Tebow Ad....seriously?!

[From the Right]

So this was the ad?! This is what everyone was so worked up about? What a terrible thing...a mom that loves her son. What a terrible statement to make...."Thanks Mom!" What an awful thing, to be proud of your son.

I'm outraged!

[FD2BLK]

But it served its purpose. It got people talking.

[Kace]

I liked that the family friendly ad involved an older woman being viciously tackled to the floor. It's what Jesus would do.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Originally Posted by Kace

It's what Jesus would do.

Are you talking about our Lord and Savior, or the guy who does my landscaping?

[clif73]

What was the deal with the tackle? Was that supposed to be funny?

[Kace]

It's what Jesus would do.

[jama]

CBS hates women. Especially old women and wives.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by FD2BLK

But it served its purpose. It got people talking.

And then it directed them to the Focus on the Family website for further indoctrination.

[FD2BLK]

Originally Posted by Spike

And then it directed them to the Focus on the Family website for further indoctrination.

LIke I said, it served its purpose perfectly.

[Sigonfile]

I thought the ad with all the people running around in their underwear was more offensive.

[Spike]

I have to go back to the same example we used in the other thread. Suppose NAMBLA ran an unoffensive ad that simply said to be nice to children, then put their website at the end for viewers to get more information. Would all you FF supporters be okay with that?

[News Is Broken]

Originally Posted by Spike

I have to go back to the same example we used in the other thread. Suppose NAMBLA ran an unoffensive ad that simply said to be nice to children, then put their website at the end for viewers to get more information. Would all you FF supporters be okay with that?

Sure, why not. Come on, a bunch of Marlon Brando lookalikes aren't hurting anything.

[Sigonfile]

I also thought the "Go Daddy" spots were lame. They should have had Dana Patrick running around in her underwear.

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Spike

I have to go back to the same example we used in the other thread. Suppose NAMBLA ran an unoffensive ad that simply said to be nice to children, then put their website at the end for viewers to get more information. Would all you FF supporters be okay with that?

Doesn't it come down to FCC interpretations of 'moral standards' and forwarding the idea of an illegal act? Which neither the "Focus" ad nor website approach, while the same isn't necessarily true for what NAMBLA advances. For what it's worth, I found the "Focus" website well-produced and thought-provoking. And if we can do that in reasoned way, what's the harm? Athletes shouldn't be role models, but Tebow is far from a bad example (Unless he turns out to be a closet NAMBLA member or something) and the story his mother has to tell is one worth considering.

Originally Posted by Sigonfile

I also thought the "Go Daddy" spots were lame.

Now, there I'll agree. However, their website has made me a big fan of "newscaster" Mimi Mayweather...

[Kace]

Doesn't it come down to FCC interpretations of 'moral standards'

...Like violently tackling an older woman?

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Kace

...Like violently tackling an older woman?

This from a fan of... 'pro' wrestling?

That part I agree was lame, sometimes the side effect of true believers can be their sense of humor...

[Kace]

This from a fan of... 'pro' wrestling?

Reminds of the old World Wrestling Federation Super Bowl commercial from years back which I thought was...ehhh. Didn't care for it.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Sultanosurf

Doesn't it come down to FCC interpretations of 'moral standards' and forwarding the idea of an illegal act? Which neither the "Focus" ad nor website approach, while the same isn't necessarily true for what NAMBLA advances.

That's not true. NAMBLA does not promote illegal activity. On the contrary, they specifically warn against it. They advocate for a change in the law to reflect their point of view. Just like FF.

The argument against refusing the FF ad was that it was just a nice story about a woman choosing to keep her child and did not mention their underlying political and religious philosophy. So if the FF ad is okay, why not a NAMBLA ad that just says to be nice to children? What's illegal about being nice to children?

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Originally Posted by Kace

...Like violently tackling an older woman?

I guess their family practices tough love?

[Kace]

Maybe Tim was trying to pay his mom back for all those coat hanger stabs?

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Originally Posted by Kace

Maybe Tim was trying to pay his mom back for all those coat hanger stabs?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Snap. Guess what I saw!

[Diplomat]

Some woman from NOW was quoted as saying that the Tebow ad promoted violence against women. That's asinine.

So is comparing this ad to a hypothetical ad from NAMBLA. That group essentially wants to make child sexual assault legal.

The Tebow ad was a nice little spot that hardly merited the controversy it engendered prior to its airing.

[Kace]

That's asinine.

Granted there was violence against a woman involved.

[Sultanosurf]

Originally Posted by Spike

So if the FF ad is okay, why not a NAMBLA ad

You can make that argument, if you want. But is it really fair to compare a niche group to something like "Focus" which presents views that a large body of Americans agree with, even if you or I don't? And maybe you're right and NAMBLA isn't promoting illegal acts in the strictest sense, but there are still the elusive definitions of moral standards that can make a nipple worth a half million dollar fine...

Which begs the question, what if the ad showed mom breast-feeding Tebow?

[Kace]

That would get rumors started.