CBS Urged to Pull Tebow Anti-Abortion Superbowl Ad

I took your defense as sarcasm... which may not be all that off-base since you are wont to "barf" at the thought of defending me. Hard to know with you....

I think being in the heat of primary/campaign season is different from being in the midst of an off-year for national elections-- no national caucuses or primaries or debates et al.

 

There are all kinds of elections. I'm referring to national, presidential elections in which the pro-Life topic can be prominent. Yes, it never goes away... except to those who consider it a settled issue. Some have no factual knowledge or recollection of anything pre-1973 apparently.

 

yet the political world has been talking about the november '10 elections for months now.

 

No, giddy.

I actually was defending you, and was 100% sincere.

Now I barf at that because you showed me why you didn't deserve it.

 

No, I do not. This isn't an issue that only comes up every 4 years, or is only addressed at the national level. Roe v. Wade is under CONSTANT assault from the right (and sometimes left), and not just during Presidential elections. Face it: abortion is a political issue. Always has been, always will be. And any ad that talks about it is a political ad.

The timing matters not at all. Politics is (are?) politics, no matter what the year.

 

And all the talk is about senate elections in a few states. In which states are you casting votes?

 

And Rosie O'Donnell is a female but you're not courting her. Are you disputing the "fact" that there are no presidential primaries, no presidential debates, no party conventions et al

Look I get that there is wind all the time, but there are breezes and there are gusts and there are hurricane force winds. When do you batten down the hatches?

 

Ah, another fair-weather "friend" with no interest in the truth of a matter... it's the truth that deserves defending not me or you or any poster.

 

Damn, what is with the changes in television news programming in those months running up to a presidential election? Who is pulling whose leg with those things?

 

Whatever giddy.

Unfortunately, the truth > you.

Defended you, you spit in my face.

Good call, bro.

 

Good heavens! Aren't you the guy who, like a hero, demanded that people have thicker skin? Give me a break...

I did not spit in your face. I countered what I thought you said with further explanation. You are one of the Kings of Sarcasm in here. You should be required to post a warning when you are being serious.

Here's what I wrote: "The first thing you said is only obvious but you seem to want to trivialize it. I know that you think there is but one set of values -- YOURS -- but alas it's just not true...

You can have a values-ad for pro-Choice. I didn't say you couldn't. There just wasn't one in play here.

The intent was to contrast the purely political aspect of the timing of the proposed MoveOn ad. Would you dare to deny that there was a timely political intent that they were after?"

There is nothing in there for you to get your panties in a wad about. The remark about values was included because you wrote this: "However, using the term "values ad" for pro-life and "attack ad" for anti-war is kinda conspicuous."

So my values are conspicuous but yours are so widely distributed that there is not recognizable bias, I guess? Give me a break.

 

Let me know the next time there is aired a public debate about abortion. All the stuff you describe is local. I wonder if there will be a Super Bowl aid about the Minnesota Democratic Party Ice-Fishing Fundraiser? Too bad the Vikings are not in the Super Bowl... surely that ad would have run.

I understand that the links are connected but the profile is low-- unlike the run-up to a national election like we'll see in 2013.

 

I'm allowed to be pissed when you take my defense of you and crap all over it. My skin is plenty thick, but my tolerance of your terrible posts, which lack basic reasoning and understanding, has grown really, really tired.

And while you're at it, learn some reading comprehension... no where did I say your values were conspicuous, I said your characterization of one value as a such and another value as not IS conspicuous... since, you know, its flatly obvious that both beliefs/stances qualifies as a "value" (what we think is "right" in a moral sense), even if you don't agree with it.

Until you can grasp some of these really basic concepts (i.e. not crapping on people who plainly defend you, and learning how to read), then you're not going to get any more replies from me, sorry.

 

I guess I'll have to lump you in with rhad and googrux as the Tempermental Triad. I didn't "crap all over" anything you wrote but if you want to feel sorry for yourself, go ahead.... can't stop you.

I know you're not reading this or responding, but I'd love to know what this means: "However, using the term "values ad" for pro-life and "attack ad" for anti-war is kinda conspicuous." How is characterization of values not value-laden? It's bound to be. My objection was that you inferred that it only applied to me (I'm conspicuous) and that your "side" of this was above that.

Whatever. I explained my mis-understanding. You choose to ignore or not believe. Life goes on...

 

Ahhh - the cycle continues. Giddyup's posts are so predictable.

For shame, Donny...

 

Directing posts towards deliberately obtuse and inane people is bound to happen sometimes to even the most seasoned D&D veterans, kinda like stepping in a pile of dogs***, you have to know its going to happen once in a while. Just scrape it off like so much smelly, worthless annoyance and move on.

 

I certainly am guilty. But I am trying to be more selective.

 

Coupla weanies.