RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/15/2008

Video: Dueling ads, one of which is tyrannical

by Jeremy Hooper

In a new ad, "ProtectMarriage.com," the folks behind the anti-gay ballot initiative known as Proposition 8, say the following:

In a newer ad, GoodAsYou.org, the folks who unapologetically look falsely compassionate proponents of bias in the eye and tell them that their discriminatory ways are unbecoming, say this:

(note: please ignore the extra 0 in 4,300,000)

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Hey Jeremy,

Not sure what software you're using, or how easy this is to fix, but you have an extra zero in 4,300,000 (i.e. you have 4,3000,000)

Otherwise, cool ad, and certainly makes more sense than their version.

best,

M

Posted by: Morry | Sep 15, 2008 6:00:37 PM

BOO! That's SO annoying!

Oh well. It would be a real pain in the ass to change, so I'll just make a note of it.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 15, 2008 6:18:16 PM

Well, they are always adding at least one zero to the end of all of their numbers, so I thought it was a jab at their over-inflated and mostly bogus accounting practices.

But, do you think they actually test these ads? I mean, who are they trying to "sway" with that kind of ad? Maybe they are just trying to make sure that the "faithful" get their butts out to the polls, but I can't see that actually convincing anyone to change their opinion.

Maybe they are targeting the ex-cons who believe they have a reason to dislike judges (that is ex-cons who aren't disqualified from voting because they're felons). But I can't see the little old ladies who watch Judge Judy or Hatchett being swayed by the "activist-judges" spiel.

And, it may just be me, but I would think that postulating that 61% of voters voted for something in the past might build an air of over-confidence among those who support their bigotry. The "well, everyone is going to vote for this, so I don't need to bother" mentality.

If I were them (while still retaining my sanity and penchant for rational thought), I would sound a completely different alarm. More like: this (unconstitutional pile of legislation) passed before, but now this (same stinking pile of) legislation is facing an enormous uphill battle that will be lost (to the glee of the majority of the population) if you don't get your butts out to vote (your small-minded bigotry).

Posted by: Dick Mills | Sep 15, 2008 10:28:08 PM

The "activist judges" speech did not work for Bush when he pushed for a US Constitutional Amendment nor Romney in Mass. so why do they think it will work in California now?

Posted by: Christian | Sep 16, 2008 8:08:53 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails