[Regarding this Republican ad:http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/republican_flier.jpg ">
to the ad's credit, if family values do go under, brown men will have the ability to rape young girls.
48 comments
Ah, bollocks to it. For me, it's 50/50 between meth-using, 'massage'-receiving ministers, or empowering 'brown men' with an ability 'white men' have enjoyed for millennia.
I don't see a picture. our values will be destroyed!
ethan is quite the fundie. To his wonderful remark about brown men having the ability to rape young girls alice said: "No. Just because "family values" (more aptly named religious values) are no longer legislated, doesn't mean brown men will be given the right to rape your daughters." " those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.
i speak, of course, of the family unit's survival in the wake of moral relativism.
To which norm wrote, "Do you have a justification for the family unit?
And finally ethan spewed fundychunks, "it's endorsed by the Bible, and has been the natural mode of existence for all of the world's civilizations. i'll let nature speak for itself."
I agree, values cannot and should not be legislated, especially by OUR government or the xtian's with their baker's and haggard's; and since when haven't men been raping women? The family values ethan speaks of have never existed except in xtian rhetoric and their rewrite of history ... and what does that say about your bibble, ethan?
btw, (in the picture) it doesn't look like a black hand on my computer.
PassingThrough,
How in the HECK is this "advertising" not considered libelous?!?
This is mere political rhetoric. There's nothing fundie about it and it does not belong on this site. Sure, it's stupid, but it's not fundie.
A friend of mine is a government major, and apparently race is used in negative campaign ads quite a bit, very subtly, like this (I forget what the proper term is). I'd had no idea; it's quite disgusting.
Novum - I count this fundie for a couple of reasons.
Doesn't anyone see the irony in this? When I saw the picture, my first reaction to it was that, yes, those "family values" (aka, what the picture insinuates - raping of little girls, preferably their own daughters) will be destroyed.
That's not a slippery slope, that's a frictionless one!
Besides, which family values have to do with rape?, and why black men?, is not that serious if a woman is raped by an Asian or a white person or it´s your assumption that only black people rape, you stupid racist?
Now, jokes aside, this ad was posted by that idiot, but he does so because his capacity of critical knowledge is zero. This is the typical ad some pro-republicans have displayed on the deep South, where women are considered cattle and racism is still on. Of course, democrats will never stop thanking Ethan for showing off the ignorance of republican voters.
"What I don't get is, if the family unit is so natural and has always existed, how could the Democrats of all people destroy it? Why would anyone have to be encouraged to get married/be heterosexual/etc. if people naturally act like that?" 'natural' ; however I think some are confused and equate natural with good .. always. (Just like all natural ingredients in a food doesn't mean that those ingredients aren't deadly.) Many try to fix heterosexuality as natural in much the same way: It is natural, therefore it is good, right, correct, etc. Conversely, they have to make all others unnatural (homosexuality, for instance) and shade them all as bad, evil, wrong, etc. The perpetual good vs evil struggle; so very black and white.
In regards to homosexuality it is natural and neutral; heterosexuality is natural and neutral; I'm speaking of family values and how each/either have a positive or negative impact in family units. The 'bad' comes not from the nature of any group as a whole, but due to individuals and how they each choose to behave. In other words, people exhibiting all manner of sexual tendencies have the capacity of being good or bad with one not overwhelmingly set up in a specific camp. We are all human, all humans are capable of doing good and evil. No group can be labeled either good or evil based on sexuality so no group has the corner on either. I don't understand how anyone can draw an unbroken line between sexuality and good family values (or bad family values). One's sexuality has nothing to do with one's ability to behave correctly and teach the same to children.
The hand still looks whitish (with a weather-worn like tan) to me and the girl looks to be an adult .. no child I've ever met wore that much eye make up but regardless, I see the image that of brut power (could be an Arab hand?) oppressing the weak (the hand could represent a veil, as when burka's are worn all we see are the eyes). This speaks on a couple levels, to me. That of men oppressing women in general; of how deep that oppression can go, as in Arab women; of how if we don't stay in the war terrorists will come here and take away our civil liberties. The ad carefully stays away from naming any family values specifically and we are left to interpret the image according to our standards which, I suspect, the republicans feel will be xtian values of any denomination. It's all about frightening, threatening and deceiving in order to garner votes.
Wolf O'Donnell -- The amount of money spent on campaigning here in the states is enough to pull half the poor out of poverty (yes, that was a fundie pull-a-number-out-of-my-arse trick). The amount spent collectively, I believe, is in the trillions."According to campaign finance records, California's political fundraising has now reached a staggering $500 million dollars ... For California's Prop. 87 alone And Election ads for t.v. and radio shows "The commission said congressional candidates have spent about $965.7 million for today’s election; that’s a 30 percent increase in spending from 2004."
All that I saw and heard was negative. The radio, t.v. and calls to my home were all about how evil the 'other' candidate was. Never did I just hear how a candidate has voted in the past, or where they stood on issues. No one I've talked to likes this negative campaigning and all claim to be turned off by it; but they all do it so we can't eliminate a candidate based, in part, on their campaign conduct. I just want to see the history of this person, political and personal (such as did they march against the Vietnam war, pay dues to the KKK, arrest record .. that sort of personal information). But what can we expect when "the people" (not me, to be sure) vote a man in for president who not only is an alcoholic but has a record of drug use (and not the legal kind).
So this kind of ad campaigning (the above picture) doesn't surprise me but, still, I wonder if it's not been photo-shopped. I've no information on this ad (I've not seen it anywhere but here) so I can't speak to it's validity. Even so, I'd not be surprised to discover this ad has, in fact, been aired/posted.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
