This thread isn't a thinly veiled attempt to have an abortion debate.

It's a thinly veiled rant by pan about people going about things differently than he'd like them to

They have the money to hire lawyers and fight it in court. I do not think it is a matter of "can they afford it".

I do agree, many probably will not care or pay attention to the ad.

Go to the bathroom. But yes, I don't want to see political ads in many places... and this may not be. The point is it is going to air and there are people who would rather fight someone's right to air their view than to present an opposing view with the same audience watching.

I respect that.

She does and rightfully so. Again, my belief is the father should be able to have some legal say.

And if this ad simply says "I made the right choice because I allowed my faith to help me".... how is that truly anti-choice? Maybe a pro-life message but it doesn't say there should be no choice.

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 PM ----------

Pretty much. And people have the right to participate and state their views and we can maybe have a decent talk or people can choose to go to a different thread.

Pan,

Who, exactly, is trying to sue or have the courts block the ads?

Because I've seen the reactions by planned parenthood, NARAL and so on and none mention the FCC.

In any case, there is no censorship here.

You are simply mistaking free speech with the notion that somehow people should be free from criticism.

So the people who disagree with the ad shouldn't be allowed to express their disagreement? They shouldn't be able to use that as a factor of whether or not they want to watch CBS?

Everyone has the right to criticize CBS as loudly and as publicly as they want, to boycott CBS for as long as they want, and to send as many letters as they want. And you are free to criticize the groups that do so. But the notion that Tebow or CBS is having their free speech rights somehow threatened is nonsense.

These threads may get pointless in general, but it's doubly pointless to make these sorts of statements that have no semblance of acknowledging or understanding the basic arguments behind anti-abortion viewpoints. That's not the most effective thing you can do. OF COURSE it's not. That inevitable joke comparison of "don't like rape, don't rape" sure sounds silly, but it's given unlikely viability thanks to the authentic obtuseness of "don't like abortion, don't have one".

I don't want to hear any athletes, famous persons, or any other well known people telling me what their opinions are. They should know that "normal" people are highly affected (positive and negative) by what they say and do. If they do feel the need to force what they feel on me, then at least put it on at the appropriate time, aka: not the Super Bowl.

I am pro choice, so I don't agree with what Tebow is saying, but even if there was a pro choice commercial I wouldn't support it. When I watch the Super Bowl I want to see funny, clever commercials. I don't want it to be turned into some big propoganda fest.

actually, fta, there's nothing to acknowledge about the core beliefs of anti-choice people. i don't mind what they believe and don't particularly care what these folk do. there's a differend about the central arguments that the anti-choice people will not and cannot acknowledge and there's a considerable degree of obtuseness on their part as well, as demonstrated by your post. so the way i see it, given that there's little chance the anti-choice crowd is going to convince people in the pro-choice crowd that the anti-choice crowd should control the arguments on this matter then it really is the case that the most effective thing they can do to implement their position is to not have abortions.

of course they're free to argue their positions, but not to impose their arguments on others. it's just like that. you know, a differend.

o and your analogy's false.

That is a beautiful statement. Sums it all up for me.

You're going to elaborate on what that 'obtuseness' is, right? You're not just making it up, right?

There's this thing called 'government' that people, right or wrong, routinely use to impose their arguments on others. And the anti-choice side once was indeed free to impose its arguments on others using this thing. So what's you're point - that they probably can't? Or that they shouldn't?

If the latter, well, it's harder to consider such advice from someone whose words would indicate that they don't understand - or care to understand - the very first thing about the anti-choice mindset.

O no it isn't. As long as you're pretending that the 'murder' premise doesn't exist, you're going to be talking to yourself or the choir. Which is fine, I suppose, if not a little boring and self-indulgent. But no pro-lifer's going to give a damn what you say when you throw out something as silly - given their premises - as "you guys should just abstain from murder if you hate it so much!"

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

For the record, yeah, this is one of those really dumb pro-life arguments.

Given that we haven't yet achieved crystal ball technology, either side using this argument is dumb.

fta:

in this thread, we're talking about tim fucking tebow. about an imaginary movement to suppress an imaginary commercial featuring a college football player with little to no chance of making it in the nfl trying to get some merchandising credibility as he moves from college quarterback to has-been college quarterback. the anti-choice stuff is just a merchandising hook.
but you want to have a serious discussion about abortion.
in *this* context.

why i should take you or your arguments seriously? you obviously have no clue about how to evaluate context, how to figure out what contexts are and are not appropriate for a serious discussion.

i'll make it simple for you:

if you want a debate about these questions, start another thread.
maybe i'll play along.

Then why post at all. Your post about how this is all beneath you or whatever is nothing more than flaming, trying to start something. Don't like the thread don't post.

Do you know I get PM's here and emails from people that appreciate my trying to start decent threads and the people like you who chase them off?

Let's face it TFP is NOTHING like it use to be and part of that is because posts like yours have become the norm.

How many threads get started now in Politics?

How many NEW or even old posters that were chased away start threads or post now.

Pan.....dipping provided a reasonable. respectful response to your OP.

For the record, I agree with him 100%.

Will you address it or ignore it?

In another discussion, I provided a reasonable and respectful response to your proposed "economic plan" (link)....and you ignored it.

Discussions require more than an initial emotional post...they require a willingness to respond when challenged in a respectful manner...and honestly,, IMO, more often than not, you dont demonstrate that willingness.

And this is not a personal attack and I hope you wont take it as such.

You are correct, I stand corrected and apologize for not researching to see if what I heard was correct.

The night I wrote this, as I stated I had heard it on a Cleveland AM radio show and they were discussing that there were lawsuits and a group to get the FCC to stop the ad.

However, I have been searching to find articles stating such and cannot find them. I searched based on the above quoted post asking me for a source.

I do believe it is one's absolute right to boycott, petition and speak out against the ad if they see fit.

My sole argument was based on the fact that there were lawsuits and FCC petitions.

I do stand by my argument that these people had every opportunity to come up with an ad of their own but saw fit not to.

If someone can find an article stating there is pending litigation or FCC petitions to withhold the ad, I would appreciate seeing them.

Speaking for myself (and not dipping) thank you for a respectful acknowledgment. :thumbsup:

Now. on to this:
Indulge me for a minute while I point to another recent discussion....State of the Union Speech Didnt Include This..."

The OP was pointed out to be factually incorrect...and yet, conservatives and/or Obama bashers here will not only not acknowledge that fact, but find a need to further deflect from the misrepresentation by new misrepresentations (but...how about Obama's position on off-shore drilling....or an energy policy based on tire pressure - wtf)

Perhaps that explains some of the frustrations. Please, dont put it all on one side.

/end threadjack.

Well...

Given your pattern in this thread of making such brutal-sounding accusations with no elaboration or substantiation forthcoming and your apparent disinterest in engaging the other side in any sort of honest way...

No reason. My memory inevitably will fail me here, but for now I'll stop wasting my time.

You do know that Cleveland AM radio is the birthplace of shockjockism? WERE lead the way in groundless speculation about their opponents lesbianism, Satanism, and how black people are the devil?

If you hear it on Cleveland AM radio, wash your ears out with a chimney broom.

CBS sold time to Focus on the Family.

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY.

You know who they are, don't you? I'm just asking. I want to make sure.

A few years back they REFUSED to sell time to MOVEON.ORG.

MOVEON DOT EFFING ORG.

You also know who they are, right? The radicals who suggested se3nding rocks to congress to symbolize we don't care about a long investigation into Clinton's sex life. In fact, they initially suggested censure, and move on. Congress didn't even do that. They were more right wing than congress.

If you want to defend FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, I suggest you look at some of Dr. James Dobson's transcripts regarding race, sexuality, spirituality, and brotherhood.

-Dobson

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org

- Dobson

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org

- Dobson, as teen pregnancy skyrockets

Send rocks to congress - moveon.org


Pick your allies.

So CBS rejected this ad:


Is CBS playing politics with which commercials they accept and deny?

Allowing a message relating the choice to not abort a well-adjusted son is far easier than having to defend a broadcast that supports homosexuality.

These are a few of the ads CBS has rejected in the past on grounds of "advocacy:"

And now they're James Dobson's bitch. What's your point? They used to have ethics, and now they bend over to take it up the ass for FOTF. A tough economy increases the whores.

After all of the hub-bub, the commercial is completely uncontroversial

Watch "Tim Tebow's 'Controversial' Super Bowl Ad" Video at mediaite

There was more controversy over what everyone thought than what was. This wasn't anything but a mom praising her son, no message whatsoever except a website to learn more.... It wasn't badly done, the first one.

The second however, where he tackles her and she bounces back saying "You aren't nearly as tough as I am". I can se getting complaints from women's groups about the "Violence". That one may have pushed a little too far but in a totally different direction and one probably no one expected.

Yeah, it'd be way more controversial if Tebow had two moms.

Tebow's Focus on the Family ad could change future Super Bowls - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

I also worry more about the precident that this sets than just this ad. I want funny, new commercials (with no hamsters or slapping & punching) in them. I think the Green Police ad was really bad as well and should have been pulled by CBS or at least redone. It's one thing going after old lightbulbs instead of old cars when they are selling a new 'non-hybrid/non-electric' car.

After watching both of Tebow's ads, I wouldn't know that it was a anti-abortion or pro adoption ad if I hadn't heard about it before. I just wish it would have been kept to the pre or postgame slots.

To say this ad is uncontroversial is to miss the point entirely.

Who cares about the abortion issues... this was an ad for Focus on the Family. FOTF is an odious organization.

As I see it, CBS should stay away from these sorts of things. However, if CBS is going to start accepting advocacy ads then they need to let other organizations, organizations that it's board of directors, management and, most importantly, certain portions of the public, will not like. IF they are going to go down they route they need a very clear set of guidelines dictating what is needed to be acceptable (i.e. so when they reject something they can point to the policy -- clarity will be difficult to achieve but it will be essential once you go down this path). Otherwise, yes, the FCC should be called into play.

Why should the FCC be called into play? The airwaves are Public. CBS, and organizations like them, license these rights from the people (notice I did not say, purchase or buy... a license implies that their use of the airwaves is at the people's pleasure). As such they should not be allowed to use these airwaves as a bully pulpit or a place to air skewed political messages, etc. The people should hold these licensees to account and the proper venue for that accounting is (or should be) the FCC.

I am not clear on US law but if laws don't exist to create a balance in paid advocacy ads, there should be.

first off this thread is a commercial for the commercial. chumps.

charlatan states the problem this would have raised had it aired.
i watched the game...did this air? i didn't see it. and thank to this commercial for the commercial, i was looking....

Tese guys have been brilliant marketeers.

For the price of a superbowl ad, they got the entire English speaking world discussing what MIGHT be in their ad for two weeks without needing to do anything.

They probably counted on the worst excesses of the most extreme pro-choice comentators vilifying FOTF and their inoffensive advert without having seen it, and that's what they got.

All they have to do now is sit back and gently remind all the centre right "don't know's" that the suposed pro-choice liberals wouldn't even let a pro-ball player say how great his mom was on superbowl sunday.

It wasn't about the ad, it was about the media hype in advance of the ad.

That's viral marketing at its most devious. And it worked.

Yes, it aired.