to be behind that idea. Just not during something thats a celebration of a whole culture.




Vendaval -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:38:02 PM)

Are there ambulance and paramedics on site during the games?
 
Who is more dangerous, the players on the field or the fans in the stands?

[sm=line.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
Heh...try Aussie rules football....is it a game or a type of warfare?




blacksword404 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:44:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1

I believe any woman who cannot show they can afford to care for a child, including medical insurance and college tuition should be injected with depo to prevent their getting pregnant.  ESPECIALLY women on welfare.  Women on welfare should be first on the list to get the depo shot, or something similar, until they can get off of welfare and get a job.
I don't care if the woman is married to a millionaire, she should show that she can support that child on her own, with her own income, because we all know that more than half of marriages end in divorce, and can she support that child if she's single?  What if her husband dies? 
Also, any woman who is retarded or disabled should be sterilized to prevent pregnancy.  I mean, we all know that retarded women can't possibly care for a child without assistance from the government.  And... well... women who may need assistance shouldn't be having children.
That way we will prevent any abortions from taking place to begin with.  No mistreated or neglected children that way.
Only rich, smart, well educated women should have babies!


I thought we had killed him. Hitler lives.




philosophy -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 7:46:55 PM)

......don't know about who are the most dangerous......but they probably have a fully equipped field hospital in the stadium......

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=X_hqosNvv5E

...enjoy.....[:D]




tye40 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 8:03:45 PM)

Greetings:

quote:

I believe any woman who cannot show they can afford to care for a child, including medical insurance and college tuition should be injected with depo to prevent their getting pregnant.  ESPECIALLY women on welfare.  Women on welfare should be first on the list to get the depo shot, or something similar, until they can get off of welfare and get a job.

I don't care if the woman is married to a millionaire, she should show that she can support that child on her own, with her own income, because we all know that more than half of marriages end in divorce, and can she support that child if she's single?  What if her husband dies? 

Also, any woman who is retarded or disabled should be sterilized to prevent pregnancy.  I mean, we all know that retarded women can't possibly care for a child without assistance from the government.  And... well... women who may need assistance shouldn't be having children.

That way we will prevent any abortions from taking place to begin with.  No mistreated or neglected children that way.
Only rich, smart, well educated women should have babies!


Only a man with a closed mind would say something like this.  My questions to "Hitler," are: What about women who are abused, have no family or friends nearby to help them move and get set up again, that find out they are once again pregnant?

What about those women who have been abused and have no one to help, have no money because they were looking after the kids and not working, due to the agreement they had with their abusive ex.. Finding out that they are once again pregnant?

What about those who are raped, yet do not wish to give the baby up for adoption, whose religion stops them from getting an abortion or those who do not believe in abortion and are not able to get a job due to being pregnant?

What about those women who are abused that are supposed to be getting alimony and child support, but are not getting child support and find out that they are again pregnant?

As a single parent that was working until an injury that occured at work, which prevented me from returning to work, I had to rely on social services and when I met my daughter's father he swore up and down that he could not have kids. I got pregnant because I can not take any kind of birth control and he did not use a condom that night.

I am now working from home and am able to support my kids, but this would not have been possible if it had not been for my best friend who has given me work I can do from home.

Think about what I have said and open your mind about what us women, especially Nelly McClung and other powerful women that fought for womens rights have done.

They fought for womens rights to vote, work, teach, etc and although we do not get paid enough for doing the jobs of men, yes some of us women do jobs of men, that does not mean that our RIGHT to choose should be stripped from us.

In essence by saying that women that can not show they can afford to look after a child,  especially the mentally handicapped, physically disabled women, women on welfare and uneducated women should not have kids, you are trying to strip away their rights.

tye40




MissSepphora1 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 8:55:09 PM)

i just find it hard to believe that those who support abortion rights use such phrases as "neglected and abused children", "not able to afford a baby", or "why don't you adopt some of those unwanted babies" to bolster their cause.
and when someone suggests those who are likely to abuse, neglect, or are not be able to afford an unwanted baby lose their right to reproduce, those same people get all fired up about that idea as well.

so do you want people who can't or won't take care of a baby to have them, or not?  or would you rather them get prenant and have an abortion, instead of preventing the pregnancy all together.





MissSepphora1 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 8:59:42 PM)

hitler wanted white -preferably aryan- women to have as many babies as they possibly could.
how does one have anything to do with the other.




Vendaval -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 9:16:12 PM)

Eugenics




philosophy -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 9:20:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1

how does one have anything to do with the other.


....Vendeval has given you the connection twice now. Eugenics. A particulary nasty concept that you are now attempting to put a fresh coat of paint on, and one which Hitler was fond of too.




popeye1250 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 10:02:08 PM)

Fuck Hitler!
What the hell happened to the Swedish Bikini Team?




slaveboyforyou -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 10:12:49 PM)

http://www.swedishbikiniteam.com/

Here you go Popeye. 




blacksword404 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (1/31/2009 10:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tye40

Greetings:

quote:

I believe any woman who cannot show they can afford to care for a child, including medical insurance and college tuition should be injected with depo to prevent their getting pregnant.  ESPECIALLY women on welfare.  Women on welfare should be first on the list to get the depo shot, or something similar, until they can get off of welfare and get a job.

I don't care if the woman is married to a millionaire, she should show that she can support that child on her own, with her own income, because we all know that more than half of marriages end in divorce, and can she support that child if she's single?  What if her husband dies? 

Also, any woman who is retarded or disabled should be sterilized to prevent pregnancy.  I mean, we all know that retarded women can't possibly care for a child without assistance from the government.  And... well... women who may need assistance shouldn't be having children.

That way we will prevent any abortions from taking place to begin with.  No mistreated or neglected children that way.
Only rich, smart, well educated women should have babies!


Only a man with a closed mind would say something like this.  My questions to "Hitler," are: What about women who are abused, have no family or friends nearby to help them move and get set up again, that find out they are once again pregnant?

What about those women who have been abused and have no one to help, have no money because they were looking after the kids and not working, due to the agreement they had with their abusive ex.. Finding out that they are once again pregnant?

What about those who are raped, yet do not wish to give the baby up for adoption, whose religion stops them from getting an abortion or those who do not believe in abortion and are not able to get a job due to being pregnant?

What about those women who are abused that are supposed to be getting alimony and child support, but are not getting child support and find out that they are again pregnant?

As a single parent that was working until an injury that occured at work, which prevented me from returning to work, I had to rely on social services and when I met my daughter's father he swore up and down that he could not have kids. I got pregnant because I can not take any kind of birth control and he did not use a condom that night.

I am now working from home and am able to support my kids, but this would not have been possible if it had not been for my best friend who has given me work I can do from home.

Think about what I have said and open your mind about what us women, especially Nelly McClung and other powerful women that fought for womens rights have done.

They fought for womens rights to vote, work, teach, etc and although we do not get paid enough for doing the jobs of men, yes some of us women do jobs of men, that does not mean that our RIGHT to choose should be stripped from us.

In essence by saying that women that can not show they can afford to look after a child,  especially the mentally handicapped, physically disabled women, women on welfare and uneducated women should not have kids, you are trying to strip away their rights.

tye40


Look closely at who you are quoting and get back to me.




chezzy71 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 12:34:35 AM)

The head of Peta was on record saying that if it meant choosing between killing animals and finding a cure for cancer in doing so,he'd rather have the cancer.Good...i say let's shoot him up with uranium isotope and see how fast he'll change his mind.




BbwCanaDomme -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 1:33:11 AM)

I think they should show the ad. And then I think they should show the exact same ad, and swap out Obama for Hitler. At least his mom actually considered an abortion, where there are no records of Obama's mom having done the same.

Anywho, to the people making incredibly stupid comments not realizing that what they are promoting is eugenics; rich people get abortions too. Actually, everyone I know who's had an abortion was at least upper middle class. Pro-choicers aren't aiming to pick and choose who can have an abortion, they want it available as an option for everyone. It would be nice if anti-choicers realized that :) And while you're complaining about how pro-choice people are horrified when you bring up eugenics, check out this link! I thought it was entertaining.
http://revolutionaryouth.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/

And to the last person- as a former peta member (I was in high school. I'm still a vegetarian, but I now know peta does more harm than good), the reason so many animal rights activists are anti-vivisection is because there are more accurate means of testing cancer/aids/diabetes cures, and animal testing is regularly inaccurate. You're better off using tissue samples and then going straight to human trials. There are animal activists with cancer who have written on the subject. Do your research before wishing cancer on people you don't know :)





MissSepphora1 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:19:20 AM)

Didn't the woman in the US who championed abortion ALSO champion eugenics?
I believe everyone, especially vendaval, should look up margaret sanger.




LaTigresse -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:44:42 AM)

I vote for letting the catholic church run the add, then giving me the money to produce and air an add on the facts of the catholic church.

That should bunch a few boxers and panties.




Evility -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 6:34:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I would've nixed it as well. Not because of my beliefs, but because of how it is put together. I am familiar with the tools of manipulation and this was a masterpiece. If they hadn't wrecked with the lie in the end


It's obvious that many would take the advert literally and miss the message entirely. Remember the Christopher Reeve SB ad. Maybe that's why NBC chose not to air it. In a world where "The Biggest Loser" is a ratings giant they knew it would be a waste of 30 seconds of airtime that might be devoted to beer or Apple iPods.





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125