PDA

View Full Version : Tebow SB ad controvesy



sack316
01-27-2010, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The uproar over Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl ad with his mother, who is expected to talk about how she ignored medical advice to have an abortion when she had complications during her pregnancy, shows the underlying hypocrisy in the so-called abortion “debate”: There can be no debate, no conversation at all.

A simple ad with the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” has now been deemed by the National Organization for Women “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” The Women’s Media Center says an ad that uses sports to “divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year.”

The groups are demanding that CBS pull the ad, which is paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. CBS is defending its decision and says it has changed its mind about airing advocacy ads, which it had rejected in the past.

In the ad, Pam Tebow is expected to talk about how she decided to ignore doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child when she suffered complications during a 1987 mission trip to the Philippines. Tim Tebow, a beloved figure in Florida and around the country, told reporters this week he was happy to do the ad, because “that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman.”
</div></div>

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/crossroads/entry6146969.shtml


If groups don't like the message, then put up and buy your own ad. You have just as much right to do so.

I'm actually pro choice (against abortion personally, but supportive of pro-choice as I don't feel it is my place to say... as I've explained here before). But silencing opposing views and opinions for the reasons stated us just wrong.

By all accounts, the ad is simply supposed to be a celebration of life. Mrs. Tebow telling her story, a very courageous one.

How is that "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning" (according to NOW)? I'm sure we'll see some saucy GoDaddy ads as usual that would be far closer to the description they are giving, yet I don't see such a stink being raised about those.

As of now, CBS says they will still allow the ad. Kudos to them. And I'm sure they'll gladly air any ad NOW would like to pay to air as well.

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 02:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The uproar over Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl ad with his mother, who is expected to talk about how she ignored medical advice to have an abortion when she had complications during her pregnancy, shows the underlying hypocrisy in the so-called abortion “debate”: There can be no debate, no conversation at all.

A simple ad with the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” has now been deemed by the National Organization for Women “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” The Women’s Media Center says an ad that uses sports to “divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year.”

The groups are demanding that CBS pull the ad, which is paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. CBS is defending its decision and says it has changed its mind about airing advocacy ads, which it had rejected in the past.

In the ad, Pam Tebow is expected to talk about how she decided to ignore doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child when she suffered complications during a 1987 mission trip to the Philippines. Tim Tebow, a beloved figure in Florida and around the country, told reporters this week he was happy to do the ad, because “that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman.”
</div></div>

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/crossroads/entry6146969.shtml


If groups don't like the message, then put up and buy your own ad. You have just as much right to do so.

I'm actually pro choice (against abortion personally, but supportive of pro-choice as I don't feel it is my place to say... as I've explained here before). But silencing opposing views and opinions for the reasons stated us just wrong.

By all accounts, the ad is simply supposed to be a celebration of life. Mrs. Tebow telling her story, a very courageous one.

<span style="color: #000066">It would seem to me the ad is not a celebration of life, but a demonization of all those women who decided otherwise. It is clearly political, and religious, given the sponsors, and IMO, not fitting for an event, one of few, when American families can forget for a few hours about the vast divisions in our country over this subject. </span>

How is that "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning" (according to NOW)?

<span style="color: #000066">Because it is designed to shame and demean all women who decided otherwise. </span>


I'm sure we'll see some saucy GoDaddy ads as usual that would be far closer to the description they are giving, yet I don't see such a stink being raised about those.

<span style="color: #000066">I don't know what a go-daddy ad is, but NOW is not supportive of using women's sexuality in degrading ways, to sell merchandise, for example. Many folks don't consider the hegative messages that kind of advertising send to young girls. </span>

As of now, CBS says they will still allow the ad. Kudos to them. And I'm sure they'll gladly air any ad NOW would like to pay to air as well.

Sack </div></div>

I doubt that NOW has the money to produce and pay for an ad to air during the Super Bowl. I think this ad is ridiculous, on its face, tortured logic, yet again, just my personal opinion. The Premise is absurd. Shall we present ads with commentary from women who were talked out of an abortion, then flash a picture of her grown rapist, serial killer?

It always comes down to the same presumptuous POV from the religious right....they think that THEY are the rightful judge and jury, of all human decisions, and think that THEY have a right to publically slander and shame others for their personal, private decisions in life, which are actually none of their business.

Just one of the many reasons why the righteous, religious right, nauseates me. I recently read findings from a study which revealed that many of the young centrist intellectuals in our colleges are leaving the chruch, BECAUSE of the pomposity and presumptuous behavior of the RW Religous Coalition. "Who are they to appoint themselves judge and jury for all others?" one of the students remarked. IMO this on-going degradation of women, and their private decisions in life, is the anthithesis of Jesus's teachings. I find it extremely offensive. Just as I find bringing religion into what should be a family sports day, probably Americas top family viewing hours, shameful and disgraceful, particularly when the goal is to degrade some women.

G.

sack316
01-29-2010, 08:29 AM
But in THIS case, the story of Mrs. Tebow is a story of courage and strength. How in the face of adversity and opinions otherwise... she made the hard (and I imagine terrifying) choice to carry through. That's empowering, not degrading.

The ad is a positive pro-life spot... not a negative anti pro-choice spot (in which case I'd feel differently).

I have a feeling that once it airs, after all the controversy and build up, everyone will be kind of disappointed. I don't think it will be nearly as big a deal as it is being made to be. JMHO.

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But in THIS case, the story of Mrs. Tebow is a story of courage and strength. How in the face of adversity and opinions otherwise... she made the hard (and I imagine terrifying) choice to carry through. That's empowering, not degrading.

The ad is a positive pro-life spot... not a negative anti pro-choice spot (in which case I'd feel differently).

I have a feeling that once it airs, after all the controversy and build up, everyone will be kind of disappointed. I don't think it will be nearly as big a deal as it is being made to be. JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

It's an anti choice commercial, which suggests that her decision is THE brave decision. I don't think that is a fair assessment which can cover all circumstances, and all choices.

Secondly, IMO, it's inappropriate for the event.

JMO...

G.

sack316
01-29-2010, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's an anti choice commercial, which suggests that her decision is THE brave decision. I don't think that is a fair assessment which can cover all circumstances, and all choices.</div></div>

Guess that's a matter of opinion in which we will disagree

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Secondly, IMO, it's inappropriate for the event.

JMO...

G. </div></div>

Yeah I've heard the arguments about how it's going to be divisive in an event that brings us together. Not sure how well that one holds up, though. Saint's fans vs Colt's fans. Bud light vs. Miller lite. Coke vs. Pepsi. Mac vs. PC. The entire premise of the event and its advertisements are based on competition and, as such, different "sides".

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 09:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's an anti choice commercial, which suggests that her decision is THE brave decision. I don't think that is a fair assessment which can cover all circumstances, and all choices.</div></div>

Guess that's a matter of opinion in which we will disagree

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Secondly, IMO, it's inappropriate for the event.

JMO...

G. </div></div>

Yeah I've heard the arguments about how it's going to be divisive in an event that brings us together. Not sure how well that one holds up, though. Saint's fans vs Colt's fans. Bud light vs. Miller lite. Coke vs. Pepsi. Mac vs. PC. The entire premise of the event and its advertisements are based on competition and, as such, different "sides".

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Sorry, I can't agree with comparing general business competition in advertising with airing a RW commercial about one of the most socially, politically, religiously divisive issues, if not THE most, of our Nation, on the "Family Day Super Bowl.

It is still an attack against all women who had to face making that decision.

Truly shabby, IMO.</span>

eg8r
01-29-2010, 01:39 PM
A woman telling everyone about her great decision is considered an attack by those with a different agenda.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-29-2010, 01:41 PM
Do you think that a "hidden message" within the commercial, will be to ignore medical advice regarding the risks in certain cases, to the mother, the fetus, or both?

Gayle in MD
01-29-2010, 01:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you think that a "hidden message" within the commercial, will be to ignore medical advice regarding the risks in certain cases, to the mother, the fetus, or both? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">Both, and I wouldn't even call it, "Hidden" it is blatant, repulsive and disgraceful, IMO.

G. </span>

Qtec
01-29-2010, 01:46 PM
How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q

sack316
01-29-2010, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q
</div></div>

No, that wouldn't be OK. Just as it wouldn't be OK if the ad in discussion here showed images of aborted fetuses for shock value or impact.

But telling your personal story of overcoming odds, is just fine. So yes, if you wanted to air an ad, say something similar to Muhammad Ali's story, in regards to war, then that's a different story.

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-31-2010, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q
</div></div>

Then would you also think that if Ted Bundy's mother aired an ad to proclaim her regrets for ever going through with her pregnancy after doctors told her to abort, during the Super Bowl, that, also, would be appropriate?

Just wondering...

G.

No, that wouldn't be OK. Just as it wouldn't be OK if the ad in discussion here showed images of aborted fetuses for shock value or impact.

But telling your personal story of overcoming odds, is just fine. So yes, if you wanted to air an ad, say something similar to Muhammad Ali's story, in regards to war, then that's a different story.

Sack </div></div>

LWW
01-31-2010, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If groups don't like the message, then put up and buy your own ad. You have just as much right to do so.

Sack </div></div>

That isn't how the far left believes.

In their warped world view ... fairness is defined as silencing all who do not walk in mindless lockstep to party ideology.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2010, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But in THIS case, the story of Mrs. Tebow is a story of courage and strength. How in the face of adversity and opinions otherwise... she made the hard (and I imagine terrifying) choice to carry through. That's empowering, not degrading.

Sack </div></div>

If you haven't noticed ... in the minds of the far left, misogyny only exists where the party says it exists.

LWW

LWW
01-31-2010, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q
</div></div>

We have a free press ... so yes, it would be OK id done in a manner presentable during prime time TV.

Oh, wait, it's already been done.

LWW

sack316
01-31-2010, 10:40 AM
yep.

Sack

pooltchr
01-31-2010, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q
</div></div>

Go ahead. I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, the message might backfire and build support for the war, if Americans saw the enemy killing our guys....but that is a chance you take. If you have the money to advertise your product or idea, why should you not be allowed to buy the time?

As for the part in the thread about competition, Pepsi products are absolutely better than Coke products! All you Coca Cola drinkers just don't understand what good taste is all about!
Now.......pass the popcorn!

Steve

LWW
01-31-2010, 02:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How about an ad protesting the war in Iraq? Without too much trouble I could put a 60 sec ad showing USA soldiers being shot by Islamic snipers or being blown up by bombs. Is that ok?

There must be a line.

Q
</div></div>

Go ahead. I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, the message might backfire and build support for the war, if Americans saw the enemy killing our guys....but that is a chance you take.

Steve </div></div>

You assume that everyone sees the head slicers as the enemy.

LWW

llotter
01-31-2010, 04:17 PM
I wonder sometimes just why the Left fights so hard at every opportunity to make sure the killing babies remains legal and the fight almost as hard to save toads and trees, usually at human expense. I guess common sense makes no sense to the Left because it is just too common.

LWW
01-31-2010, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder sometimes just why the Left fights so hard at every opportunity to make sure the killing babies remains legal and the fight almost as hard to save toads and trees, usually at human expense. I guess common sense makes no sense to the Left because it is just too common.

</div></div>

Research the roots of Planned Parenthood for your answer.

It's not genocide per se, as the votes of blacks and poor whites are desperately needed to maintain power, but it is to make sure the underclass never becomes large enough to become uncontrollable.

Now, that's the view from the top of the left leadership. The rank and file leftist usually doesn't think this way, but they will do as they are told and support what they are told and dismiss evil when they are told.

The following is from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with
social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most
successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.
We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro
population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if
it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."</div></div>

and largely explains why Obama is such an appealing leader for the party higher ups to select. He has also sold out to the pro-death cabal more than anyone I know of.

Another gem which may help some to understand:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the
unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly
the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the
inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this
matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-
minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be
held up for emulation.

On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and
discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."</div></div>

Obama is simply a modern Quisling.

&gt;&gt;&gt;OH DEAR ... MORE MOONBAT HATE EXPOSED&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quotes.pdf)

LWW

llotter
01-31-2010, 06:14 PM
As usual, you have hit the nail directly on the head. But, that proves the lefties here are either eugenicists or lemmings and that is just unbelievable...or maybe not.

Gayle in MD
01-31-2010, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder sometimes just why the Left fights so hard at every opportunity to make sure the killing babies remains legal and the fight almost as hard to save toads and trees, usually at human expense. I guess common sense makes no sense to the Left because it is just too common.

</div></div>

It is about human rights, something which a person like you who admires murderers, could never comprehend.

It is about women having total control over their own lives, their own bodies and their own decisions about what to do with their bodies, the functions of their bodies, and the right to secure for themselves, as human beings, all power over their own personhood.

NO ONE has the right to invade another person's right to the control of their very body.

This is beyond your limited appreciation for and understanding of equal rights, under the law, since you applaud breaking the law, by supporting murderers.

I find it interesting that the so called "Pro Lifers" support corporations in all things, regardless of their devastation to our planet, and the health and very life of existing human, plant and animal life, including fetuses, reproductive efficacy, in their on-going quest for more money in their pockets, while claiming to be pro life.

To suggest that you, or anyone else, has the right to dictate to all others, according to your personal belief system, proves your arrogance and ignorance of what human rights, and this country id about.

Likewise, to praise a murderer, and equate murder, with a woman's right to have complete control over her own body and her own life, is a failure to grasp the lynchpin of human rights, altogether.

The so called "pro Lifers" always turn to killing when our Constitution protects the rest of us from their barbaric, fanatic intent to force their radical religious ideology on all of society, and even on all of the peoples of the world.

They turned to death threats when they lost the battle in Delaware, trying to force their religious BS on the Students in Dover, trying to equate intelligent design, with science. The judge was threatened with his life. As usual, fanatical religious right wing barbarians, threatening murder, just as the Tea Baggers did on the Capital steps, as Republican Representatives looked on, and failed to speak against the RW threats of violence.

Religious fanaticism always leads to attempts of of violence, and a wish to dictate to all others according to the religious ideas, of a few, attempting to force others to fall in line and accept being forced, against one's will, which is the antithesis of our Constitution, human rights, and the laws of our land, and hence, immoral and illegal.

Protecting all life on earth is held in high esteem, by liberals, just as protecting all human rights, the most basic among them, the right to self-determination, and control over one's own body, without interference from others, is also held in the highest of esteem, by our Constitution, our courts, by Liberals, and protected under the laws of our land.

You have no right to interfere in other people's private lives and decisions, period. "Pro lifers" have murdered eight people, and maimed many more than that. You are domestic terrorists, who have bombed hundreds of medical facilities. You are a danger to our society, and our freedoms, and your ignorant rhetoric, religious fanaticism, and hate, is a danger to our country, and to the Constitution and the Laws of our country.

G.

Gayle in MD
01-31-2010, 07:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yep.

Sack </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> NEW YORK — A national coalition of women's groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.</span>

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center.

The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
The ad – paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family –</span> is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.

Schneeberger said he and his colleagues "were a little surprised" at the furor over the ad.

"There's nothing political and controversial about it," he said. "When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."

The protest letter from the Women's Media Center suggested that CBS should have turned down the ad in part because it was conceived by Focus on the Family.

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.

However, Schneeberger said CBS officials carefully examined Focus on the Family's track record and found no basis for rejecting the ad.

"We understand that some people don't think very highly of what we do," Schneeberger said. "We're not trying to sell you a soft drink – we're not selling anything. We're trying to celebrate families."

The idea for the ad came from an employee in Focus on the Family's film department, Schneeberger said, and the Tebows "were thrilled" when it was proposed to them. The Tebows, including Tim, have been outspoken in discussing their Christian faith and their missionary work.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>All the national networks, including CBS, have policies that rule out the broadcast of certain types of contentious advocacy ads. In 2004, CBS cited such a policy in rejecting an ad by the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC's welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel shunned by more conservative churches.</span>
CBS was criticized for rejecting that ad – and perhaps might have worried about comparable criticism from conservatives if it had rejected an ad featuring such a charismatic and well-known figure as Tebow.

CBS noted that it had run some advocacy ads in recent months, including spots taking conflicting sides in the debate of a national health care overhaul.

Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>A national columnist for CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel, also objected to the CBS decision to show the ad, specifically because it would air on Super Sunday.

"If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year," he wrote. "It's not a day to discuss abortion. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>For it, against it, I don't care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don't care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion."</span></span>
</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Not appropriate anywhere, but surely not for the Super Bowl "Family" Day. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
02-01-2010, 08:19 AM
One person's freedom ends at the point where it infringes on another person't freedom. That is why freedom of speech does not allow you to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. That little baby has a beating heart, fingers and toes, and everything else any other person has. They are on life support inside the mother, but they are still a living human being, with every expectation of getting off life support in a short period of time and living a normal life.
How does one person's freedom not infringe on that baby's freedom to live?

Steve

sack316
02-07-2010, 10:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a feeling that once it airs, after all the controversy and build up, everyone will be kind of disappointed. I don't think it will be nearly as big a deal as it is being made to be. JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

So here is this tasteless and offensive ad:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mrs. Tebow: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn't make it into this world. I can remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard. Well he's all grown up now, and I still worry about his health! You know with all our family has been through, you have to be tough...

(Tim tackles his Mom)

Mrs. Tebow: Timmy! (laughing) We're trying to tell our story here!

Tim: Sorry about that Mom..... do you still worry about me Mom?

Mrs. Tebow: Well yeah... you're not nearly as tough as I am
</div></div>

Disgraceful. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sUkuO3GSxY

Sack

Gayle in MD
02-08-2010, 07:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I have a feeling that once it airs, after all the controversy and build up, everyone will be kind of disappointed. I don't think it will be nearly as big a deal as it is being made to be. JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

So here is this tasteless and offensive ad:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mrs. Tebow: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn't make it into this world. I can remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard. Well he's all grown up now, and I still worry about his health! You know with all our family has been through, you have to be tough...

(Tim tackles his Mom)

Mrs. Tebow: Timmy! (laughing) We're trying to tell our story here!

Tim: Sorry about that Mom..... do you still worry about me Mom?

Mrs. Tebow: Well yeah... you're not nearly as tough as I am
</div></div>

Disgraceful. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sUkuO3GSxY

Sack </div></div>

Yes, it was disgraceful, that they used a family sports day to advertize the most disgusting, repulsive, anti women's rights organization in the country, led by one of the most hateful Jihadist styled men in the country.

Hence, ALL of the women's rights organizations, protested it. It was an attack, against women's rights.

G.

LWW
02-08-2010, 08:38 AM
Bless you sister Gayle. May you find enlightenment.

LWW

pooltchr
02-08-2010, 09:32 AM
As I recall, you hated it before you even knew what the content was....but I'm sure someone told you that you needed to hate it, so you did.

It was harmless.

Steve

cushioncrawler
02-08-2010, 03:02 PM
The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy
by Richard Dawkins - On Faith - The Washington Post
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai...ow_fallacy.html (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/02/the_great_tim_tebow_fallacy.html)

I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.

The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion.

It is a version of what, following the great Nobel-Prizewinning biologist Peter Medawar, I have called the Great Beethoven Fallacy.

Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament. One doctor to another:


"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"

"I would have terminated the pregnancy."

"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."


It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'. As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,


"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse."

Gayle in MD
02-08-2010, 03:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy
by Richard Dawkins - On Faith - The Washington Post
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfai...ow_fallacy.html (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/02/the_great_tim_tebow_fallacy.html)

I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.

The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion.

It is a version of what, following the great Nobel-Prizewinning biologist Peter Medawar, I have called the Great Beethoven Fallacy.

Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament. One doctor to another:


"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"

"I would have terminated the pregnancy."

"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."


It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'. As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,


"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse." </div></div>

Logic is never an issue with the radical religious right.
Logic is never an issue with Islamic terrorists, either.
Their language is all about force, violence, condemnation, threats, glorified cowardice and their own imagined omnipotence.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
02-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Bless Mrs Tebow for not choosing to murder Tim.

LWW

eg8r
02-08-2010, 03:17 PM
So disgraceful to praise the family on a family sports day.

eg8r

LWW
02-08-2010, 03:20 PM
Sundays should be used for the praise of the Messiah.

The problem is that their is a difference of opinion as to who that is.

LWW

sack316
02-08-2010, 03:48 PM
The final logic is sound. Indeed, the chances of missing out on a Beethoven (or anyone) by abortion is no greater than that of abstinence, or use of a condom, or birth control pills, or any other means.

What that does not do, though, is make any change in the Tebow story.

In fact, from the rest of the article, Dawkin's own reasoning inadvertently presents the value of a conceived life:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would. Probably not such a good quarterback but - we can but hope - a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free. That is not the point. The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother's refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry. The same is true of all four of his grandparents, all eight of his great grandparents, and so on back. </div></div>

Indeed Mr. Dawkins, based solely on sperm count, the odds of that individual conception tally at 1 in 40 million. Factor in everything else, and you reach those astronomical odds spoken of. Sounds pretty precious to me personally.

Was also good to see this article agree with the original point of this thread as well:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. </div></div>

Sack

Gayle in MD
02-08-2010, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sounds pretty precious to me personally.

</div></div>

I could give you thousand of circumstances, regarding this personal, private right to maked one's own choice in the matter, in which thousands of women find themselves, which would be far, far from precious.

Not to mention, that you, personally, cannot get pregnant. Hence, your thoughts on the subject are a bit removed from the reality of bweing in one of those very unprecious circumstances of Pregnancy.

Regardless, as I said from the start, it was inappropriate, as it is always inappropriate to misrepresent one person's choice, as THE heroic and/or CORRECT choice for all other women. There are many women who chose to end pregnancies in order to spare what would eventually be a life of incredible pain and suffering, with nothing in the end, but an early, painful death.

I find it extremely narrow minded and stunningly ignorant, for one woman to present herself as a hero, for having made a particular choice, while ignoring the fact that other choices may be just a heroic, just as loving, and just as correct, under the conditions prevailing.

Incredibly irresponsible, and narrow minded, IMPO.



G.

sack316
02-08-2010, 05:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Regardless, as I said from the start, it was inappropriate, as it is always inappropriate to misrepresent one person's choice, as THE heroic and/or CORRECT choice for all other women.
</div></div>

Big difference in representing one's story as "THE" heroic choice vs. "A" heroic choice.

Besides that, there was nothing in the ad about heroism anyway. Nothing about choice (or lack thereof). Nothing about right or wrong. Nothing of an opinionated nature.

I would, however, entertain any complaints about the many godaddy commercials that objectified women. I mean, I liked 'em... but surely would understand the complaints in that instance.

Sack

p.s. I also hope everyone realizes that the only reason the ad got so much attention, was because of the attention given to it by the very groups that were trying to shut it down. The ad itself, without all the hooplah around it, would have been barely noticeable compared to the others.

pooltchr
02-08-2010, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
p.s. I also hope everyone realizes that the only reason the ad got so much attention, was because of the attention given to it by the very groups that were trying to shut it down. The ad itself, without all the hooplah around it, would have been barely noticeable compared to the others. </div></div>

Especially since it ran right next to the Betty White Snickers commercial which totally overshadowed it.

Steve

LWW
02-08-2010, 06:08 PM
The law of unintended consequences bites haters with a vengeance quite frequently.

LWW

sack316
02-09-2010, 12:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
p.s. I also hope everyone realizes that the only reason the ad got so much attention, was because of the attention given to it by the very groups that were trying to shut it down. The ad itself, without all the hooplah around it, would have been barely noticeable compared to the others. </div></div>

Especially since it ran right next to the Betty White Snickers commercial which totally overshadowed it.

Steve </div></div>

LOL yeah, loved the Betty White/ Abe Vigoda spot was classic!

Sack

eg8r
02-09-2010, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">p.s. I also hope everyone realizes that the only reason the ad got so much attention, was because of the attention given to it by the very groups that were trying to shut it down. The ad itself, without all the hooplah around it, would have been barely noticeable compared to the others. </div></div>This is usually the case. Isn't it funny that the loudest voices about all of this was from the groups that hypocritically say they care about the woman and her freedom of choice?

eg8r

LWW
02-09-2010, 09:59 AM
To the far left, they have redefined "CHOICE" to mean "OBEDIENCE" ... and no deviance can be tolerated.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-09-2010, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Regardless, as I said from the start, it was inappropriate, as it is always inappropriate to misrepresent one person's choice, as THE heroic and/or CORRECT choice for all other women.
</div></div>

Big difference in representing one's story as "THE" heroic choice vs. "A" heroic choice.

Besides that, there was nothing in the ad about heroism anyway. Nothing about choice (or lack thereof). Nothing about right or wrong. Nothing of an opinionated nature.

I would, however, entertain any complaints about the many godaddy commercials that objectified women. I mean, I liked 'em... but surely would understand the complaints in that instance.

Sack

p.s. I also hope everyone realizes that the only reason the ad got so much attention, was because of the attention given to it by the very groups that were trying to shut it down. The ad itself, without all the hooplah around it, would have been barely noticeable compared to the others. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">It was an ad which advertized the most anti-choice, anti-women's rights, anti-American principles, paid for by the most anti-constitutional organization in the country, which exploits the use of the word, "family" and uses organized religion as a means to oppose and destroy other's personal rights and freedoms, and their control over private "Family rights and decisions" and which seeks anti-constitutional policies against the rights of others, to self-determination, and seeks to destroy women's rights to complete control over their own, actual bodies.

Hence, I, and many other women, found it to be personally offensive, and completely inappropriate.

Regardless of what her self serving intentions were, she was advertising an organization which is against freedom from religious persecution, and seeks to dictate to others, according to their narrow minded religious interpretations, of right and wrong, and which is based on their subjective, personal religious philosophies, in order to force those interpretations upon all others by using the law to deprive others of those rights.

The ad should have gotten the wide spread objections which it recieved. It was an effort to insinuate that her decision, was the correct decision for all women, in all circumstances, and to engender grief and guilt in women who have made different decisions, for different and similar circumstances.

It was wrong. It was a disgrace. It was offensive to any woman who cares about women's rights.

G.</span>

eg8r
02-09-2010, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was an ad which advertized the most anti-choice, anti-women's rights, anti-American principles, paid for by the most anti-constitutional organization in the country,</div></div>Actually it was most definitely an ad that was PRO CHOICE. The docs did not want her to have the baby and she chose to have Tim Tebow. All Gator fans are quite thankful for her strong and smart decision.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-09-2010, 10:34 AM
I don't suppose you would care to comment on the overall tone of this year's adds that portray men as a bunch of spineless idiots?

Probably not. That wouldn't fit your agenda.

Steve

Deeman3
02-09-2010, 10:34 AM
Did you see where NOW touted the violence against Tebow's Mom as their reason (if they ever were to use reason) for their objections but not a word about Betty White being tackled on screen in the commercial right before it.

Kinda shows you how much they "care" about women.

Great Commercial. A couragous woman who will, as usual, be vilified by all those who do not agree with her choice.

I did think the casual Friday cmooercial was discusting and, perhaps, would have been better replaced with the Mandate pervert one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
02-09-2010, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you see where NOW touted the violence against Tebow's Mom as their reason (if they ever were to use reason) <span style="color: #000066">I, too, recoiled over the sight of a son, tackling her mother, and IMO, it looked violent. What kind of son of his size would do such a thing? If it was supposed to be funny, it wasn't. It set a bad example, IMO. </span> for their objections but not a word about Betty White being tackled on screen in the commercial right before it.

Kinda shows you how much they "care" about women.

<span style="color: #000066">Betty white is a slap stick commedian, for the love of Pete~! </span>

Great Commercial. A couragous woman who will, as usual, be vilified by all those who do not agree with her choice.

<span style="color: #000066">I fully support her right to make her own choice. I see nothing courageous about taking a un-necessary shance of leaving four orphans to save one fetus.

My objections, however, have nothing to do with her choice, even though IMO it was extremely irresponsible, and careless, given that her choice opened the potential to leave four other children without a mother. A stupid risk, IMO, but surely her own to take. My objection is that the inference was there, that going against what her doctor advised, is the appropriate decision of all women, in all circumstances, even when facing death. That is truly irresponsible, and truly offensive, and indicates, by suggestion, that a fetuses potential life, is more valuable than the existing mother's life. Disgusting to me, and to many other women, who would never make such a foolish choice, particularly with four other children depending on them.</span>

I did think the casual Friday cmooercial was discusting and, perhaps, would have been better replaced with the Mandate pervert one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

pooltchr
02-09-2010, 10:51 AM
We get it. Tebow's mom was irresponsible for having her baby.
Palin was irresponsible for having her baby.

You just can't handle people who value a child's life more than your precious right to kill an unwanted baby.

At least be honest. Admit that you think Mothers who decide they don't want a baby need the right to chicken out and kill it before they give birth.

Steve

Gayle in MD
02-09-2010, 11:25 AM
<span style="color: #000066"> Stay Away From My Posts.

I do not read your sexist hateful posts, which insult all women.

I find you to be completely offensive, and stunningly ignorant. I am not at all interested in any of your opinions, about anything, and I am asking you to stop stalking my every post. Perhaps, you should consider to Stop stealing from your employers by loitering on the internet, during working hours, you thief! Go pray for forgiveness for stealing from your employer, Bubba!

G. </span>

wolfdancer
02-09-2010, 11:41 AM
He claimed on two different sites that he had to quit here, because of your "hate" posts, yet he now follows you around, posting derogatory comments about you, even though you might be quoting from some media.
What does that tell you about him?

pooltchr
02-09-2010, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #000066"> Stay Away From My Posts.

I do not read your sexist hateful posts, which insult all women.

I find you to be completely offensive, and stunningly ignorant. I am not at all interested in any of your opinions, about anything, and I am asking you to stop stalking my every post. Perhaps, you should consider to Stop stealing from your employers by loitering on the internet, during working hours, you thief! Go pray for forgiveness for stealing from your employer, Bubba!

G. </span> </div></div>

Sorry to disappoint you granny, but I work for myself. However, a copy of your slanderous comment has been filed for safe keeping. Never know when someone might ask for proof of something.

And if you really weren't interested in my opinion, you wouldn't bother to read my posts.

Finding it more and more difficult to tell truth from fantasy?


Steve

wolfdancer
02-09-2010, 12:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> However, a copy of your slanderous comment has been filed for safe keeping. Never know when someone might ask for proof of something. </div></div>
WOW !!! betchu done scared her with that threat.
I would suggest though, that you mark your file
"Libel" instead of "slander"

pooltchr
02-09-2010, 12:39 PM
Thanks for pointing that out, Wolfie. So you agree with me that her post constitutes libel.

Good of you to admit it.

Steve

eg8r
02-09-2010, 12:52 PM
LOL, I did not even think twice about it but you have a point. Why would the hypocrites at NOW criticize a woman for exercising her free right and then have nothing to say about violence against old chicks. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Stretch
02-09-2010, 01:04 PM
[quote=LWW]Sundays should be used for the praise of the Messiah.

The problem is that their is a difference of opinion as to who that is.

I know, aint it terrible? You believe it's you while others think it's Jesus. And that's just scractching the surface of religious belief systems. Now run along and pray for our souls little man. St.

Stretch
02-09-2010, 01:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The law of unintended consequences bites haters with a vengeance quite frequently.

LWW </div></div>

you should know! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
02-09-2010, 02:04 PM
I do, I witness it often.

Bless you for noticing brother stretch.

LWW

cushioncrawler
02-09-2010, 05:14 PM
The Law of Unintended Consequences or unintended consequences is an adage or epigram that can be defined as follows: "Any intervention in a complex system may or may not have the intended result, but will inevitably create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes".[1][2][3][4][5] In common usage, it is a wry or humorous expression warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. It is used in variety of different contexts in different fields of study, including Philosophy, Economics, History, Social Sciences, Systems Theory and Organizational Studies.

In Organizational Studies and Systems theory, unintended consequences are demonstrated in diagrams of System Archetypes such as "Fixes that Fail" and others. It became more widely known in western corporate culture after the publication of The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge.

In History and the Social Sciences, unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended by a particular action. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action. The concept has long existed but was popularised in the 20th century by the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton.[6]

Unintended consequences can be grouped into roughly three types:

............a positive unexpected benefit, usually referred to as serendipity or a windfall.

............a perverse effect, that may be contrary to what was originally intended (i.e. A potential solution to a problem only makes it worse). This situation can arise when a policy has a perverse incentive and causes actions contrary to what is desired.

............a negative effect, occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy - e.g. while irrigation schemes do provide people with water for agriculture, they often increase waterborne disease which can a have a devastating negative health effect, such as schistosomiasis.
madWiki.

Hmmmmmmmmmm -- So, it might be "the" law -- but there are 3 possible types of consequences -- and only 2 of them "bite".
Hmmmmmmmmmmm -- And, that bite probly aint for a "u", it iz probly uzually for "someone else".
madMac.

wolfdancer
02-09-2010, 05:41 PM
Gee, he was so hoping to astound us once again with his broad array of knowledge....and you went and "one-upped" him on that.
In my extended family, including friends....many are now raising the results of unintended consequences......

LWW
02-09-2010, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gee, he was so hoping to astound us once again with his broad array of knowledge....and you went and "one-upped" him on that.
In my extended family, including friends....many are now raising the results of unintended consequences......
</div></div>

No, he understood the meaning as did I.

Bless you for trying however brother wolf.

LWW

wolfdancer
02-09-2010, 08:34 PM
then you agree...he done "ate yer lunch"...and showed you up, a beat-down?, while you was trying to impress the troops here.....

LWW
02-10-2010, 02:01 AM
You have such a wonderful imagination brother wolf.

If you would focus it in a constructive manner you could really achieve some great things.

Bless you.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-10-2010, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He claimed on two different sites that he had to quit here, because of your "hate" posts, yet he now follows you around, posting derogatory comments about you, even though you might be quoting from some media.
What does that tell you about him? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">It kills them both that I don't read their bullsh**. If he is writing derogatory things about me elsewhere, I'll give you an e-mail address where you can send them for me....if you will.

The man is out of control.

Serious problems don't improve over time, they get worse, particularly when someone is so out of touch with their own illnesses, and Narcisscism is the gateway to a slew of emotional illnesses.

We both knew what he was when he wrote that disgusting, insulting, vicious post about women.

What kind of man begins a sentence with the words, "When a woman spreads her legs...."

Repulsive to say the least.</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
02-10-2010, 08:42 AM
Sister gayle, I am so glad that your mother chose to allow you to live.

Life is a wonderful gift.

LWW