RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad

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

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

Message

xBullx -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 7:21:24 AM)
If it doesn't violate FFC regs why be afraid of it? If NBC is a private corporation I believe they have the right to choose their customers, don't they? I find interest in those that want one side censored, so long as it isn't their own. I wonder what happened to seeing all sides of an story and then each men (gender neutral) thinking for himself. It's an ad, so is the PETA shit that will air, so is the Bud, Coors and Walmart ads that will be showing. I no longer trust any media because they think they need to think for me. I doubt their (NBC's) intentions in this effort and that is the real crux isn't it.

Real_Trouble -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 8:22:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx If it doesn't violate FFC regs why be afraid of it? If NBC is a private corporation I believe they have the right to choose their customers, don't they? I find interest in those that want one side censored, so long as it isn't their own. I wonder what happened to seeing all sides of an story and then each men (gender neutral) thinking for himself. It's an ad, so is the PETA shit that will air, so is the Bud, Coors and Walmart ads that will be showing. I no longer trust any media because they think they need to think for me. I doubt their (NBC's) intentions in this effort and that is the real crux isn't it. As someone who is on a first name basis with a few people at NBC who make decisions, I can say this: They don't want divisive advertisements of any sort during the Super Bowl (you won't see an equally emotionally charge pro-choice ad, either), because it reduces the value of the game to NBC. In the clearest terms possible, other advertisers will either pay less or not pay at all if they are going to air that kind of ad. Sorry to disappoint you, but this kind of thing is purely a business decision.

xBullx -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 9:36:02 AM)
Well I am all for a man conducting his business anyway he sees fit. It's his revenue that is effected most in the end, so it should be his concern to manage. And while you provide an example of what may be at the heart of the matter after all the rubbish I've witnessed in the media over the past umpteen years...... I have trust issues plain and simple. It's easy to openly make a proclomation that it's all just business; when in fact that's what it should be, but the media's (no matter the number on the dial) track record on staying away from political agenda leaves something to be desired.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 12:12:24 PM)
Churches used to be about ministering the word of God to the masses, and they stayed out of government politics. Likewise, government gave churches tax-exempt status for their property. Church and State were seperate. Unfortunately, the Church has encroached way too far into politics and government, with some churches actively financing political campaigns, or financing political ad campaigns (especially so for expensive Superbowl ad time). I say any Church that diverts money away from ministering and into active politics should be threatened with a requirement to pay property taxes to the State. If churches are going to be so blatant in their disrespect towards seperation, the state should equally suit up and threaten to return the favor.

Termyn8or -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 12:31:43 PM)
Some churches do pay taxes, the Mormon (ugh) church does. There are a few things about that tax exempt status that are not well known, retaining that status actually restricts the activity of the church down to the last word in a sermon. If they step over the line so to speak, and get just a bit too political, the gov can and will revoke their tax exempt status. T

xBullx -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:03:46 PM)
Somehow I doubt that those that view abortion as killing of the unborn as simply a political issue. To use the threat of financial manipulation in order threaten their right to defend life seems rather immoral in it's own right. If your position can stand on its own merit, it can stand up to the alligations of your critics, to threaten them like this makes it appear that you fear they might be right.

Real_Trouble -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Somehow I doubt that those that view abortion as killing of the unborn as simply a political issue. To use the threat of financial manipulation in order threaten their right to defend life seems rather immoral in it's own right. If your position can stand on its own merit, it can stand up to the alligations of your critics, to threaten them like this makes it appear that you fear they might be right. Your position would generate a lot more support from me were it not for the fact that churches enjoy a tax advantage that the rest of us do not. If they want to pay the same taxes I do, then let them express their views in any way I am allowed to do so! However, if they want to be tax free without incurring the restrictions that come with this, I am against that. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

xBullx -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:31:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Somehow I doubt that those that view abortion as killing of the unborn as simply a political issue. To use the threat of financial manipulation in order threaten their right to defend life seems rather immoral in it's own right. If your position can stand on its own merit, it can stand up to the alligations of your critics, to threaten them like this makes it appear that you fear they might be right. Your position would generate a lot more support from me were it not for the fact that churches enjoy a tax advantage that the rest of us do not. If they want to pay the same taxes I do, then let them express their views in any way I am allowed to do so! However, if they want to be tax free without incurring the restrictions that come with this, I am against that. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Well there you have it... First I have not declared my position; in fact for the sake of understanding, I have enjoyed playing the advocate from either side of this equation. Though I do have a position. I suspect you are aware that the people that make up these churches do pay income taxes to the same degree that you do, and that includes the clergy of most churches. So I would suspect that would include them in your American process. Next argument... Is the cake sugar free? I'm trying to cut back on sweets.

MistresseLotus -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 5:34:02 PM)
Again they get it wrong... the first EURO-African American president. Why his white heritage is constantly ignored is beyond me. Too bad they don't reflect on the situation of the mother and grandmother's sacrifices to get him where he is now. What did his father ever do for him? Not everyone can raise a child to success.... so the ad was a tad self-serving to their cause. I can see why they pulled it. Very one-sided.

BoiJen -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 6:37:57 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! Seriously, while I totally support qualifying individuals to breed...you can't actually do that. Besides, in cases of divorce the women walks away more than half and often child support and alimony are owed. Not to mention that LESS than half of American marriages end in divorce. Cross sectional studies that point toward a 50% or more margin in divorce are screwed. Longitudinal studies that are often more accurate as they follow the ACTUAL marriage point to a 20% margin for divorce. Whereas cross-sectional studies take the number of marriages that year ans divide it by the number of divorces that year. It's not a real reflection on the possibility of getting divorced if that's your biggest issue. Not to mention that the more educated the entire couple is and the more money they have, the less likely they are to get divorced. Then again, I'm not into having the gov't in MY insides and making those types of choice for me so I wouldn't want the gov't in anyone else's insides. Before making dumbass statements like you just did think about the actual repercussions of a situation like that and how it would affect you as you would not likely be the one make the decisions.

dreamerdreaming -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 7:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladylucky32 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Well of course it is a flat out lie. Those are not sonogram images of the President. That technology did not exist when his mother was pregnant. I didn't see anything in the ad that suggested that was really a pic of Obama in the womb. Maybe they thought we would have enough sense to figure that it was a representation. I guess they were wrong with you. Of course he knows it is not Obama. That was his point. You "didn't see anything in the ad that suggested that it was really a pic of Obama in the womb"?! How about the entire ad? Showing a sonogram of a fetus in the womb while repeatedly stating "THIS child" (will come from a broken home, be abandoned by his father, etc.) followed by stating "THIS child" will become president, and showing a picture of Obama.... How is any of that not suggesting that the images are of Obama? Of course we know they're not, and that was precisely DomKen's point. That the ad is a lie.

Vendaval -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 10:20:34 PM)
You are way behind the curve here. I taught safer sex and contraception. quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 Didn't the woman in the US who championed abortion ALSO champion eugenics? I believe everyone, especially vendaval, should look up margaret sanger.

Lucylastic -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 10:26:41 PM)
Margaret Sanger did some wonderfulthings, however her view on eugenics tarnished her reputation until she died, .... and she was born during the height of the victorian era.....when women were killing themselves with coathangers....today should be a little different, I see tho that view is still alive and kicking, but still tarnished. Lucy

Owner59 -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 10:33:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 Didn't the woman in the US who championed abortion ALSO champion eugenics? I believe everyone, especially vendaval, should look up margaret sanger. This is another time when you might consider quiting while you`re ahead. added: The only person I`ve seen come close to eugenics is this ass clown,Bill Bennet. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/

Vendaval -> RE: NBC nixes pro-life Super Bowl ad (2/1/2009 10:33:55 PM)
Modern medicine is full of potential for good or ill.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125