Why Are Liberals Always Trying to Silence Those With Opposing Viewpoints?

[Father Time]

LOL yeah the hypocrisy of not showing one ad because they deem it controversial and yet choosing to air another ad that is controversial kind of defeats their argument.

Then you have the hypocrisy of the right as they pretend to be outraged when a left leaning group attempts a boycott claiming it's anti free speech when the right boycotts things all the time and the righties don't seem to feel the same when their own do it. I wonder why?

BTW is CBS going to provide the timeslot that the ad is going to air in? It would be nice to know so I can change the channel and avoid it. LOL

NO ONE gets to be outraged when people exercise their rights to boycott things. It's our damn right to choose the things we consume, it's not an assault to free speech or any sort of liberty.

I am not outraged when people exercise their rights to boycott but it's funny how the right seems to be against what they once supported. LOL

However, I beleive that ANYONE can be outraged at anything that they choose to be outraged at. That is part of exercising ones rights to free speech.
The ad people have a right to express their opinions, those against those opinions being aired on a network have their right to object to it being aired and those who object to those opposed to the network airing the ad have their right to express their opinions.
To me that is all part of the process.

Although I do agree with you on your second point that boycotting is not an assault to free speech.

BTW, I do wonder why jester thanked you?? Was it merely because he thought you were disagreeing with me?? LOL

I was just trying to add to your post, wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

 

[drsmith1072]

I just got a pm regarding this ridiculous post, so i'm taking you off ignore for 5 seconds.

Why don't you take your sorry lil' faggot ass to Yemen, put on a t-shirt that says "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M AN AMERICAN AND PROUD OF IT!, and walk down the fucking street!

Lets just see the rights as a human being the terrorists give YOUR SORRY ASS!

Meanwhile, i'll be watching them saw your head right off that lil' pencil neck of yours, live on the web, while eating , sucking a , and !

Christ, you're a clueless fucking moron!

Now, back to ignore mode!.

LOL poor chefjester running away AGAIN. You know I looked at his post for anything of substance and found no substantive answers to the question that i asked. All jester has to offer is his typical personal attacks.

BTW aren't we as a nation supposed to be better than that bad guys?? Based on jester's comments we should be and act the same. How sad is that?
I guess, unlike some, I still believe that America is a great country whose foundation is based on the rights guaranteed by our constitution and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than the terrorists hold themselves.

BTW I think it's funny that you righties keep track of my postings. LOL Thanks for admitting that you are stalking me.

You're such a clueless fucking moron.
The terrorist are ENEMY COMBATENTS at war with the united states. A war that was declared by Bin laden ,their leader, and it's a god damn fact, back in october of 1998.

The only rights the terrorists are entitled to are those set forth in a military tribunal.

Holder is playing politics with this shit, and it WILL end up with more attacks on our soil.

You're just a bootlicking Obamabot who will march lockstep with that moron no matter what!

Nice talking points, spoon fed and then regurgitated propaganda. LOL however, as usual with you, you present opinion with very little substance to back it up. How typical and expected.

LOL

BTW what are the rights provided by a military tribunal??

How do those rights differ from what has been done so far?

Got substance?

 

[drsmith1072]

NO ONE gets to be outraged when people exercise their rights to boycott things. It's our damn right to choose the things we consume, it's not an assault to free speech or any sort of liberty.

I am not outraged when people exercise their rights to boycott but it's funny how the right seems to be against what they once supported. LOL

However, I beleive that ANYONE can be outraged at anything that they choose to be outraged at. That is part of exercising ones rights to free speech.
The ad people have a right to express their opinions, those against those opinions being aired on a network have their right to object to it being aired and those who object to those opposed to the network airing the ad have their right to express their opinions.
To me that is all part of the process.

Although I do agree with you on your second point that boycotting is not an assault to free speech.

BTW, I do wonder why jester thanked you?? Was it merely because he thought you were disagreeing with me?? LOL

I was just trying to add to your post, wasn't trying to accuse you of anything.

I know, I just thought is was hilarious that jester jumped to thank you because he thought that you were disagreeing with me. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Has anybody checked to make sure he's not a bot? Seriously.

He's much like Terral. He just copy and pastes the same bullshit. I think he's a troll personally much like much of the crowd here.

Yeah he was pretty much the same on the msnbc message boards. Most posters just ignored him and didn't bother responding. Of course he usually got more vile and disgusting to try and draw people into a confrontation.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Has anybody checked to make sure he's not a bot? Seriously.

He's much like Terral. He just copy and pastes the same bullshit. I think he's a troll personally much like much of the crowd here.

Yeah he was pretty much the same on the msnbc message boards. Most posters just ignored him and didn't bother responding. Of course he usually got more vile and disgusting to try and draw people into a confrontation.

dont understand, what kind of loser does that? goes around the internet fucking around and trying to piss people off and disrupt forums on purpose? Sad and pathetic really.

 

[drsmith1072]

that's because you're an asshole.

it's nothing personal

LOL and this is a perfect example of the typical response from one of the several that I have asked for proof and in response it attacked me and then ran away. Thanks for the help. LOL

Stop trying so desperately to transfer your ineptitude in proving your assertions onto me.
It has NOTHING to do with me and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that you can't prove your claims. Then in response to being asked to prove claims that you know you can't you go to the old faithfull and dishonest fallback of attacking the messenger.

The sad thing is that if you started your claims based on the truth then you wouldn't have so many problems proving them when someone asks you to substantiate your claims. LOL

Christ man, even those who share your political bend are telling you you're a fucking moron. Get a fucking clue. Fact is, it doesn't matter what facts are put before you. You will still deny the facts and go off on one of your childish lil' tantrums. And after your lil' tantrum subsides, you start with that childish "well, you said this, but I said that, and you did this, and I did that, and then well, I said that again, and you you said this again and, and, and, and, well then you said that, and well, AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!"

You were like that over on the MSNBC board, and you're still like that over here. Only difference is, people over here, even those on your side, will tell you you're a fucking moron!

Seriously dipshit, how old are you?

I can only imagine what you were like when your mommy took your cookie away.

Man up, or shut the fuck up!

LOL what are you babbling about?? Who, that you claim shares "my political bend" is telling me anything like what you claim?? LOL Funny but the only ones I see stalking me into a thread and attacking the messenger are right wing nutjobs like you.

BTW let me know when you present ANYTHING factual and then you can talk but until then your above rant is just as useless and pointless as most of your baseless attack filled posts.

"man up or shut the fuck up" What are you talking about? LOL You attack people across a message board pretending to be some big bad tough guy while you rant and mumble on incoherently as whatever message you think you are trying to present is lost in the midst of your profanity laced attack filled rants.
LOL

As far as your "you said, I said" statement, yeah I did call posters out for changing their stories after their first line of BS got called out and I posted their own posts to do so. WOW, I knew honesty was not part of your repertoire but I never knew you had such a hatred of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, if I might interrupt this love fest for some observations.

According to Pew, Mediaresearch, and some other studies, those on the left tend to view the media as mostly fair and balance (with the exception of conservative talk radio and Fox News). most of those on the right tend to view the media as tilted left or far left and that it provides little or no balance. They see Fox News and conservative talk radio as balancing out some (not all) of that radical left tilt.

Fox News generally wins or comes in near the top of polls re what news source is the more fair and balanced. (See a UCLA study analyzing that. I can provide a link if anybody wants one.)

The fact is, those on the right more often than not just want a voice in the process. Those on the left too often seem to want to be the only voice in the process and presume to shout down, marginalize, discredit, or shut up any voice that disagrees with them.

Such perceptions are what this thread is all about. Are the perceptions accurate?

Surveys galore have shown that somewhere around 90 percent of the writers, editors and other personnel in the news media are Democrats and only about 10 percent are Republicans. We depend on the news media for information about government and politics, foreign affairs and war, public policy and demographic trends -- for a picture of the world around us. But the news comes from people 90 percent of whom are on one side of the political divide. Doesn't sound like an ideal situation.

Of course, a lot of people in the news business say it doesn't make any difference. I remember a conversation I had with a broadcast news executive many years ago.

"Doesn't the fact that 90 percent of your people are Democrats affect your work product?" I asked.

"Oh, no, no," he said. "Our people are professional. They have standards of objectivity and professionalism, so that their own views don't affect the news."

"So what you're saying," I said, "is that your work product would be identical if 90 percent of your people were Republicans."

He quickly replied, "No, then it would be biased."
--Michael Barone
RealClearPolitics - Articles - The News Media

Recent Pew poll

Nearly three-quarters of Republicans surveyed (72 percent) view Fox News Channel positively, with 43 percent of Democrats feeling that way, Pew said. CNN had the opposite results: 75 percent of Democrats view the network favorably, while 44 percent of Republicans do. MSNBC, which has become more overtly liberal in primetime over the past year, has 60 percent approval from Democrats, with only 34 percent from Republicans.

Television is the dominant news source, while over the past year the Internet has surpassed newspapers as a dominant news source for national and international news. Newspapers still have a significant advantage over the Internet as a local news source, Pew said.

Seventy-eight percent of Republicans said the press was politically biased, compared with 50 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents, Pew said. In 1985, less than half of Republicans, Democrats and independent believed the press was politically biased.
Pew Survey: Charges of Media Bias Continue to Grow

From Psychology Today

. . .Soviet Socialism, as it turned out, was a perverse system that killed motivation even as it made fear as natural as breathing.

Why wasn’t this widely reported in the Western press?

As it turns out, the preponderance of journalists are Democrats. And socialism, with its idyllic, “progressive” programs, has formed an increasingly important role in Democratic policies. Who wants to investigate a possible dark side of your own party’s plank?
Why Most Journalists Are Democrats: A View from the Soviet Socialist Trenches | Psychology Today

• 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
• In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
• In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
• In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
• In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
• Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.
• Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
• “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”
Media Bias Basics

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

According to the makers of the ad, the tim tebow ad does not express any political viewpoints. So I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[drsmith1072]

Okay, if I might interrupt this love fest for some observations.

According to Pew, Mediaresearch, and some other studies, those on the left tend to view the media as mostly fair and balance (with the exception of conservative talk radio and Fox News). most of those on the right tend to view the media as tilted left or far left and that it provides little or no balance. They see Fox News and conservative talk radio as balancing out some (not all) of that radical left tilt.

Fox News generally wins or comes in near the top of polls re what news source is the more fair and balanced. (See a UCLA study analyzing that. I can provide a link if anybody wants one.)

The fact is, those on the right more often than not just want a voice in the process. Those on the left too often seem to want to be the only voice in the process and presume to shout down, marginalize, discredit, or shut up any voice that disagrees with them.

Such perceptions are what this thread is all about. Are the perceptions accurate?

The only problem I see with your perception is the claim that the "right more often than not just want a voice in the process." when on most of the "liberally biased media" sources they actually allow REAL dissenting voices where as a lot of foxnews programs bring on left leaning moderates such a colmes who cowtowed and played nice while being assaulted and foxnews pretends that these are REAL debates. The right has a voice they just want it all.
It reminds me of a discussion that I had on the msnbc boards. I was speaking with a republican from GA and despite the fact that every representative from his state and his district was a republican that he voted for, this republican tried to claim he had no representation all because his party was now in the minority. It's beyond ridiculous.

I also don't agree with your perception that the left wants to be the only voice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, I believe that if you are going to make claims then you should have the facts to substantiate them. Getting called out for being dishonest or hypocritcal is hardly what I would call preventing someone from speaking their mind.

 

[Father Time]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

According to the makers of the ad, the tim tebow ad does not express any political viewpoints. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Well considering the group that made it (Focus on the Family) is a political group I highly doubt it.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem I see with your perception is the claim that the "right more often than not just want a voice in the process." when on most of the "liberally biased media" sources they actually allow REAL dissenting voices where as a lot of foxnews programs bring on left leaning moderates such a colmes who cowtowed and played nice while being assaulted and foxnews pretends that these are REAL debates. The right has a voice they just want it all.

It reminds me of a discussion that I had on the msnbc boards. I was speaking with a republican from GA and despite the fact that every representative from his state and his district was a republican that he voted for, this republican tried to claim he had no representation all because his party was now in the minority. It's beyond ridiculous.

I also don't agree with your perception that the left wants to be the only voice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, I believe that if you are going to make claims then you should have the facts to substantiate them. Getting called out for being dishonest or hypocritcal is hardly what I would call preventing someone from speaking their mind.

Most of the Tea Partier Republicans feel they have had little or no representation at all in Washington for some time now because many Republicans who go to Washington govern very differently than they campaigned. (As has President Obama.) And even when the GOP has been right, they have been too small a party in Congress to be able to get most amendments or bills out of committee, much less passed on the House or Senate floor. Since January 2007, very few quite reasonable Republican initiatives have a chance to even be debated, much less voted on. That way the Democrats can continue accusing the Republicans of 'having no ideas' and 'being the party of 'no'

Regardless of their personal voter registeration, the voters' views/wants/needs/hopes have little chance of being addressed if they aren't leftwing ideologues.

As for no opposing views being allowed on 'conservative' news sources, I beg to differ. You will see many MANY more leftwing views expressed on conservative programs and newscasts than you will see rightwing views (or even honest leftwing views) expressed on leftwing sources. And you will see many more leftwingers being invited to have their say in person on rightwing sources than you will see on leftwing sources. Further, if rightwing sources ARE invited on to leftwing programs, more often than not they will be of the looney tune extremist variety rather than from the mainstream. Conservatives don't do that to the left nearly as much.

 

[MaggieMae]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

Try linking to a credible news source first....

And when someone links the EXACT same story from some other source, what then you sack of dog shit? I love the attempt to deflect.

It's a non-story whatever the source is. Who the hell is Tom Tebow? Not exactly a household name.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why Are Liberals Always Trying to Silence Those With Opposing Viewpoints?

Marxism is a failed ideology and cannot tolerate open debate.

That's odd. I could have sworn Marxism is debated quite frequently right on this board. Of course your definition of Marxism is anyone left of your own rigid ideology of anarchy.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Try linking to a credible news source first....

And when someone links the EXACT same story from some other source, what then you sack of dog shit? I love the attempt to deflect.

It's a non-story whatever the source is. Who the hell is Tom Tebow? Not exactly a household name.

Depends, anybody who watches sports, ESPN, what not should of heard of Tim tebow.

 

[MaggieMae]

I thought liberals preached tolerance and acceptance of all points of view?

Newsmax - Liberals Huddle Over Tim Tebow Ad

Try linking to a credible news source first....

what like the politico or media matters

Sorry didn't mean to pick one 2 of your past used sources there

So what in your opinion constitutes a non-biased publication?

I certainly don't consider Politico biased, since their staff is a mix of journalists initially stolen from a variety of other major publications. If you read their online report every day, they are never guilty of embellishment or omittance to support a hidden agenda. Politico does cover the White House extensively, posting Obama's daily schedule, but Politico did that when Bush was in office too.

 

[Rinata]

That's why liberals are so ignorant.

Sigh. Keith and Rachel always have proof of what they are reporting. They can quote news sources and they very often have video tapes of what happened or what was said.

Can you say that about Fox?? Your problem is that you don't like the truth about what they report. Anything conservative is perfect in your eyes. If you hate them they are doing their job!!!

uh.. you're joking, right Beavis?

No, I'm not joking. I don't know about Beavis. Why don't you ask him. Isn't he your husband???

What exactly have they done that makes you not like them?? And be specific, please.

 

[MaggieMae]

Libs should learn to stop watcing people they don't care for. It is really quite easy.

Which is why my family won't be watching the Super Bowl this year. They shouldn't be running ads on adult products and topics, no matter what side they're supporting, during what is for a lot of people a family event. That includes families with kids young enough that they don't know where babies come from, let alone what "abortion" means. This is not the time I choose to have that discussion with my own kids, so that means no Super Bowl in my home this year.

Focus can burn millions running ads all day long if that's what they want to do, but CBS should be smart enough to place those ads during more appropriate and adult-oriented programming. Bad CBS!

Super Bowls are overhyped anyway. I usually have Animal Planet's Puppy Bowl on. Hilarious.

 

[drsmith1072]

The only problem I see with your perception is the claim that the "right more often than not just want a voice in the process." when on most of the "liberally biased media" sources they actually allow REAL dissenting voices where as a lot of foxnews programs bring on left leaning moderates such a colmes who cowtowed and played nice while being assaulted and foxnews pretends that these are REAL debates. The right has a voice they just want it all.

It reminds me of a discussion that I had on the msnbc boards. I was speaking with a republican from GA and despite the fact that every representative from his state and his district was a republican that he voted for, this republican tried to claim he had no representation all because his party was now in the minority. It's beyond ridiculous.

I also don't agree with your perception that the left wants to be the only voice. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, I believe that if you are going to make claims then you should have the facts to substantiate them. Getting called out for being dishonest or hypocritcal is hardly what I would call preventing someone from speaking their mind.

Most of the Tea Partier Republicans feel they have had little or no representation at all in Washington for some time now because many Republicans who go to Washington govern very differently than they campaigned. (As has President Obama.) And even when the GOP has been right, they have been too small a party in Congress to be able to get most amendments or bills out of committee, much less passed on the House or Senate floor. Since January 2007, very few quite reasonable Republican initiatives have a chance to even be debated, much less voted on. That way the Democrats can continue accusing the Republicans of 'having no ideas' and 'being the party of 'no'

Regardless of their personal voter registeration, the voters' views/wants/needs/hopes have little chance of being addressed if they aren't leftwing ideologues.

As for no opposing views being allowed on 'conservative' news sources, I beg to differ. You will see many MANY more leftwing views expressed on conservative programs and newscasts than you will see rightwing views (or even honest leftwing views) expressed on leftwing sources. And you will see many more leftwingers being invited to have their say in person on rightwing sources than you will see on leftwing sources. Further, if rightwing sources ARE invited on to leftwing programs, more often than not they will be of the looney tune extremist variety rather than from the mainstream. Conservatives don't do that to the left nearly as much.

Are you talking about the REAL tea partiers?? You know the ones that have been protesting and having meetings for years BEFORE minority republicans started coopting and funding their own version of tea parties?? If you are in fact talking about REAL tea partiers then yes they have felt that way for YEARS. The NEW phony tea partiers have only felt that way since their real party, the republicans, fell into the minoirty and they lost the WH. Their movement is one based on political expediency and nothing more.

Only recently have republicans began to provide anything that could be deemed real. Their budget proposal was little more than a 17 page power point that mostly attacked the left. Then their first steps into the healthcare debate was little more than that. It had more pages (many were blank) and yet again most of what was in their "bill" was little more than attacks against the dems ideas.

The problem with the republicans is that they have an all or nothing mentality and are bent on seeing obama fail becuiase they see that as being beneficial to their party. In that essence they are the party of NO. The senate bill had compromises in it to try and get votes one of those was the removal of the public option and still not a single republican voted for it Was it out of fear that their own party would turn against them? RINOs LOL

Regardless of their personal voter registeration, the voters' views/wants/needs/hopes have little chance of being addressed if they aren't leftwing ideologues.

Guess what? We have seen how republicans handled power when they had the WH and congress for SIX YEARS and based on that I would say that they have even less chance of being addressed when republicans are in charge. Republicans had the power to do something about healthcare back then and didn't anything of real consequence. Only AFTER it became apparent that the voting public wanted something done and obama started pushing for it did republicans start to pretend that they wanted to do something.

As for no opposing views being allowed on 'conservative' news sources, I beg to differ. You will see many MANY more leftwing views expressed on conservative programs and newscasts than you will see rightwing views (or even honest leftwing views) expressed on leftwing sources.

what a load of crap. oreilly and hannety shout down what little opposition is on their programs and usually there is only one left leaning moderate against 3 or more rightwing nutjobs and they never allow the "lefty" to finish their complete argument before the rightwingers interupt them and ask them another loaded question that they will not get a chance to completely respond to before they are interupted AGAIN.
BTW I never said NO opposing views were allowed on conservative news sources. but Thanks for inserting your opinion over mine so you could "call me out" for something I never said. LOL

And you will see many more leftwingers being invited to have their say in person on rightwing sources than you will see on leftwing sources. Further, if rightwing sources ARE invited on to leftwing programs, more often than not they will be of the looney tune extremist variety rather than from the mainstream. Conservatives don't do that to the left nearly as much.

WOW Do you actually believe that? LOL I don't know about you but in my area foxnews, cnn and msnbc are right next to each other and I flip back and forth to catch a little of all when i choose to watch them. Although to my wife's disgust I probably watch more of foxnews than I do the other two because I like getting a heads up on the lame arguments I will hear from righties the next day. LOL Nearly as much?? That's hilarious.

 

[Rinata]

The same Keith Olberrman that told his audience that Kenneth Gladney was not attacked by SEIU members outside of the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting last August after video was played of Kenneth Gladney being attacked by SEIU members outside of the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting last August? That honest guy?

Keith Olbernman is a buffoon.... but keep on listening to him and you'll remain the useless sack of idiocies that you are today. I don't listen to him, problem solved.

Where is your proof??? You people love to just run your mouths without anything to support what you say. Am I just supposed to believe that happened because you said so??? Forget it. Give me a reference.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here is a copy of the letter from the WMC (Women's Media Center)

According to them if you choose to have a baby instead of abort it you are anti-choice... WTF? Soggy was right, they are not pro-choice, they are pro abortion and this letter proves it....

Sorry libs... Check mate...


</title> <style> .targets { display:none; } #salsa{ padding-top: 90px !important; } h1{ margin:0px 0 10px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; } </style> <meta name="renderTime" content="711"/> <title>Stop CBS Attack on Choice

This letter is in response to the reported CBS decision to air an anti-choice advertisement during Super Bowl XLIV, sponsored by the controversial organization Focus on the Family. As united organizations dedicated to reproductive rights, tolerance, and social justice, we urge you to immediately cancel this ad and refuse any other advertisement promoting Focus on the Family’s agenda.

CBS has a well-documented history of prohibiting advocacy ads it deems controversial, rejecting ads from organizations such as PETA, MoveOn.org, United Church of Christ, and even ones that carry only an “implicit” endorsement for a side in a public debate. Last year, NBC made the prudent decision to not air anti-choice messages during the Super Bowl. CBS executives have indicated in the past that they would not air Super Bowl ads where “substantial elements of the community (are) in opposition to one another.” Abortion is a controversial issue and anti-abortion vitriol has resulted in escalated violence against reproductive health service providers and their patients, including the murder of Dr. George Tiller during Sunday morning service at his church. We sincerely hope you do not want CBS associated with this brand of un-American hate.

Focus on the Family has waged war on non-traditional families, tried its hand at race baiting during the 2008 election, and is now attempting to use the Super Bowl to further ramp up the vitriolic rhetoric surrounding reproductive rights. By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will alienate viewers and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers. The decision to air this ad would be ethically, economically and politically disastrous for CBS. The content of this ad endangers women's health, uses sports to divide rather than to unite, and promotes an organization that opposes the equality of Americans based on gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and reproductive freedom. Focus on the Family’s ad is surrealistic in its argument that a woman who chooses not to have a child may be depriving the Super Bowl of a football player. It uses one family’s story to dictate morality to the American public, and encourages young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.

The Super Bowl is an entertainment event that brings people together regardless of background, faith, ideology or political affiliation. Focus on the Family’s ad goes against the approximately 70% majority American view that reproductive decisions should be left up to a woman and her physician; against the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that such decisions are protected by a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy; and against the health needs of the 1 in 3 American women who will need an abortion at some time in her life.

Though women comprise only 9% of CBS’s board, they are a key constituency for the CBS network and 40% of Super Bowl viewers. If you contradict your policy and air this ad, you will be throwing these women under the bus. American values of privacy and freedom should be respected, not undermined during the Super Bowl. The last thing Americans need is CBS or its advertisers telling us how and when to have a family. CBS must take action now, by cancelling the airing of Focus on the Family’s ad.

Seems to me what you really want to talk about is abortion. Knock yourself up. Oops, out.