Tebow Hysteria - Why?

[Jack_Dawson]

I watch a lot more football than you, and trust me...that was one harmless commercial.

Yes I'm pro-choice and know about FotF's agenda. Yes, I get CBS' hypocrisy.

Having said that, this columnist sums it up well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067.html

Deep breaths.

:beer:

[Hello_Kitty]

1. The implication of the ad is that "strong" women continue their pregnancies no matter what.

And then it links to the scary bigoted Focus on the Family organization.

[shadowrider]

5. I've watched that ad several times

And no matter how hard I try, I simply don't see the "implication" you imply was there.

All I saw was a woman who made a choice (isn't that what being pro-choice is about?) to carry her pregnancy through regardless of the personal consequences to her own health.

Her choice. She made it. The End.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. "to carry her pregnancy through regardless of the personal consequences to her own health..."

Nope, no implication there.

:eyes:

Her choice. She made it. The End.

What was the point of the ad then?

[shadowrider]

14. I'm not her

So I can't speak to what she felt the point of the ad was. MY opinion though, is she simply wanted to say abortion isn't always the answer and it's up to each individual to make the decision to abort or not. She decided not to.

Just a guess on my part.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Yeah, that's why she did an ad for an avowedly anti-choice organization.

Focus on the Family opposes legal abortion.

Focus on the Family opposes abortion under all circumstances, except in the rare instance when the mother's life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

We support federal and state legislation placing limits and restrictions on abortion, including:
State Partial-Birth Abortion bans

State "Trigger" bans making abortion illegal once Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Parental Involvement laws requiring a parent's notification or consent before their minor daughter may have an abortion

Informed Consent laws requiring that women receive full medical disclosure of possible risks associated with and alternatives to abortion before deciding to have one.

Waiting or Reflection Period laws requiring a period of time to reflect on the medical information provided before having an abortion.

Abortion Clinic Regulations laws raising the level of safety and sanitation in freestanding clinics where abortions are performed.

Fetal Homicide laws recognizing both the mother and preborn child as two individual victims when a violent act is committed against a pregnant woman – injuring or killing her and the fetus.

[EFerrari]

21. Oh, sure. And Focus on the Family, that homophobic, anti-woman

racist group just spent millions of dollars to tell a nice story. :)

[shadowrider]

27. Your opinion may differ

No harm, no foul.

[laughingliberal]

39. The right to choose to carry your baby has never been in jeopardy in this country

I don't think anyone needed an ad to advocate for that choice. It has always been available. What the ad is about is making sure there are no other choices available.

[blondeatlast]

66. Exactly. The ad was pointless on the surface, but designed to stir controversy. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

74. And We Have A Winner

The ad suggests the woman MADE a choice, but was promoted and paid for by an organization that opposes choice. Therefore, the only point of the ad was to muddy the water.

That's reason enough to object to it. It's intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
GAC

[rocktivity]

43. DING DING DING! Shadowrider, you're our grand prize winner!

All I saw was a woman who made a choice (isn't that what being pro-choice is about?)

You're absolutely right--but that's the OPPOSITE of what Focus On The Family was aiming for. The commerical was SUPPOSED to be about a woman who chose not to terminate her pregnancy and got "good" results--therefore, ALL women should not terminate their pregancies. THAT'S how it should have been handled by Planned Parenthood and the other pro-choice organizations. I would have issued this statement: "We're delighted that Mrs. Tebow is happy about and proud of her choice not to terminate her pregnancy in the face of overwhelming medical odds. And we hope she feels that ALL that women should ALSO have the right to make their OWN reproductive choices--even if she herself may not agree with them."


rocktivity

[Johonny]

2. It's unclear if it worked or not

Clearly the toned down ad was mostly harmless or pointless. The real goal was to increase traffic at their internet site and of course to bring in $$ to the organization. Indeed the cynic might claim the real goals of the people that run the organization is to make $ off people with strong convictions on the subject matter. You probably won't know if the ad "worked" until next year to see if they indeed air yet another ad.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. And the column. Ugh. Just. Ugh.

Yet another pseudo-feminist who seems more concerned with being liked by men than with women's rights. She promotes abstinence while claiming to be pro-choice and characterizes NOW and other feminists' groups as "pro-abortion".

:puke:

[laughingliberal]

40. Yes, I kept thinking this woman's a feminist like Rush Limbaugh's a feminist. nt

[SoCalNative]

4. Well for starters

no one seems to be calling his mother out as a liar, which she is.

[shadowrider]

7. May I ask

Exactly what did she lie about and where did you get your info? I'm just curious if this is fact or a repetition of what's been put out there.

[stanwyck]

17. I wouldn't call her a liar. But her story wouldn't hold up

in court. Abortion was and remains illegal in the Phillipines, punishable by a 10 yr. prison sentence for doctors who perform abortions. Her stating the doctors told her she must have an abortion is unlikely. There is no medical confirmation of her very self serving version of events. It smells like another "doctors told me I would never walk again, and yet here I am running a marathon." Fundamentalists don't need facts/science when they want to tell a self serving story. And the gullible love this stuff.

[Obamanaut]

45. "Some say' here that she 'may have' lied about being advised

to terminate the pregnancy, by virtue of their illegality in the PI.

On the other hand, based on the number of these procedures done in the PI, despite their illegality, she 'may have' been telling the truth - illegal =/= not recommended, not done

snip>Studies from the 1970s onward have shown that despite the law's severity, abortion appears to be widely practiced.6 Evidence from the mid-1990s indicates that Filipino women of all social classes and backgrounds are having induced abortions.7 They do so under varying circumstances, ranging from safe medical procedures performed for better-off women by trained personnel to procedures in extremely unsafe conditions for poor women who cannot afford to pay for a surgical abortion. The evidence of a survey of health professionals in the mid-1990s suggests that about one-third of women seeking an abortion obtain it from a doctor or nurse, but a high proportion of women consult traditional practitioners or attempt to induce the abortion themselves.


<snip>In 2000, an estimated 78,900 women were hospitalized for postabortion care, 473,400 women had abortions and the abortion rate was 27 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 per year. The national abortion rate changed little between 1994 and 2000; however, large increases occurred in metropolitan Manila (from 41 to 52) and Visayas (from 11 to 17). The proportions of unplanned births and unintended pregnancies increased substantially in Manila, and the use of traditional contraceptive methods increased in Manila and Visayas.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3114005.html

[stanwyck]

49. Good points.

and well researched on your part.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. When did you hear her tell her story?

[SoCalNative]

31. My information is that

abortion is ILLEGAL and always has been in the Philippines.

What doctor there would recommend it as an option when they could go to jail or worse for doing so?

[Obamanaut]

51. Illegal and not performed or recommended are not the same. Please

see post 45 slightly above.

Abortions are and have been performed with somw frequency in the PI, despite their unlawfulness since the 1930s.

Many thousands have been performed by doctors and/or midwives.

I would imagine that some doctors in the US performed this procedure 'back in the day' so saying Ms Tebow lied, just because of the legality issue, is not proof of anything.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. I missed that part of the commercial. When did she mention abortion?

[MadBadger]

6. Bullshit

You dont watch more football than me.

:P

[Jack_Dawson]

22. Oh but I do... :-) Even Wisconsin n/t

[HopeHoops]

8. Right wing dumbfucks seem to be interesting to the media - take Palin for example.

[Warpy]

10. What part of this disgusting screed appealed to you most?

I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL?"

Or maybe "I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time?"

Then she goes on to the silly statement that more high profile antichoicers would be a good thing because the need for abortion is so great. Huh?

Then she fantasizes about famous men keeping their pants zipped for a change and launches into a diatribe about Tebow's mother's choice. Yes, CHOICE, something the woman clearly wants to deprive the rest of us of.

This woman's only point is that she's been trying too hard for far too long to be one of the boys so she can continue to collect a fat paycheck.

The tone of this article is disgustingly antiwoman, anti women's organizations, and anti anything but Tebow worship. The writer and anyone who defends this kind of utter crap should be ashamed.

[Mz Pip]

11. I kind of wonder how many

people really paid any attention to it. We were at a party and pretty much missed it between all the food and beer. It wasn't the usual kind of Super Bowl flash that gets peoples attention.

But I think the big objection to it is the FOF agenda. Their's is a very anti-choice message that was wrapped up in a non-offensive wrapper. It was what was inside that was offensive.

Kind of wrapping up dog poop in a pretty ribboned box. It's still dog poop.

[spanone]

12. people were not outraged about the ad (unseen) it was the idea of unfairness.

and still is.

[MadHound]

13. I have two issues with Tebow and the ad

First of all, I'm tired of having the man's Christianity and values shoved in my face, not only by the media, but by Tebow himself. In fact I think that there is an admonition in the Bible to practice one's faith privately, something that Tebow certainly seems unable to do.

Second of all, this ad was the first "issue ad" ever to grace the Super Bowl. Sorry, I don't watch the Super Bowl to engage in the issues of the day, I watch it to enjoy the game. Furthermore, if you're going to air such an issue ad, then you should be even handed about the matter, something CBS clearly wasn't.

As far as the article you linked to, I really can't give it much credence when the author is resorting to such insulting language as "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us". That's much the same caliber of language and criticism that one finds coming from the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.

As far as Tebow is concerned, he is a mediocre pro prospect at best, despite the fact that certain segments of our society are hyping him up to be the next coming of Joe Montana. His mechanics are poor, he doesn't know some of the most rudimentary skills of the game (such as taking a snap under center as opposed to the shotgun). Frankly, if it wasn't for the fact that he played for powerhouse Florida, and his fan base which treats him like the second coming of Christ, I doubt that he would have gotten far in the college ranks, much less a look from the NFL.

I think that the man is going to be in for a rude awakening in the NFL. My personal hope is that he goes to one of those teams where rookie quarterbacks die, Oakland, Detroit, even St. Louis. Once that happens hopefully we'll see Tebow fade into ignominy.

[Obamanaut]

47. You say there is the admonition to practice one's faith privately. There

is that regarding going off to be alone for prayer.

But, there is also the part about going forth to all the world and preach to every creature. Myaybe that' the part TT has grabbed onto.

And don't forget the part about not hiding your light under a bushel.

I am a nonbeliever. When people try to 'save' me in malls, I tell them no thank you. If there is something on the tube I don't want to see, it gets turned off.

Almost like the 'ignore' or 'hide' buttons on DU.

[etherealtruth]

15. I agree with the Planned parenthood response to the ad

“The Tebow story underlines what Planned Parenthood has learned from the millions of women doctors and nurses at its health centers have cared for over nearly a century,” Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said in a statement.

“Women take decisions about their health very seriously. They consider their doctors’ advice, they talk with their loved ones and people they trust, including religious leaders, and they carefully weigh all considerations before making the best decision for themselves and their families. This is true whether it’s a decision about their choice of contraception, specific medical treatments for illnesses like cancer, challenges related to medically complex pregnancies, or any other important health care issue they are considering.”

The Planned Parenthood statement notes that Focus on the Family’s hope is to see legal abortion outlawed, except in rare cases where the woman’s life is at risk.

“Planned Parenthood urges all Americans to ponder the true meaning of the Tebow family’s experience — one in which a woman was presented with medical and moral considerations and made a deeply personal decision in private without government interference,” said Richards. “That is exactly what we want every woman to be able to do when she must make important and highly personal medical decisions.”

It's all about choice ... each woman's choice is about what is right for her. Tebow made the right choice for her ... each and every woman needs to have the ability to make choices about her own body and life.

[Caliman73]

18. That is a brilliant response.

It is about choice either way which is why I dislike the term "Pro-Life" it is Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice.

[HughMoran]

63. Can I K&R a response?

Thanks for posting that - their response was perfect.

[Caliman73]

16. Missed point

That article sailed as wide as the field goal attempt by the Colts did. There is free speech, CBS can broadcast whatever it wants. However, people do not have to see the add to disagree with the concept. That is just as ridiculous as the names that Jenkins was calling NOW. Perhaps she is not sophisticated enough to understand the underlying message from the ad. It was not about a choice, it was about the ONLY choice that Focus on the Family thinks should be available, which is NO choice. There was no counterbalance to the add. Tebow's mother was fortunate and he may be a decent person, but they are being used to push an agenda which seeks to limit the choices the 51% of the population currently has. That is the outrage, and if Jenkins cannot see that then she is stupid.

Athletes are just that. They are people who have physical talent to play a game. Their deification to role models is part of the problem in this country. If you want to play sports and have talent then great, but you shouldn't be looking for your ethical and moral guidance from a person who throws an oblong pigskin to other men. Just because Jenkins has a crush doesn't make the article any good or the add any less offensive.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. She's a Camille Paglia wannabe. A fake feminist who wants the boys to like her. eom

[Caliman73]

26. I imagine that would be the case.

The way she attack NOW is disgraceful. Even if there are issues with some of their stances, I would not imagine that any supporter of women's rights would take to attacking one of the leading voices for women like she did.

[laughingliberal]

41. +1 nt

[EFerrari]

20. You're awfully laid back about the rights of other people.

:)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack_Dawson]

30. It's her *choice* to have a kid!

I support her decision.

If she chosen to terminate the pregnancy, I would support that too. How does that translate to "laid back about the rights of other people"? So much intolerance on DU. Kinda exhausting.

[EFerrari]

48. How much tolerance should I have for an organization bent on

taking away my rights?

The same choice you point out is the one this hate group wants to take away from the rest of us.

You understand that, right?

[gratuitous]

23. The "hysteria" isn't Tebow or Focus on the Family

You give it short shrift in your post, but the "hysteria" is about CBS. Diverting this controversy to the substance of the Focus on the Family ad is a classic "misdirection" play, designed to fool the other side into pursuing the ball on (for example) the right side when it's really going on the left side. It's a football concept.

See, the problem and the "hysteria" is about CBS and its accepting an ad on a controversial subject that reduces women to the function of their uteruses. Quite a number of folks disagree with that characterization, and make no mistake, that's precisely how Focus on the Family would like to view and treat women - in society and before the bar at law.

But CBS rejects "controversial" advertising from the United Church of Christ because . . . well, they don't really have a reason, do they? But they certainly have control over a certain segment of the public airwaves. Now, why would CBS decide to cater to one side of a controversial issue and accept its advertising, but on another controversial issue, they reject that advertising? This is a legitimate question of public policy and has to do with the public ownership of the broadcast airwaves. CBS is failing in its role as a programmer, and we the people have a legitimate complaint when CBS or any broadcaster favors one political viewpoint on the public airwaves over another.

Sorry if that seems "hysterical." Some folks see this as just another action on a continuum to bend the forms of society and the public trust to suit the viewpoint of one narrow class of a diverse society.

[slackmaster]

25. Do you believe that CBS has violated the terms and conditions of its broadcast license?

I don't know.

[gratuitous]

29. I'm not an FCC commissioner

So it's not my call; but I think CBS's inconsistent policy regarding "controversial" ads should be brought to the FCC's attention, and a ruling should be requested.

[rocktivity]

44. I think that's exactly what they were scared of

once it got out that they had a hand in creating what they define as an "advocacy" commercial. Equal time isn't mandatory anymore, or course, but CBS must have found the implications troublesome enough.


rocktivity

[spanone]

32. i really don't think that columnist sums it up well at all. it's a shit piece from a myopic view.

she sets the tone with her shit about NOW and doesn't stop. obviously this woman could give a shit about choice.

did i say shit?

[Hello_Kitty]

34. You're right, it is shit. She should stick to sports and leave social issues alone. eom

[Mushroom]

33. Tebow hysteria?

I wish! Maybe we wouldn't need health care reform because we were more evolved using our higher standards and strong spines as leverage. It was anti-woman hysteria and a wishy washy response that lost us health care reform.

How is that tamped down anger werkin' fer ya!

:spray:

[Hugabear]

35. Focus on the Family is a hate group - do you really need more?

Would you be okay if the National Alliance or Aryan Nations ran an ad, as long as they merely promoted "positive white values" and didn't actually advocate violence against minorities?

[slackmaster]

46. Do you consider the Roman Catholic Church to be a hate group, Hugabear?

Please elaborate.

[Hugabear]

53. Do they actively campaign against homosexuals?

Or is it only a hate group if they don white hoods, tattoo swastikas on their bodies, and burn crosses on black people's front yards?

[fishwax]

36. The article sucked. And I doubt you watch a lot more football than I do.

:)

[Jax]

37. "It's just a commercial" and "It's just a prayer"

says the boy who has his.

Fight for ANYTHING but what YOU already have???

EVER????

Take deep breaths in the deep end every fucking day of your guy I got mine life.

Get a clue...

[Binka]

38. Deep Breaths?

Are you a birthing coach now? Embarrassing post with ridiculous article. Unrec.

[rocktivity]

42. Harmless? It was pointless! And we have the pressure we put on them to thank.

No way Focus on the Family intentionally invented 2.6 million dollars (not to mention their reputations) in something so "harmless." There must have been a more strident anti-choice message planned--and with CBS's blessing. But when word got out that CBS had actually helped create the commercial, and Planned Parenthood produced a rebuttal video, CBS found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm positive that what we saw was the result of a LOT of last-minute editing!


rocktivity

[LynneSin]

50. Oh then I guess if the KKK wants to place a "Warm & Fuzzy" Superbowl Ad next year - well why not?

I mean as long as the message itself is not offensive then why should we care what the underlying cause of the organization is. I mean geez, we're just getting upset over something innocuous really. It's really just about the Ad isn't?

:sarcasm:

You just don't get it. You close your eyes to the fact that Focus on Family has donated MILLIONS to defeat same sex marriage in California and will do the same in other states too. But hell, if you felt all warm and fuzzy then let's just let the KKK and the Neo-Nazi and why not Westboro Baptist all put ads on the Superbowl next year!!

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

52. I'm a Lot More Oppressed Than You, and That Commercial Was Not Harmless.

Some of us are sick of religious douchebags trying to force their twisted medieval morality down the throats of their intellectual and moral superiors.

Nothing Focus on the Family does is harmless, and Tim Tebow is a first class asshole who deserves every bit of bile and venom that he can't stop himself from begging for during all of his media-whoring.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Did the commercial mention religion or morality?

[Toasterlad]

57. The Commercial Mentioned a Link To Focus On the Families Website

I guess you'd have been fine with the KKK advertising their website on the Super Bowl too?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. I'll take that as a no. Thanks.

Focus on the family probably got more publicity from Gloria Alred and the controversy than they ever would have gotten from the ad alone.

[Toasterlad]

59. Well, Your Comprehension Skills Are Poor

They mentioned their website, so YES, the ad mentions religion and their version of morality. Focus on the Family is a nutty religious organization.

However, since you didn't answer MY question, I guess you WOULD be okay with KKK advertising their website on the Super Bowl.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Your logic needs a little work.

In my opinion a broadcasting company would be very, very stupid to show such an ad. I don't have any standing to say what they can or cannot do. The public doesn't put focus on the family in the same league with the Klan, I certainly appreciate your passion about the subject though.

[Toasterlad]

61. The public doesn't put focus on the family in the same league with the Klan

No, they don't, which is exactly why gay people are second class citizens in this country.

Your appreciation is noted.

[adoraz]

64. what kind of offensive BS is this?

The KKK murdered people.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but FOTF doesn't go around killing homosexuals.

I get that you are against FOTF's agenda (I am as well), but comparing them to the KKK is... just wow.

[Toasterlad]

65. Gay People Are Murdered By Christians In This Country Every Day.

The anti-gay bile spewed by hate groups like Focus on the Family is a contributing factor to those deaths.

You can take your wows and shove them right up your offended ass.

[adoraz]

68. Bullshit.

Please find me a news article in which a gay person was murdered, and Focus on the Family was cited. Hell, might as well find me a few thousand articles citing different cases if you want your point to be truly legit, but I'd be interested in seeing just one. It could be in any form (such as, the murderer credits FOTF for their views). If your claim is true, this should be very easy to do.

Putting FOTF and KKK in the same sentence diminishes the seriousness of the KKK. Please do some research next time.

[Toasterlad]

75. I Said Focus On the Family Was Spreading Hate, I Didn't Say They Were Directly Killing People.

But I guess it doesn't matter to you how many gays are murdered by christians, as long as you can't pinpoint the place of worship.

[adoraz]

82. Theres a difference, thats my point.

[Toasterlad]

84. Yes, the Difference Is That the KKK Is Nearly Universally Despised, and Christian Hate Groups

are more or less accepted.

Hate, however, is hate. And the people injured, maimed or killed because of that hate aren't going to make the same distinctions you find it necessary to make.

[dsc]

77. fine then use the CCC (Concerned Citizens) in the KKK's place

[NM_hemilover]

69. If people like you had not made such an unreasonable uproar

about the ad, and instead rationally demonstrated the hypocrisy of a one sided argument, I would guess half the people who saw it would not have even given it a second thought. The only reason we saw it is because we were LOOKING for it after all the HOO HAA stirred up about it.

people voicing their "outrage", displayed in a manner similar to yours is the very reason the ad reached a crap load more people than it would have otherwise. "that wasn't funny" would have been the response by a lot of people, instead over reaction by some caused those same people to possibly say " why the pants crapping party " that was no big deal.

The designers of the ad are thanking people like you for getting their message out.

No matter how bad an idea the ad was, there was no "twisted medieval morality shoved down the throats of their intellectual superiors". You must be a cowboys fan. ;)

[adoraz]

70. exactly what I've been saying

[NM_hemilover]

71. Thanks for the reply,

I was nervous I was going to be told that because I just joined DU today, that I can't possibly understand anything.

[adoraz]

72. the thing about the Tebow ad

If it wasn't for NOW and the other organizations, probably only 1% of all viewers would have had ANY idea the ad was about abortion. Instead, the majority of the country knew. Then it aired, and it made pro-choicers look crazy.

Personally, I sometimes try to distance myself from activist groups of any kind. Some do a lot of good, as NOW has in the past, but statements like this just cause more hard then good.

A couple days ago, the NOW President came out and said the Tebow ad demonstrated violence towards women (when he tackles his mom). That kind of BS is only hurting the cause.

[NM_hemilover]

73. tru dat, and on a lighter note I thought the game was

great, and even though our beloved GIANTS crashed and burned, I thought the Saints played with the heart to win.

[adoraz]

81. I had the Colts winning it, but it was a good game

up until the final few minutes

[NM_hemilover]

83. Have to root for a Manning no matter what,

but not unhappy the Saints won, except Bush needs to leave NO and trade to my Giants.

[Toasterlad]

76. Well, You Know Us Women and Gays, Always Getting Our Panties In a Twist Over Something

I mean, who cares what the ad was FOR. It didn't really SAY anything all that bad, did it? Who cares what it IMPLIED. Implications don't mean anything. If people want to imply that women should ignore medical advice and endanger their lives because their unborn child MIGHT survive and become a Heisman trophy winner who apparently likes to run full-tilt into his mother and knock her to the ground, who does it hurt?

Honestly, the silly things we women and gays fuss over!

[NM_hemilover]

78. No,

Thats not what I meant, nor is it what I said. I think what I said and meant was pretty clear, I don't think it matters if you are gay, a woman or anybody else, it's up to you how twisted your panties get.

I feel that your over the top, hysterical declaration of the ad does your argument no good. And, additionally made a one a sided ad seem like the reasonable argument.

[Toasterlad]

85. We're Not Demonstrating Outrage At the Ad, We're Demonstrating Outrage At the Hate Group FOTF

Sorry you find that hysterical. It's pretty important to many of us that people be told just what they stand for, as witnessed by the numerous posters on this thread criticizing us for attacking an innocent christian organization.

[NM_hemilover]

88. not the message, I disagree with your method.......nite

[NM_hemilover]

79. By the way, what is GAYTM ?

[Toasterlad]

86. The GAYTM Refers To the Money That Democrats Expect Gays To Hand Over Every Two Years

while those Democrats continue to do nothing to improve the lives of the GLBT people in this country, despite many, many promises to do so. See: Obama, Barack.

[NM_hemilover]

87. Ahhh, ok, makes sense now.

[Initech]

62. It was a nice plug for a wingnut hate group

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBR]

80. It was a lame ad that is receiving way too much attention on DU. nt