believer wrote:

sleeper wrote: Wikipedia states that the population will cap at 9 billion in 2050(according to IDB data), but that's just a prediction.

Also, abortion isn't about population control, its about expunging cells from a human body that the human does not want there. Fetuses are parasites and I fail to see how if the host does not want it, then it is no different than the host trying to rid themselves of a deadly virus.

I guess your mommy thought that you were a parasite worth keeping around.

QQ cry more noob.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I'm Pro-Choice. Scientists are in agreement that our planet can only successfully house about two billion people. We already have more than six billion with no end in sight. If we don't do something drastic to cut down on the population, our planet won't be able to house anyone. We are polluting the planet to death, we are using all the natural resources, and we are responsible for intense global warming. All this because people like to screw. Abortion is not the only solution, but it is a good one.

Usually when someone complains about people liking to screw. They are expressing angry feelings associated with their lack of being able to find someone who would like to screw them.

As for the rest of your statement. Perhaps you should volunteer to take one for the team.

hehehe I've had more sex partners than you could shake a stick at. But I never made any unwanted babies.

Der ain't no gays watchin' football!!!! I know damn sure there ain't no gays watchin STEELER FOOTBALL!!!!!

FairwoodKing wrote: I'm Pro-Choice. Scientists are in agreement that our planet can only successfully house about two billion people. We already have more than six billion with no end in sight. If we don't do something drastic to cut down on the population, our planet won't be able to house anyone. We are polluting the planet to death, we are using all the natural resources, and we are responsible for intense global warming. All this because people like to screw. Abortion is not the only solution, but it is a good one.

Was this a serious post, or are you just screwing with people? Saying abortion is a good choice? Even if you are left wing, aborting isn't a "good choice." Using a condom would've been a good choice.

Even though it's sending a political message, who cares......

allstar wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I'm Pro-Choice. Scientists are in agreement that our planet can only successfully house about two billion people. We already have more than six billion with no end in sight. If we don't do something drastic to cut down on the population, our planet won't be able to house anyone. We are polluting the planet to death, we are using all the natural resources, and we are responsible for intense global warming. All this because people like to screw. Abortion is not the only solution, but it is a good one.

Was this a serious post, or are you just screwing with people? Saying abortion is a good choice? Even if you are left wing, aborting isn't a "good choice." Using a condom would've been a good choice.

Yes, I am serious. In many parts of the world, the women want to use condoms but the men refuse. Also, not all sex is planned out in advance. A lot of unplanned pregnancies happen.

The idea that no end in sight to the population growth is simply untrue. Scientists expect the world population growth to cease mid-century. Post-industrial nations will actually be looking for immigrants around that time to supplement an aging and dwindling work-force. As women become increasingly educated and career-oriented, they put off having families until later and later in life and thus have less children.

If the population does somehow continue to grow we'll just start more wars and kill a few thousand off at a time.

If you're going to run one, you better run both. Kind of a double standard here if you ask me.

I'm with some other posters though, i watch CBS for golf, college basketball/football and the NFL occasionally. I'm not missing a whole lot

Strapping Young Lad wrote: The idea that no end in sight to the population growth is simply untrue. Scientists expect the world population growth to cease mid-century. Post-industrial nations will actually be looking for immigrants around that time to supplement an aging and dwindling work-force. As women become increasingly educated and career-oriented, they put off having families until later and later in life and thus have less children.

Spot on.
The population explosion myth continues to used to justify abortion even though it is simply not true. Declining birth rates in not only industrial western countries, but also in third world countires are being observed.

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/04/14/population-trends-myth-and-reality/

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I'm Pro-Choice. Scientists are in agreement that our planet can only successfully house about two billion people. We already have more than six billion with no end in sight. If we don't do something drastic to cut down on the population, our planet won't be able to house anyone. We are polluting the planet to death, we are using all the natural resources, and we are responsible for intense global warming. All this because people like to screw. Abortion is not the only solution, but it is a good one.

Usually when someone complains about people liking to screw. They are expressing angry feelings associated with their lack of being able to find someone who would like to screw them.

As for the rest of your statement. Perhaps you should volunteer to take one for the team.

hehehe I've had more sex with dudes you could shake a stick at. But I never made any unwanted babies.

Uh huh.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: The idea that no end in sight to the population growth is simply untrue. Scientists expect the world population growth to cease mid-century. Post-industrial nations will actually be looking for immigrants around that time to supplement an aging and dwindling work-force. As women become increasingly educated and career-oriented, they put off having families until later and later in life and thus have less children.

If the population does somehow continue to grow we'll just start more wars and kill a few thousand off at a time.

The population of the earth will continue to grow until the planet just can't handle any more. Wide-spread famine is already happening. Disease is another problem that has already started. AIDS is taking over Africa. The planet can be our friend or our worst enemy. We will just have to wait and see what happens. I'm glad I won't be around to see the worst.

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I'm Pro-Choice. Scientists are in agreement that our planet can only successfully house about two billion people. We already have more than six billion with no end in sight. If we don't do something drastic to cut down on the population, our planet won't be able to house anyone. We are polluting the planet to death, we are using all the natural resources, and we are responsible for intense global warming. All this because people like to screw. Abortion is not the only solution, but it is a good one.

Usually when someone complains about people liking to screw. They are expressing angry feelings associated with their lack of being able to find someone who would like to screw them.

As for the rest of your statement. Perhaps you should volunteer to take one for the team.

hehehe I've had more sex partners than you could shake a stick at. But I never made any unwanted babies.

Ok Wilt. By the way shaking your own stick don't count. And gay sex never produces babies. Be safe out there buddy, you don't want to catch an STD.

FairwoodKing wrote: Yes, I am serious. In many parts of the world, the women want to use condoms but the men refuse. Also, not all sex is planned out in advance. A lot of unplanned pregnancies happen.

It is called being responsible. Wear a condom, or if you are a girl, take birth control.

sleeper, you're a fuck.

/the end of this thread for me.

iclfan2 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Yes, I am serious. In many parts of the world, the women want to use condoms but the men refuse. Also, not all sex is planned out in advance. A lot of unplanned pregnancies happen.

It is called being responsible. Wear a condom, or if you are a girl, take birth control.

In many parts of the world, men literally own their women. The men do what they want and the women don't have any choice. In many Arab countries, women aren't even allowed to drive cars.

IMO CBS is wrong here.

ts1227 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Tebows persona alone is why CBS is risking such controversy. Were any other figure, sports related or otherwise be the spokesperson, I doubt it would air.

Agreed, had this been a lineman from Western Michigan, or even a QB from another good program, it's not airing.

I agree with your previous post too... considering the wide audience I would probably live without either ad. But then personally, to pick and choose between these two as CBS did pisses me off.

But even that's a slippery slope, trying to cater has led to 5+ straight Super Bowl halftime shows that have all aimed at exactly at the "default" demographic (middle aged to elderly white men), and that is not smart.

1) this is where i stopped reading because i was so behind on this thread so if anyone already said this... my bad
2) i doubt they are trying to appeal to that demographic... if anything they are probably trying to get the attention and media attention from airing an ad during this time frame ... controversy makes news and it is something they are already getting because cbs wont air the ad
3) some of this does make me sad... my brother is gay and i can honestly say that i am grateful for it... i grew in a very close-minded town and come from a very machismo-based background and i surely would be insensitive to gay people without an openly gay man in my life. He is my best friend and a great person and deserves more than the ignorance and fear from misunderstanding that close-minded people spew like truth.

NNN wrote: For what it's worth, CBS insists that this website never produced an actual offer to buy airtime or any documentation that they would be financially able to buy it. Basically, this happens every year...someone will attempt to grab attention by going after airtime that they can't possibly afford.

And I'll say this. If this ad consisted of nothing more than a typical dating service website (a couple holding hands, blah blah blah), there wouldn't be any issue. This is basically attempting to make a political statement by being as shocking as possible without resorting to hardcore porn.

So I'll ask again. How many ads have ever aired during a non-overnight time slot that featured a couple of any kind being over-the-top affectionate?

quoted for those who may have missed this post

mexappeal12 wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Tebows persona alone is why CBS is risking such controversy. Were any other figure, sports related or otherwise be the spokesperson, I doubt it would air.

Agreed, had this been a lineman from Western Michigan, or even a QB from another good program, it's not airing.

I agree with your previous post too... considering the wide audience I would probably live without either ad. But then personally, to pick and choose between these two as CBS did pisses me off.

But even that's a slippery slope, trying to cater has led to 5+ straight Super Bowl halftime shows that have all aimed at exactly at the "default" demographic (middle aged to elderly white men), and that is not smart.

1) this is where i stopped reading because i was so behind on this thread so if anyone already said this... my bad
2) i doubt they are trying to appeal to that demographic... if anything they are probably trying to get the attention and media attention from airing an ad during this time frame ... controversy makes news and it is something they are already getting because cbs wont air the ad
3) some of this does make me sad... my brother is gay and i can honestly say that i am grateful for it... i grew in a very close-minded town and come from a very machismo-based background and i surely would be insensitive to gay people without an openly gay man in my life. He is my best friend and a great person and deserves more than the ignorance and fear from misunderstanding that close-minded people spew like truth.

This is more likely true than not, in fact I believe someone in fact did post a link stating they didn't have the funds to actually pay for the add but were denied nonetheless because of it. Being denied because they don't have the funds produces the same result as though it was for some ethical reason not stated by CBS.

I just don't think it's the venue for either.

FairwoodKing wrote:

iclfan2 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Yes, I am serious. In many parts of the world, the women want to use condoms but the men refuse. Also, not all sex is planned out in advance. A lot of unplanned pregnancies happen.

It is called being responsible. Wear a condom, or if you are a girl, take birth control.

In many parts of the world, men literally own their women. The men do what they want and the women don't have any choice. In many Arab countries, women aren't even allowed to drive cars.

And abortions usually consist of the woman getting a swift kick to the stomach.

mexappeal12 wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Tebows persona alone is why CBS is risking such controversy. Were any other figure, sports related or otherwise be the spokesperson, I doubt it would air.

Agreed, had this been a lineman from Western Michigan, or even a QB from another good program, it's not airing.

I agree with your previous post too... considering the wide audience I would probably live without either ad. But then personally, to pick and choose between these two as CBS did pisses me off.

But even that's a slippery slope, trying to cater has led to 5+ straight Super Bowl halftime shows that have all aimed at exactly at the "default" demographic (middle aged to elderly white men), and that is not smart.

1) this is where i stopped reading because i was so behind on this thread so if anyone already said this... my bad
2) i doubt they are trying to appeal to that demographic... if anything they are probably trying to get the attention and media attention from airing an ad during this time frame ... controversy makes news and it is something they are already getting because cbs wont air the ad
3) some of this does make me sad... my brother is gay and i can honestly say that i am grateful for it... i grew in a very close-minded town and come from a very machismo-based background and i surely would be insensitive to gay people without an openly gay man in my life. He is my best friend and a great person and deserves more than the ignorance and fear from misunderstanding that close-minded people spew like truth.

I love gay men! Yay!

reclegend22 wrote: Thank God that we will not be seeing this commercial of gay guys. That's f'd up and not something that needs to be shown on national television, with our youth watching "America's sport."

Abortion, on the other hand, is the innocent killing of a natural life and the less it is used, the better off we are. I think everyone can agree to that. Even those who believe abortion to be useful only in extenuating circumstances.

I am against abortion on all counts, but, what really pisses me off the most, are those who think abortion is just a cool 100% surgery pill to avert pregnancy after slut sex. Those people who make that decision are clearly pathetic.

blah blah blah, so the supreme court is wrong? get a grip man. slut sex, whatever the hell it actually is, is awesome. you are the one that is pathetic pushing your religious ideas on everyody else. what's good for you may very well not be good for everybody else, dumbass, but you are blinded by faith. don't preach your bullshit to me, its a free fucking country and if a woman wants to get an abortion then it is her right as handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. you fanatics piss me off

FairwoodKing wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote: The idea that no end in sight to the population growth is simply untrue. Scientists expect the world population growth to cease mid-century. Post-industrial nations will actually be looking for immigrants around that time to supplement an aging and dwindling work-force. As women become increasingly educated and career-oriented, they put off having families until later and later in life and thus have less children.

If the population does somehow continue to grow we'll just start more wars and kill a few thousand off at a time.

The population of the earth will continue to grow until the planet just can't handle any more. Wide-spread famine is already happening. Disease is another problem that has already started. AIDS is taking over Africa. The planet can be our friend or our worst enemy. We will just have to wait and see what happens. I'm glad I won't be around to see the worst.

Mother nature doesn't care! If we mess it up she will fix it. Even if we need removed!

As far as both of these commercials. I have no interest in seeing either but the network IMO has the right to show them.

Cracks me up how some people would think one is OK but the other is not.

FairwoodKing wrote: In many parts of the world, men literally own their women. The men do what they want and the women don't have any choice. In many Arab countries, women aren't even allowed to drive cars.

Well I guess that is good since women can't drive? And I'm pretty sure we are talking about AMERICA. I really don't have an issue with abortion because of rape, incest, complications to mother, etc.However, it shouldn't be a birth control. Take plan B after every time you have unplanned sex then. But if CBS doesn't want to air something then that is their choice. It is their own money they'd be losing (if the gay site could even pay for it in the first place).