Gene Honda Civic Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Here's a link to an ad that CBS refuses to air during the Super Bowl. I've seen the ad on other networks and it's not bad at all. It just brings up this question, Why doesn't CBS want you to see this ad? Super Ad If anyone knows where to see the other banned PETA ad, PM me. ----- On a related note, the Patriots will win, it's an election year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 The other Ads in the contest MoveOn.org sponsored can be found here http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 The other Ads in the contest MoveOn.org sponsored can be found here http://www.bushin30seconds.org/ i guess that's where i saw that then, I thought I saw it the other night watching dinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 to Move on... :fyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasywheels121 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I guess we're not allowed to disrespect the president in any way........It's BS that this ad isn't running. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 They also are running pro-drug war ads. But I guess that's not controversial to CBS. It's hypocisy at it's finest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 They also are running pro-drug war ads. But I guess that's not controversial to CBS. It's hypocisy at it's finest. are they running negative ads against the other candidates???....if they are then its hypocrisy...i dont believe they are running ads on the war on drugs is not the same as running ads for or against a candidate...also CBS has the right to run whatever they want...they are not running PETA ads either...do you really think people watching the superbowl wanna see a commercial about a soccer mom killing a rabbit and having blood everywhere????.... what the hell is controversial about pro - drug war ads???....you cant be for drugs...what do want to do..run ads where they say ," hey everyone , shoot up..its great for you"..have you gone that far that no matter how bizzare the opposite side to bush is you will take it anyways???..anyway , anyhow that you can get out a message to kids not to do drugs..do it...you might think it wont be effective but even if it helps one kid its worth it... ive never quite seen anyone with the hatred for bush that you have...there is not one thing that this man has done in his life that you can give him any credit for...it's scary..im afraid one day you'll snap and we will see you on the news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 are they running negative ads against the other candidates???....if they are then its hypocrisy...i dont believe they are running ads on the war on drugs is not the same as running ads for or against a candidate...also CBS has the right to run whatever they want...they are not running PETA ads either...do you really think people watching the superbowl wanna see a commercial about a soccer mom killing a rabbit and having blood everywhere????.... what the hell is controversial about pro - drug war ads???....you cant be for drugs...what do want to do..run ads where they say ," hey everyone , shoot up..its great for you"..have you gone that far that no matter how bizzare the opposite side to bush is you will take it anyways???..anyway , anyhow that you can get out a message to kids not to do drugs..do it...you might think it wont be effective but even if it helps one kid its worth it... ive never quite seen anyone with the hatred for bush that you have...there is not one thing that this man has done in his life that you can give him any credit for...it's scary..im afraid one day you'll snap and we will see you on the news... They have a policy to not run advocacy ads that are "controversial". These pro-drug war commercials are baseless knee jerk reactionary commercials with no science backing them up, hence they are controversial. Baggs, you and I both know that those "Just tell your parents..." commercials are misleading and provide a false premise about drugs. One could insert "Just tell your parents you were drinking a soda. They'll understand." as the voiceover for the one where the kid falls in the pool. Or how about the basketball one? "Just tell your team you were drinking booze." I'm talking the simple anti-marijuana ads, not ads against harder drugs because they don't run those. They run ones against marijuana. Annual Causes of Deaths in the US Tobacco 430,700 Alcohol 110,640 Adverse reactions to prescription drugs 32,000 Suicide 30,575 Homicide 18,272 All licit and illicit drug induced deaths 16,926 Non-steroidal anti inflammatory drugs 7,600 Marijuana ZERO I'm sure the government's intentions are pure. Also, check this out: A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded. In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report on various aspects of marijuana, including the so-called Gateway Theory (the theory that using marijuana leads people to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin). The IOM stated, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable." Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups. I'm not even discussing the NUMEROUS medicinal benefits of cannabis either. http://www.drugwarfacts.com/marijuan.htm has more info if you're interested. They also have links for medical marijuana and almost everything you want to know about the drug war cited from medical journals and government documents. If we're going to have ads representing one side, in a democracy is it not beneficial that people get both sides of an issue without being nailed with scare tactics and misrepresentations about the opposition like the governments, both Dem and Rep, have been too apt to do in the war on drugs. Like Bill Maher said with the commercial with the kid with the pink bong in his dad's den who shoots himself. "Only in America would we blame marijuana for a 13 year old having a giant pink bong sitting alone without a babysitter having the balls to smoke in his dad's den and then shooting himself with a loaded unlocked weapon in the desk left there by his father. Put the blame where it goes: s***ty parenting! Not the drugs!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 i dont disagree with you about parenting in this country...we could all use improvement there..myself included..but there is nothing controversial about running anti marajuana ads...as for the one where the baby is heading towards the pool..all its meant to show is that while under the influence of MJ , you senses do get dulled...your sense of responsibility...you do agree with that , right???...i mean thats pretty much the definition for getting high , stoned, whatever word you want to call it...if pot didnt do that then there would be no reason to take it... so whats so controversial about it??? as far as im concerned you could make pot legal and start taxing it...but right now it is illegal and kids who get caught with it end up going to court and some go to jail..so running ads that try to tell kids not to do something that could land them in jail and screw up their future is not controversial to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 all its meant to show is that while under the influence of MJ , you senses do get dulled...your sense of responsibility...you do agree with that , right???...i mean thats pretty much the definition for getting high , stoned, whatever word you want to call it...if pot didnt do that then there would be no reason to take it... Point definitely taken--but I think the gov't money would be better spent on an anti-alcohol add during the super bowl considering consumption then would be WAAAAAY up. So instead of harping on us about pot why not say something about drinking and driving or how you can't properly parent and drink. I mean way more people drink than toke--so address that. I totally see your point and I think it's valid and people who enjoy marijuana should do so responsibly--but I think the Super Bowl would be a more prudent time to talk about responsible alcohol usage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 i dont disagree with you about parenting in this country...we could all use improvement there..myself included..but there is nothing controversial about running anti marajuana ads...as for the one where the baby is heading towards the pool..all its meant to show is that while under the influence of MJ , you senses do get dulled...your sense of responsibility...you do agree with that , right???...i mean thats pretty much the definition for getting high , stoned, whatever word you want to call it...if pot didnt do that then there would be no reason to take it... so whats so controversial about it??? as far as im concerned you could make pot legal and start taxing it...but right now it is illegal and kids who get caught with it end up going to court and some go to jail..so running ads that try to tell kids not to do something that could land them in jail and screw up their future is not controversial to me... The controversy comes in the false assertion of the commercial Let's take the daughter falling in the pool commercial w/ a few different voiceovers that would all make sense: "Just tell them you were drinking a soda." "Just tell them you were drinking a beer." "Just tell them you were masturbating." "Just tell them you were watching television." "Just tell them you were on the phone." There are a variety of things that could lead to that girl falling into that pool. By asserting marijuana as the cause it enforces the knee jerk reactionism against marijuana that has been prevalent since 1937 when it was banned amidst racist and baseless arguments in Congress (some of my favorites were crimes like blacks walking closer than 3 steps behind whites or "under the influence of marijuana a black man might look at a white woman twice") and the classic film Reefer Madness. Any drug dulls one senses...alcohol included. Yet we don't see the same sort of ads against alcohol. In fact we see anti-drug commercials on TV all day long followed by "This Bud's For You". Which makes no sense seeing how alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined each year. I think commercials showing the facts and not appeals to emotion and reactionism (which a lot of the pro-drug war commercials run on) of both sides showing that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol would illuminate a lot of peoples' minds on the subject. If they are going to show one side then they need to show the other. The US drug policy needs to be drastically reviewed and changed and promoting this almost draconian system of drug laws is controversial without showing the other side of this debate. If they had a commercial: "Here is a drug. Here's what it does. Here are the penalties if you're busted with it." that would be fine but the current commercials don't do that. Therein lies the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Point definitely taken--but I think the gov't money would be better spent on an anti-alcohol add during the super bowl considering consumption then would be WAAAAAY up. So instead of harping on us about pot why not say something about drinking and driving or how you can't properly parent and drink. I mean way more people drink than toke--so address that. I totally see your point and I think it's valid and people who enjoy marijuana should do so responsibly--but I think the Super Bowl would be a more prudent time to talk about responsible alcohol usage... i agree with that 100%...drunk driving is imo the biggest domestic problem in this country..the amount of tax payer money spent on all aspects of a drunk driving accident (from police investigations , to hospital bills ect) is unbelievable... i wish they would run more drink responsibly type ads...but my point to apu was that cbs wasnt being hypocritical by running the MJ ads...i just dont see those as controversial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 The controversy comes in the false assertion of the commercial Let's take the daughter falling in the pool commercial w/ a few different voiceovers that would all make sense: "Just tell them you were drinking a soda." "Just tell them you were drinking a beer." "Just tell them you were masturbating." "Just tell them you were watching television." "Just tell them you were on the phone." There are a variety of things that could lead to that girl falling into that pool. By asserting marijuana as the cause it enforces the knee jerk reactionism against marijuana that has been prevalent since 1937 when it was banned amidst racist and baseless arguments in Congress (some of my favorites were crimes like blacks walking closer than 3 steps behind whites or "under the influence of marijuana a black man might look at a white woman twice") and the classic film Reefer Madness. Any drug dulls one senses...alcohol included. Yet we don't see the same sort of ads against alcohol. In fact we see anti-drug commercials on TV all day long followed by "This Bud's For You". Which makes no sense seeing how alcohol kills more people than all illegal drugs combined each year. I think commercials showing the facts and not appeals to emotion and reactionism (which a lot of the pro-drug war commercials run on) of both sides showing that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol would illuminate a lot of peoples' minds on the subject. If they are going to show one side then they need to show the other. The US drug policy needs to be drastically reviewed and changed and promoting this almost draconian system of drug laws is controversial without showing the other side of this debate. If they had a commercial: "Here is a drug. Here's what it does. Here are the penalties if you're busted with it." that would be fine but the current commercials don't do that. Therein lies the problem. drinking a soda doesnt dull your senses..so i dont see your point there with beer you have a point and i addressed that above... but its not false..MJ does dull your senses...it would be false if they were running those ads from the 50's where they show a guy in a straight jacket in a rubber room running around in circles..and then saying this can be you if you use MJ.. you dont know any stoners???..guys totally out of it and all they do is wanna get high..like in the movie "dude , where's my car'??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 since we're talkin abuot drinkin'... I thought I might add this... Two guys and a keg -- You can watch the webcast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 since we're talkin abuot drinkin'... I thought I might add this... Two guys and a keg -- You can watch the webcast whats so difficult about that??...go to any rehab center and youll find guys that drank that much each day for years...they are called alkies judging from that chick in the bikinis these boys are from the south??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Point definitely taken--but I think the gov't money would be better spent on an anti-alcohol add during the super bowl considering consumption then would be WAAAAAY up. So instead of harping on us about pot why not say something about drinking and driving or how you can't properly parent and drink. I mean way more people drink than toke--so address that. I totally see your point and I think it's valid and people who enjoy marijuana should do so responsibly--but I think the Super Bowl would be a more prudent time to talk about responsible alcohol usage... I would bet that there will be at least one "Drink Responsibly" ad during the Super Bowl. In fact, I think Super Bowl Sunday is the holiday that traditionally has the most alcohol related driving fatalities each year. Even more so than New Year's Eve. This was something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago and I'm inclined to think I have this correct. However, it is possible that I am getting my facts confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 to Move on... :fyou i'll second that :fyou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 why shouldn't they run it? cos it's propaganda bull s***. Who's gonna pay off FDR's deficit? or Carter's? or Clinton's? Our Federal government operates yearly on a deficit...that's just how it works when you're the most powerful and greatest nation in the history of the world. I no bush lover, but that's a f***ing ridiculous ad. keep politics out of the superbowl...god..we HAVE leisure activities like sports, gambling, and porn to take our minds off of this kind of s***. f*** you all for wanting that anywhere near feb 1st. assholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 ^^^ i totally agree. That ad is such bulls***, i applaud CBS for refusing to run it. The ad obviously is made to bash Bush and make him out as the 'bad guy' but seriously, how can you blame the deficit on Bush??? We've had a f***ing deficit for decades. Do you think Clinton didnt contribute to it? Or Gore wouldnt have done so? Come on, same song every time. Whine, whine, whine. The ad is ridiculous, cant we just watch the SuperBowl and have fun without being bombarded with propaganda (from either side). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 ^^^ i totally agree. That ad is such bulls***, i applaud CBS for refusing to run it. The ad obviously is made to bash Bush and make him out as the 'bad guy' but seriously, how can you blame the deficit on Bush??? We've had a f***ing deficit for decades. Do you think Clinton didnt contribute to it? Or Gore wouldnt have done so? Come on, same song every time. Whine, whine, whine. The ad is ridiculous, cant we just watch the SuperBowl and have fun without being bombarded with propaganda (from either side). IIRC, we had a SURPLUS with Clinton. Just saying is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 IIRC, we had a SURPLUS with Clinton. Just saying is all. correct, Bush, seing the possibilty of a surplus, cut taxes and increased spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 This article was on The Nation...just thought it would be a new view about the debate and it articulates my statements about the Drug Control Policy ads being on the Super Bowl: Bush Helps CBS, CBS Helps Bush by John Nichols The annual Super Bowl game draws a huge audience of television viewers – 130 million Americans are expected to view the game February 1 -- and advertisers of all types want to reach that audience. So CBS, which will air the most-watched football game of the year, has jacked up ad rates accordingly and begun selling chunks of air time to peddlers of beer, soda pop, cars, trucks and political agendas. But the network is not taking ads from all comers. Some political views have been judged unacceptable by CBS censors. While advertising industry sources say CBS will air a pair of advocacy commercials prepared to advance the agenda of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the network has refused to accept an advertisement prepared by critics of the man who currently occupies the White House. The MoveOn.org Voter Fund recently conducted a "Bush in 30 Seconds" TV ad contest, in which it promised that the winning entry would be shown during the Super Bowl broadcast. MoveOn, the innovative internet-based activist community, was willing to pay the $2 million it would cost to air the ad. And no one suggests that the ad is inaccurate or inappropriate; indeed, Fox TV commentator Bill'Reilly, no fan of MoveOn, says: "It's not offensive, (it) makes a legitimate point politically." Yet, CBS is refusing to run the MoveOn ad, claiming in the words of CBS spokesperson Dana McClintock, "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising." The reason? CBS told MoveOn that it does not want to trouble viewers with commercials that address "controversial issues of public importance." The MoveOn commercial does indeed address an issue of public importance: the rapid growth of the federal deficit. But as advocacy ads go, this ad is not particularly controversial. The ad simply warns that the Bush Administration's reckless policy of cutting taxes for wealthy Americans while hiking spending is creating a huge federal budget deficit that will have to be paid off by future generations. That statement merely echoes concerns expressed by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Just this week, more than three dozen Republican members of the House launched a campaign to get the White House to slow the rate of deficit spending. In fairness to CBS, the MoveOn advertisement might be considered controversial by White House political czar Karl Rove and others who are offended by any criticism of the president or his policies. But if controversy is really a concern, then why would CBS consider airing advocacy commercials from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy? At a time when millions of Americans, including federal judges, mayors, governors and members of Congress are questioning the wisdom of continuing the failed war on drugs, the Office of National Drug Control Policy advocacy ads frequently inspire controversy. Indeed, past Super Bowl commercials from the agency, which equated casual drug use with support for international terrorism, have stirred significant debate – and, yes, controversy. So what's the real reason for the CBS decision to censor an advertisement – from MoveOn -- that raises legitimate questions about the president's approach to a pressing national concern? "It seems to us that CBS simply defers to those it fears or from whom it wants favors – in this case, the Bush White House," argues Eli Pariser, campaign director for MoveOn.org. "This is the same CBS that recently backed down when the Republican National Committee made a stink about its mini-series on former President Reagan and his family." Pariser notes, correctly, that Viacom -- the parent company of CBS that also owns the UPN network, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations and more than 35 local television stations -- has been in the forefront of lobbying for the lifting of Federal Communications Commission limits on media consolidation and conglomeration. On June 2 of last year, the FCC voted 3-2 to allow networks such as CBS to dramatically expand their control over local television markets. Even when Congress roll back the FCC rule changes, the Bush White House took the side of CBS – pressuring Republican leaders in the House and Senate to prevent votes on initiatives to retain existing ownership limits. Now, in an election year, CBS is taking the side of the Bush White House and censoring an advertisement that seeks to open a debate about the president's fiscal policies – while at the same time preparing to air a commercial that advances other policies promoted by the same president. When it comes to censoring Super Bowl commercials, CBS is way out of bounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted February 2, 2004 Author Share Posted February 2, 2004 So lets review... CBS won't allow an ad that it deams "contravercial" wont run a movie that it deams to contravercial (the Reagans)... and yet it OK's a striptease with janet jackson -- drudge...hmmmmmmmm :headshake plus they air a commercial for a clearly dangerous product... I think it might be made by mainway industries -- http://www.shardsoglass.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Those were some funny s***, yet had a point. I don't blame CBS for not playing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 So lets review... CBS won't allow an ad that it deams "contraversial" won't run a movie that it deems to contraversial (the Reagans)... and yet it OK's a striptease with janet jackson -- drudge...hmmmmmmmm :headshake right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.