Will CBS allow an opposing ad to counter the anti-abortion ad at the super bowl?

[still_one]

[T Wolf]

1. Not a chance in hell. They have all their "time" locked in, so there is nothing that can be

done.

It seems that the pukes always outmaneuver us on things like this.

Just once, I would like to see the Dems put up an effective fight....

[KamaAina]

2. Nope. Matter of fact, they censored an ad for a gay dating service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/29/national/main6154905.shtml

CBS has rejected an ad from gay dating site Mancrunch.com, telling the site that the ad "is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday," James Hibberd reports at The Live Feed.

CBS released the following statement: "After reviewing the ad - which is entirely commercial in nature - our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot. As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions."...

Before CBS rejected tha ad, the American Family Association President, Tim Wildmon, released this statement Thursday:

"CBS should not put parents in the position of answering embarrassing and awkward questions from their children while they're just trying to enjoy a football game."

So "What's abortion, Mommy?" isn't considered embarrassing or awkward?! :eyes:

[still_one]

7. That is what I suspected, selective censorship /nt

[Wapsie B]

3. Not a chance.

The thought process goes like this: What are the Liberals and Pro-Choice supporters going to do, stamp their feet and write angry letters? Contrast that with those who worship the fetus. There's a real fear about possibly upsetting one of the flock, maybe even one who dreams of offing an abortion Dr. Could just as easily whack someone in the media who drew their rage.

[CTyankee]

4. well, if the guy is talking about his mother's personal "choice" then we can't really "counter," can

we?

If, however, it turns out to be a lie, then I don't think a "counter" ad calling her a liar is a good idea either.

The Super Bowl is a really inappropriate place for this ad to begin with. I don't think it will sway one person who doesn't already have their mind made up on the issue. She got pregnant and had the baby, big deal. Super Bowl viewers aren't in the mood for political wrangling during the game and many of them are pretty sh*tfaced or pumped up for their team...

[T Wolf]

5. ANY attack against the cretins on the reich is valid. CBS is taking the con side, as usual,

when they accept their issue ads but reject any and all from our side (see MoveOn, UCC, etc.).

With "our" politicians working against us, access to the media is crucial. We do not have it, so the enemy is in total control. They can spew their filth and bullshit and there is nothing out there to counter it.

In part, that explains the pukes' success in getting their views enacted into law.

[CTyankee]

6. It is a matter of priorities. We CAN and SHOULD have effective ads talking about the importance of

women's health and reproductive rights but it is a waste of our money to do it here, for reasons I laid out.

I like what Gloria Allred is doing, pointing out the glaring inconsistency with the truth in thad ad...calling bullshit is a good idea...

[still_one]

8. I think you are right. Not a good forum to get a point accross /nt

[mzteris]

9. Wouldn't it be awful

if there were some kind of technical difficulty around that time?

Or maybe someone will just "trip" over a plug somewhere . . .

oops.

[kctim]

10. Who cares

Seriously. It is the Superbowl and 99% of the people aren't going to give a crap one way or another. Hell, they probably wouldn't have even payed attention if people weren't whining about an they hadn't even seen yet and giving it tons of free publicity.

[Johonny]

11. No, that's the whole issue

the feeling that there as been a bias to censor liberals social views during the super bowl past and present yet the current ad in question would seem to fail the purity test that got those ads rejected.