Ann Coulter, right wing goddess

A few additions to your post, 6ixStringJack.

You weren't the only one offended by the Snickers SuperBowl commercial. Gay rights activists mounted a successful campaign to get Snickers to not air that commercial anymore. So you share something in common with the gay rights movement. Athough, since you were offended for an entirely different reason than they were, I guess we can't call you a member of that movement. Baby steps.

There is tremendous tension in the Democratic Party leadership right now. The liberal side of the party - which unfortunately, from my point of view, is nowhere near being in the majority of the congressional delegation - is losing to the corporatist side of the party. The corporatist side of the party (the DLC, or the Blue Dog Democrats) want to do pretty much what the Republicans did while they were in the majority: punt Iraq down the road while lining their pockets from the lobbyists.

The progressive caucus of the Democratic Party is trying to get us out of Iraq. But they are so far being shut out of the debate by the DLC and the Blue Dogs.

The activist community (which supports the progressive Democratic politicians) is moving to line up primary challengers for the Blue Dog Democrats in 2008. This tactic had mixed success in 2006. Jane Harmon modified her positions after a primary challenge from the left, although she is still nowhere near as progressive as her district. Joe Lieberman blew off the wishes of his local party and was reelected thanks to the backing of the Republican Party and the support of the DLC.

What needs to happen is for representatives to be voted out of office in 2008 if they do nothing to get us out of Iraq. We had three years of Republican control that did nothing so that pretty much covers all of their representatives. After two months of Democratic control, it's starting to become clear who the Democratic politicians who want to stay the course are.

So get to work.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I was unaware that gay rights activists had gotten the Snickers commercial off the air. Please send them my thanks. I'm curious as to why they would even do that in the first place though. I also think that it is pretty funny that they managed to do it without the whole world knowing about it. You can't deny the fact that if anybody else were to try to get that commercial off the air they would be labeled as intolerant or homophobes or hate monguers or "Coulterites."

If you had a link, I'd love to read more about it.

Again, I don't know from your post the reason they were offended by the commercial (other than the possibility that the guys weren't metro enough), but I can imagine that they must have been offended for much different reasons than anybody who went to the FCC about it. I myself never said I was offended, but it did make me uncomfortable to watch it, particularly around my family during the Superbowl, and I don't see a problem with feeling that way or saying so. If they want to air that commercial on Bravo or during the commercial breaks when TBS runs the Birdcage or reruns of Will and Grace, I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor would I have seen it in the first place. It's not as if I'm coming at anybody and telling them that they can't feel like they need another mans penis on their asshole, so I would appreciate the same sentiment from anybody else, thank you very much. You don't have to be religious to appreciate the Golden Rule. Baby steps nothin.... I don't speak actively against homosexuals, I wouldn't dream of burning crosses on their lawns, and being a believer in the right to make ones own decisions I certainly don't want the Government coming in and telling people that they can't sleep with whoever they want to sleep with (baring children, of course), but at the same time I don't feel that it's too much to ask that people who don't want to see those images don't have to see them. Acceptance via shoving it down my throat is not acceptable, period.

As for everything you have to say about the Dems/Libs.. I'm sure you're right to a certain extent, though I can tell you that a runaway Liberal government is a very scary thing in my eyes too. I'll find myself inhaling rubber cement because they'll completely make cigarettes illegal, and maybe we'll be able to chat in person one day in the bread line when they turn USA into a Communist country in 8 years. Shit... even the Repugs seem more like Communists every day.

I know that when people I know voted for Bush they certainly didn't want him to give amnesty to illegals, and a true Conservative would never even imagine doing such a thing. This is just an example of the other side whoring for votes. It makes me sick. Demon and Repugs are not what they used to be. In all truth there is very little that even seperates the two of them anymore. There are individuals on both sides who I truly believe are good people who believe in the Constitution and have their constituents best interests at heart, but they will always be overshadowed and shot down by the majority in both parties who are so in bed with corporations and each other that they don't give a shit what average Joe Nobody thinks.

As for your idea of voting out our reps in 2008, your damn right. I say we purge them all. They should all be impeached and shamed publicly, with all of their assets froze, and they should be stripped of their bloated retirement packages. Make them live our lives and see how their rule effects the average guy. Again though, you can't blame all of the Repuglican reps, just as you can't blame all of the Demoncrat reps. There is a little bit of good on both sides... it's just sickening how the actions of the majority of both sides show us the absolute worst of humanity on a daily basis, consequentially making all of the conservative voters hate liberals and vice versa.

Divided we fall.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.co

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Here's a vanilla article that provides a few details on the Snickers commercial: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/business/media/06adco.html?ex=117358
9200&en=8ee3ec3dbc84fc29&ei=5070

Quote:

---

excerpted from nytimes article
...
Of course, not all buzz is good buzz. The commercial for Snickers — created by TBWA/Chiat/Day, part of the TBWA Worldwide division of Omnicom — drew intense criticism as well as some praise.

In addition to complaining that the Snickers commercial itself was homophobic, organizations like the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign, also complained about video clips that went up after the game on the special Web site, which showed the two men committing additional violent acts against themselves and each other. There were also interviews with members of the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts in which they offered disgusted reactions to the accidental kiss.

“As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer, primarily 18-to-24-year-old adult males,” said a spokeswoman for Masterfoods, Alice Nathanson. “Feedback from our target consumers has been positive, and many media and Web site commentators on this year’s Super Bowl lineup ranked the commercial among this year’s best.”

“We know that humor is highly subjective and we understand that some consumers have found the commercial offensive,” Ms. Nathanson said, adding: “Clearly that was not our intent. We do not plan to continue the ad on television or on our Web site.”
...

---

For more details on what was offensive and screencaps from the rest of the ads that were available on the website, you could read this post over at AMERICAblog: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/02/snickers-superbowl-web-site-pr
omotes.html (FYI, AMERICAblog is run by a well known gay rights activist so that's the point of view you'll be getting).

* edited to add:

The main criticism of the ad, from the perspective of the gay rights activists, was that it sent the message that kissing another man was so utterly terrible that it would require you to harm yourself to make amends. However, as the blogger at AMERICAblog wrote, the ad that aired was pretty mild in that respect and he probably would've passed if it had just been that one. But it was part of another series of commercials on the website that involved more violence.

Quote:

---

from AMERICAblog
Ad 4: "Wrench" (these are the actual names Snickers gave the ads). The two guys accidentally kiss, they say to each other again "quick, do something manly," and one guy proceeds to pick up a huge oversized wrench and violently attack the other guy, while the second takes the first and throws him under the hood of the car, slamming it down on his head. Yes, the appropriate reaction to a guy kissing you is to beat the crap out of the guy who kissed you. Maybe Snickers should rename this ad "Matthew Shepard."

---

I guess if you have spent your entire life worrying about getting the shit beat out of you simply for who you are attracted to then I can see where this ad would touch a nerve. I personally have never had to be concerned that my attraction to women will be reviled by people.

As far as seeing two men kissing, it's human behavior to me. Nothing more nothing less. I don't get all bent out of shape when I see a hetero couple kissing seeing as how it's really none of my business. I was raised in a very homophobic environment so I totally get the reaction that the ad is playing off. Hell, if two guys had openly kissed at my high school they would've had to run pretty far and pretty fast. In other words, no homosexual in his right mind would've come out of the closet at my high school. Which says some not too cool things about the society I grew up in. It took quite a while for me to realize that two people sharing their affection for each other is something to be celebrated no matter what gender they are. And I still have to remind myself of that sometimes when the old reflexes kic

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hehe... just as I suspected. It was because the guys in the Snicker's commercial weren't "metro" enough, rather they were "butch" as John Aravosis likes to call them. I'd probably make a great gay guy... not only did I pick up on that but I'm not too hard on the eyes either. My gaydar seems to be right on the money.

Of course I jest. I guess I had no idea that somebody would take that stance against the commercial, then again I've never actually read any gay point of view on pretty much anything before. Of course I didn't know about the multiple endings or the NFL player's reactions either before I read that article, so I missed about 90% of the content in question here. I can sympathize with their point about the violence. I see their point that the commercials may have been saying that it was better to die by poisoning or bludgeon yourself and others to death rather than be gay, and I wouldn't be to happy about somebody saying that it's better to drink poison than be white and be unable to dance.

As far as the NFL player's reactions though, what did they really expect? What John doesn't seem to understand is that there is still a majority of the people in the nation, and especially the world, who think that homosexuality is wrong. There is an overall level of tolerance, but it irks most folk still. I'd say I'm pretty progressive myself in that I am ambivalent on the issue. As my late Uncle once said, "may the homosexuals fuck each other on the steps of City Hall for all I care." What he meant by that was that he never wished harm against anybody who was gay, but he just didn't want to have to read about it or see it every day on TV or hear about it on the radio all the time. Demanding tolerance is something any civilized person can understand and sympathize with. Demanding that everyone accept homosexuality as good and normal as well as demanding anyone who has any objections about it to shut up, particularly "role models", is quite another thing.

Just as it's not the place for somebody to come and tell a gay couple they can no longer see each other because being gay is not allowed by law, nobody should be able to come into somebodies house and tell them that they had better accept homosexuality or else. Understanding comes when both parties can concede on certain issues. I think right now that the gay community should be happy with the fact that gay kids can come out in school and not be found a week later swinging from a tree in the middle of the woods. I say, as long as there's no violence against gays anymore then they've already won. What is there to gain from grossing out people with homosexual ads who find homosexuality disgusting?

I'm not trying to be offensive with this comparison here, so please hear me out before you make any accusations. To give you another idea of what I'm talking about I'll use the example of modern day horror movies, and my interactions with them. I've never seen any of the Saw movies. I've never seen Descent. I've never seen The Hills Have Eyes, nor do I intend to see the sequel. I grew up on horror flicks and I used to be rather addicted to them, but one day I woke up and, for whatever reason, decided that I didn't want to put any of that imagery in my mind anymore... at least, I didn't want to put any more of it in there. My mind may change tomorrow, but for going on 5 years now, I have not seen a horror flick of any kind... no gratuitous blood and gore. The beauty of that, is that other people can go on watching horror flicks when they want to. I never said to anybody or cried to the Government that they should not be shown on TV anymore.

Now consider Queer Eye, or The L Word, or Queer as Folk, or the aformentioned Birdcage... Personally, I don't ever want to watch any of that. Does that make me a homophobe? I don't know. Maybe it does. I don't like Westerns either so maybe I'm a Cowboyophobe too, or an Indianphobe for that matter. What would my aversion to horror flicks make me anyways? A Frightaphobe? A Scareaphobe? A Phobeophobe p

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

As far as the NFL player's reactions though, what did they really expect? What John doesn't seem to understand is that there is still a majority of the people in the nation, and especially the world, who think that homosexuality is wrong.

---

Oh, I think pretty much any American homosexual is aware of that viewpoint. You'd have to be pretty well insulated from the world to not be. Maybe there's a couple of guys living on Castro Street in San Francisco who don't read the news or watch the television. But that would be about it. It's kind of hard to get away from the fact that the fear of gay marriage is a huge fund-raiser and vote getter.

I agree with you that a substantial portion of the American public just does not want to be reminded of homosexuality. And they aren't yet ready to think of this as a civil rights issue. Maybe they'll never be. My grandfather went to his grave bitching that, "Why can't the blacks (not the word he used) be happy with {insert whatever here}..."

Quote:

---

I think right now that the gay community should be happy with the fact that gay kids can come out in school and not be found a week later swinging from a tree in the middle of the woods. I say, as long as there's no violence against gays anymore then they've already won. What is there to gain from grossing out people with homosexual ads who find homosexuality disgusting?

---

Well, there is still violence against gays. Not as much as before. That's a fact. But it's not entirely gone. And, as with any oppressed minority group, I think the idea is that you don't stop fighting until you have protected equal rights (and then you have to keep fighting to make sure those rights aren't taken away). Whether or not they will achieve that in the near future remains to be seen. Each generation gets a bit more tolerant. But it's a two steps forward one step back kind of deal.

Quote:

---

I just think it was a dirty trick and bad form for them to blatently display a homosexual act on the one night of the year that garners the most consolidated viewership in America, ensuring that the maximum amount of people in the country were going to see it at the same time.

---

I think the intent of the commercial was to provoke precisely that reaction: that the product was so good that it would lead you to engage in something that you personally found disgusting. The commercial doesn't work if the audience isn't as disgusted by two men's lips touching as the people who's lips touched. So I'm not sure I buy that this would be seen as a huge win for homosexuals. It actually seems like more of a setback to me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Yeah, I suppose you'd be right that most of them are aware of it. I gotta remember to put myself in other people's shoes more often I guess. I get the same shit on a daily basis from non-smokers and the rediculous way the government is treating us. I share your disgust with the fact that homosexuality can be used as a platform for fundraising and vote getting, but I think it's just as disgusting when the Demons do it as when the Repugs do it. I'm assuming, of course, that you're only refering to the Repugs here, but I could be wrong.

I agree that this is a big civil rights issue, though because I've personally gotten over the hump, I don't feel the need to be reminded about it all the time. You say that maybe most people will never view this as a civil rights issue, but I believe that many people today do. Even people who find it disgusting personally still respect the rights of others. Hell, a lot of churches are even opening their doors to homosexuals. I still laugh about that because if God's up there and really said anything printed in that book there's going to be a lot of suprised Christians waking up one morning with fire licking their toes. Sometimes one might get the feeling from reading blogs like this that everybody wants to enforce their will upon you, but I think that most folk just want to be left alone to go and do whatever bad shit it is they do when they know nobody is watching. Not that I'm implying that homosexuality is bad, but to somebody who thinks it is, I'm sure they do plenty of things that are bad themselves and who the hell are they to judge anyhow?

I think Mal would just look the other way and say 'Ain't none of my business and that's the way I look at a lot of things. It's going to be real hard telling me, as a smoker, that I have to go hide when I smoke, yet homosexuals can make out whereever they want for the world to see though. If I have to smoke in a closed off room with vents, then our sexual behavior should be behind closed doors as well. I've said in another thread here that a good friend of mine is gay. He knows I'm not, and he's never made an advancement on me. I'm mighty appreciative about that because if he were to do that it would put a serious strain on our relationship. I've even said in here that I've gone to a gay bar with him and a girl one time. I've never been back to one. It weirded me out something awful, but he thought I was a real good sport to go along. The thing was, I chose to put myself in that environment and I had only myself to blame for seeing what I was seeing and actually being hit on by other guys. (I wish I got hit on by girls like that lol). Just don't think folk need to be suprised by it on TV like that is all.

I'm sure there is still violence against gays. It's sad, but true. It's human nature to be violent. There's violence against everybody. Any prick that would actually do physical harm to another human being is going to do it regardless. If they didn't beat up the "homo", they'd beat up the black kid or the mexican or the guy who looked at his girlfriend wrong, or if all else fails they can be completely unoriginal and just beat up the kid that looks the most like Doogie Howser at school. Nothing you can do but punish them and make an example of them. I think that they should be able to get married in any court of law. I also think they shouldn't be denied benefits for their spouses if they have a job that offers insurance benefits to your spouse. I don't think that any government office should ever have the power to go to a church and demand that they allow gay people to get married though, and I don't believe that the Boy Scouts should have to allow gay people to be troop leaders if they don't want to. It pisses me off when Troops can't camp at campgrounds they've been going to for years because they're "intolerant". The Boyscouts and the Churches have been around forever and have established themselves on certain principals. I'm not saying they're right or they're wrong, but if homosexuals and sympatheti

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm more digusted by near-naked women humping cars, motorcycles, credit cards and bottles of beer than by two guys accidentally tuching lips. Just because we're bombarded by the same Pavlovian training every day (when you see this card think of getting laid by a pneumatic babe who doesn't have a thought in her head) doesn't make it right.

Come to think of it I guess I'm offended by marketing. Period.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME