Fox "Terrorist Won" Because Samuel Adams Beer Didn’t Use God In Their Ad

[Pogo]

I think the terrorists won because you idiots have no sense of humor. I think it's pretty clear Waters was joking around pretending to be "outraged". What worries me though is that this piece of morning fluff reporting is making the I-HAT-FOX-DRONES "outraged". Seriously people, get a grip. You're losing it!

"Hate" doesn't enter into it. More like "hilariously amused".
Trust me, nobody's threatened because a mental midget equates the realization that his theocracy fantasy is not being served with "terrorists winning". It's not threatening; it's comedy. So what's wrong with laughing at it?

Are you suggesting imbecility like this should actually be taken seriously? A talking head whining that God is a no-show in a beer commercial, and we're expected to gulp that down like a lager?

Really? You're actually defending this idiocy?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I think the terrorists won because you idiots have no sense of humor. I think it's pretty clear Waters was joking around pretending to be "outraged". What worries me though is that this piece of morning fluff reporting is making the I-HAT-FOX-DRONES "outraged". Seriously people, get a grip. You're losing it!

"Hate" doesn't enter into it. More like "hilariously amused".
Trust me, nobody's threatened because a mental midget equates the realization that his theocracy fantasy is not being served with "terrorists winning". It's not threatening; it's comedy. So what's wrong with laughing at it?

Are you suggesting imbecility like this should actually be taken seriously? A talking head whining that God is a no-show in a beer commercial, and we're expected to gulp that down like a lager?

Really? You're actually defending this idiocy?

I'm suggesting the guy was joking. I'm suggesting we keep our faux outrage to a level five on the outrage seismometer. I'm suggesting you all down a Samuel Adams and lighten the hell up.

 

[Pogo]

I think the terrorists won because you idiots have no sense of humor. I think it's pretty clear Waters was joking around pretending to be "outraged". What worries me though is that this piece of morning fluff reporting is making the I-HAT-FOX-DRONES "outraged". Seriously people, get a grip. You're losing it!

"Hate" doesn't enter into it. More like "hilariously amused".
Trust me, nobody's threatened because a mental midget equates the realization that his theocracy fantasy is not being served with "terrorists winning". It's not threatening; it's comedy. So what's wrong with laughing at it?

Are you suggesting imbecility like this should actually be taken seriously? A talking head whining that God is a no-show in a beer commercial, and we're expected to gulp that down like a lager?

Really? You're actually defending this idiocy?

I'm suggesting the guy was joking. I'm suggesting we keep our faux outrage to a level five on the outrage seismometer. I'm suggesting you all down a Samuel Adams and lighten the hell up.

Then your outrage is properly directed to the Fox Noise Fools who tried to sell this turd of a hapless point. Unless this program is listed as a comedy show.

The reality is: whining that God doesn't appear in a beer commercial IS laughable. So laugh we do. Get over it.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Get over what? You don't like FOX, I get it. No need to pretend somebody was serious when they were clearly joking though.

 

[Pogo]

Get over what? You don't like FOX, I get it. No need to pretend somebody was serious when they were clearly joking though.

OK, have it your way: Fox Noise is not only telecasting theocracists: worse, it thinks terrorism is a joking matter.
Frankly I thought we were going easy on them before, but now it's worse.

Care to keep digging?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Oh brother. Now the terrorists REALLY have won.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I think the terrorists won because you idiots have no sense of humor. I think it's pretty clear Waters was joking around pretending to be "outraged". What worries me though is that this piece of morning fluff reporting is making the I-HAT-FOX-DRONES "outraged". Seriously people, get a grip. You're losing it!

I don't think Fox Nation got the joke because Boston Beer Company had to put out a statement to stop all the hate mail from Fox Nation.

 

[Pogo]

It's instructive to see the emotional dependent relationship the Fox viewers have with it, to go this far to try to deflect any criticism when they have plainly engaged in dishonest hackery. It just reaffirms what I keep describing: Fox Noise doesn't sell news; it sells emotion. You don't have an emotional relationship with a real news channel.

 

[hjmick]

It's a lager. Pfft
Ale is a real patriots beer.

Get yourself some Moose Drool Brown Ale.

Trust me.

 

[Missourian]

I'm glad to see Sam Adams follows the law. I might have a new favorite beer.

Follows what law?

P.S.----Still waiting for you to respond to my post here...http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ted-suspicious-black-7-year-old-to-911-a.html

You want a link to all the state alcohol laws or will one due?

Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

OK...what exactly does this have to do with the Sam Adams commercial?


In other words, what about this commercial would inspire you to comment "I'm glad to see Sam Adams follow the law.".

 

[JohnA]

So samual adams TOOK OUT the words * by our creator * in a add
well the christians PUT IN the words * under god * in the pledge so its works out even

any more questions ?

 

[Pogo]

So samual adams TOOK OUT the words * by our creator * in a add
well the christians PUT IN the words * under god * in the pledge so its works out even

any more questions ?

No, Sam Adams didn't TAKE OUT the words "by their Creator"; they were never in the script to start with. (and btw it's "their Creator" in the DofI, not "our").

Number one, it's a beer commercial, not a recitation of any document, DofI or otherwise, and number two, there's no reason a paraphrase or excerpt of a phrase known for a famous usage in a certain document, must then quote that document in toto. That idea is absurd. By that logic we could not use the phrase "they are endowed" without going on to "by their Creator". That's ludicrous. Nobody claimed to be reciting the DofI -- it's a ******* beer commercial.

So the question is: why can't you figure this simple shit out? And the secondary question: how come you think the Pledge of Allegiance is the same thing as a beer commercial?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Follows what law?

P.S.----Still waiting for you to respond to my post here...http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ted-suspicious-black-7-year-old-to-911-a.html

You want a link to all the state alcohol laws or will one due?

Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

OK...what exactly does this have to do with the Sam Adams commercial?


In other words, what about this commercial would inspire you to comment "I'm glad to see Sam Adams follow the law.".

It's one of the many laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer.

 

[Missourian]

You want a link to all the state alcohol laws or will one due?

Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

OK...what exactly does this have to do with the Sam Adams commercial?


In other words, what about this commercial would inspire you to comment "I'm glad to see Sam Adams follow the law.".

It's one of the many laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer.

I searched your link for "God", "Religion", "Religious" and all I found was statements about sacramental alcohol.

Would you mind pointing it out to me from the link you posted?

It is possible that I missed it.

Here is the link you posted...Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

 

[Pogo]

OK...what exactly does this have to do with the Sam Adams commercial?


In other words, what about this commercial would inspire you to comment "I'm glad to see Sam Adams follow the law.".

It's one of the many laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer.

I searched your link for "God", "Religion", "Religious" and all I found was statements about sacramental alcohol.

Would you mind pointing it out to me from the link you posted?

It is possible that I missed it.

Here is the link you posted...Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

I think TS is misstating the Beer Institute guidelines for the "law". Although the idea of laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer is ironic, since Pennsylvania, when I grew up there, used religion to prohibit the selling of liquor (on Sundays). Anyway the Beer Institute Guidelines read:
"Beer advertising and marketing materials should not employ religion or religious themes" (Section 7) (here, page 5)

This point is entirely moot though. Sam Adams doesn't need to justify squat; nobody in the commercial claimed to be quoting the Declaration of Independence. When Fox Noise or Whirled Nut Daily claims the beer company "dumped God", they are deliberately lying in their premise; that a beer commercial is the same thing as the Declaration of Independence. It's pseudo-journalism by hacks.

The question is, why does anyone buy such hackery, and even worse, why would anyone defend this intentional deceit?

 

[Missourian]

It's one of the many laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer.

I searched your link for "God", "Religion", "Religious" and all I found was statements about sacramental alcohol.

Would you mind pointing it out to me from the link you posted?

It is possible that I missed it.

Here is the link you posted...Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

I think TS is misstating the Beer Institute guidelines for the "law". Although the idea of laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer is ironic, since Pennsylvania, when I grew up there, used religion to prohibit the selling of liquor (on Sundays). Anyway the Beer Institute Guidelines read:
"Beer advertising and marketing materials should not employ religion or religious themes" (Section 7) (here, page 5)

This point is entirely moot though. Sam Adams doesn't need to justify squat; nobody in the commercial claimed to be quoting the Declaration of Independence. When Fox Noise or Whirled Nut Daily claims the beer company "dumped God", they are deliberately lying in their premise; that a beer commercial is the same thing as the Declaration of Independence. It's pseudo-journalism by hacks.

The question is, why does anyone buy such hackery, and even worse, why would anyone defend this intentional deceit?

So, just to make it clear...once again "Truth"seeker attempts to deceive, either thru ignorance or intention.

There is no law that required Sam Adams to misquote the Declaration of Independence.

Nor would the "Beer Institute Guidelines" have applied, as this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.

Sam Adams Beer choose to amend the quotation for their own reasons, whatever they were...

...and they are responsible for the ramifications of that decision.

 

[Pogo]

I searched your link for "God", "Religion", "Religious" and all I found was statements about sacramental alcohol.

Would you mind pointing it out to me from the link you posted?

It is possible that I missed it.

Here is the link you posted...Hide Pennsylvania Liquor Code

I think TS is misstating the Beer Institute guidelines for the "law". Although the idea of laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer is ironic, since Pennsylvania, when I grew up there, used religion to prohibit the selling of liquor (on Sundays). Anyway the Beer Institute Guidelines read:
"Beer advertising and marketing materials should not employ religion or religious themes" (Section 7) (here, page 5)

This point is entirely moot though. Sam Adams doesn't need to justify squat; nobody in the commercial claimed to be quoting the Declaration of Independence. When Fox Noise or Whirled Nut Daily claims the beer company "dumped God", they are deliberately lying in their premise; that a beer commercial is the same thing as the Declaration of Independence. It's pseudo-journalism by hacks.

The question is, why does anyone buy such hackery, and even worse, why would anyone defend this intentional deceit?

So, just to make it clear...there is no law that required Sam Adams to misquote the Declaration of Independence.

Nor would the "Beer Institute Guidelines" have applied, as this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.

Sam Adams Beer choose to amend the quotation for their own reasons, whatever they were...

...and they are responsible for the ramifications of that decision.

NO, there is no "misquote" because they're not quoting it and it is the height of idiocy to pretend that that's what a beer commercial is.

Paraphrase
Definition:

A restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to simplify or clarify meaning

What Fox Noise and Whirled Nuts Daily are doing is playing the part of the Unreliable Narrator:

>> The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to his or her unreliability. <<

And obviously, if we're bending over backward to pretend what we're hearing is a verbatim quote from the DofI and complaining that a part is missing, then just as obviously, it's NOT a direct quote from a historical document. Not that that has any bearing on the marketing guidelines anyway; if the guidelines say no religious icons, then you don't use a quote that contains one. The marketing guidelines say nothing whatsoever about "unless the material is a direct historical quote". That's completely irrelevant.

You're trying to have it both ways here: first a complaint that it's a misquote, then a complaint that it's a direct quote. Pick a side.

Beer commercials are not historical documents. They are marketing tools. The Unreliable Narrator lies with his false premise that to use phrases that exist in the DofI automatically means the entire text must be used. So let's cut the bullshit. That isn't what the commercial was doing and never was. False premise, ergo point is complete bullshit.

Moreover, what business is it of Fox Noise, or WND, or us, to declare that a private company must invoke a deity in its marketing? Why is Fox Noise taking the side of authoritarian theocracy here?

 

[hjmick]

Oh for ****'s sake...

The ******* terrorists don't win until we can no longer drink beer.

**** Fox, **** the commercial, drink a ******* beer, shut the **** up, close the thread...

 

[Missourian]

I think TS is misstating the Beer Institute guidelines for the "law". Although the idea of laws prohibiting use of religion to sell beer is ironic, since Pennsylvania, when I grew up there, used religion to prohibit the selling of liquor (on Sundays). Anyway the Beer Institute Guidelines read:
"Beer advertising and marketing materials should not employ religion or religious themes" (Section 7) (here, page 5)

This point is entirely moot though. Sam Adams doesn't need to justify squat; nobody in the commercial claimed to be quoting the Declaration of Independence. When Fox Noise or Whirled Nut Daily claims the beer company "dumped God", they are deliberately lying in their premise; that a beer commercial is the same thing as the Declaration of Independence. It's pseudo-journalism by hacks.

The question is, why does anyone buy such hackery, and even worse, why would anyone defend this intentional deceit?

So, just to make it clear...there is no law that required Sam Adams to misquote the Declaration of Independence.

Nor would the "Beer Institute Guidelines" have applied, as this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.

Sam Adams Beer choose to amend the quotation for their own reasons, whatever they were...

...and they are responsible for the ramifications of that decision.

NO, there is no "misquote" because they're not quoting it and it is the height of idiocy to pretend that that's what a beer commercial is.

Paraphrase
Definition:

A restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to simplify or clarify meaning

What Fox Noise and Whirled Nuts Daily are doing is playing the part of the Unreliable Narrator:

>> The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to his or her unreliability. <<

Beer commercials are not historical documents. They are marketing tools. The Unreliable Narrator lies with his false premise that to use phrases that exist in the DofI automatically means the entire text must be used. So let's cut the bullshit.

Moreover, what business is it of Fox Noise, or WND, or us, to declare that a private company must invoke a deity in its marketing? Why is Fox Noise taking the side of authoritarian theocracy here?

Irrelevant, Sam Adams chose to amend the quote...no one is responsible for the change except Sam Adams...

...and the consequences and ramifications of that decision are theirs to bear.

 

[Pogo]

So, just to make it clear...there is no law that required Sam Adams to misquote the Declaration of Independence.

Nor would the "Beer Institute Guidelines" have applied, as this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.

Sam Adams Beer choose to amend the quotation for their own reasons, whatever they were...

...and they are responsible for the ramifications of that decision.

NO, there is no "misquote" because they're not quoting it and it is the height of idiocy to pretend that that's what a beer commercial is.

Paraphrase
Definition:

A restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to simplify or clarify meaning

What Fox Noise and Whirled Nuts Daily are doing is playing the part of the Unreliable Narrator:

>> The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to his or her unreliability. <<

And obviously, if we're bending over backward to pretend what we're hearing is a verbatim quote from the DofI and complaining that a part is missing, then just as obviously, it's NOT a direct quote from a historical document. Not that that has any bearing on the marketing guidelines anyway; if the guidelines say no religious icons, then you don't use a quote that contains one. The marketing guidelines say nothing whatsoever about "unless the material is a direct historical quote". That's completely irrelevant.

You're trying to have it both ways here: first a complaint that it's a misquote, then a complaint that it's a direct quote. Pick a side.

Beer commercials are not historical documents. They are marketing tools. The Unreliable Narrator lies with his false premise that to use phrases that exist in the DofI automatically means the entire text must be used. So let's cut the bullshit. That isn't what the commercial was doing and never was. False premise, ergo point is complete bullshit.

Moreover, what business is it of Fox Noise, or WND, or us, to declare that a private company must invoke a deity in its marketing? Why is Fox Noise taking the side of authoritarian theocracy here?

Irrelevant, Sam Adams chose to amend the quote...no one is responsible for the change except Sam Adams...

...and the consequences and ramifications of that decision are theirs to bear.

The only "consequences" are those earned by Fox Noise, Whirled Nuts and their ilk, for trying to float this intentionally dishonest premise that a beer commercial represents a direct historical quote.

And I have to say, sycophants who defend this dishonesty like you're doing right now, who would rather go with a dumbed-down version than plain logic. For what purpose I don't know -- to boycott a beer company because it's based in a blue state?