NationStates Jolt Archive


Can Republicans be anymore pathetic???

Misterio
17-09-2004, 20:26
Conservatives urge P&G boycott
Christian groups go after Crest, Tide due to company's opposition to Cincinnati anti-gay statute.
September 17, 2004: 7:00 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Conservative Christian groups are urging a boycott of two of consumer product maker Procter & Gamble's key products, charging the company is aligning itself with gay rights groups, according to a published report.

The New York Times said Friday that James Dobson of Focus on the Family and the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association are angry at P&G for a statement on the company's internal Web site opposing an anti-gay rights statute in its hometown of Cincinnati. The law exempts gays and lesbians from special civil rights protection.

The two influential conservatives charge that by opposing the Cincinnati statute, the company is joining a push to allow same-sex marriage. They are urging supporters to boycott Crest toothpaste and Tide laundry detergent.

"For Procter & Gamble to align itself with radical groups committed to redefining marriage in our country is an affront to its customers," Dobson told the paper.

Procter & Gamble spokesman Douglas Shelton told the Times the groups are mixing two unrelated issues. Shelton said the company opposed just the Cincinnati statute and not efforts by the group to amend the Ohio Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

"The issue that these organizations are trying to put in our laps is one that we have not taken a position on," he said.

Conservative Christian groups have also criticized the company, the nation's largest television advertiser, for putting ads on what they consider racy on television programs.

In the 1980's, a rumor spread through evangelical Protestant churches that the company was connected to Satan. The company eventually filed libel suits against individuals it said were spreading the rumor.

Story can be found here: http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/17/news/fortune500/pg_gay_rights/index.htm?cnn=yes


:rolleyes:
Dempublicents
17-09-2004, 22:25
Awesome (well not so much the crazy psycho boycott crap)! I'm glad I use both Tide and Crest. =)
Roach-Busters
17-09-2004, 22:26
Get a thesaurus. Look up 'pathetic.' Republicon should be one of the synonyms. If it's not, it should be. :p
Chess Squares
17-09-2004, 22:29
Don't support radical groups

No one support the christian coalition
Nerrethans
17-09-2004, 22:30
Lets BLow shit up
Sdaeriji
17-09-2004, 22:32
It's not fair to compare Republicans to the CC.

Republicans are conservatives.

The Christian Coalition are fascists.
Letila
17-09-2004, 22:34
Republicans are conservatives.

The Christian Coalition are fascists.

They differ in intensity only.
Troizen
17-09-2004, 22:35
"For Procter & Gamble to align itself with radical groups committed to redefining marriage in our country is an affront to its customers," Dobson told the paper.

Procter & Gamble spokesman Douglas Shelton told the Times the groups are mixing two unrelated issues. Shelton said the company opposed just the Cincinnati statute and not efforts by the group to amend the Ohio Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

"The issue that these organizations are trying to put in our laps is one that we have not taken a position on," he said.

Conservative Christian groups have also criticized the company, the nation's largest television advertiser, for putting ads on what they consider racy on television programs.

In the 1980's, a rumor spread through evangelical Protestant churches that the company was connected to Satan. The company eventually filed libel suits against individuals it said were spreading the rumor.


OK. You violate free speech, allege Proctor&Gamble (THEY MAKE TOOTHPASTE!!!) is connected to SATAN, and you consider gays radicals?
Excuse me, but Double-U Tee Efff?

Everybody do the propoganda,
And sign along to the age of paranoia!
Dempublicents
17-09-2004, 22:36
They differ in intensity only.

Now, now - let's not turn this into semantics or flaming.

Let's all just laugh at the idiots who think that they can boycott P&G at all - especially if they really think they are going to make a dent by just refusing to buy two specific products.
Chess Squares
17-09-2004, 22:36
OK. You violate free speech, allege Proctor&Gamble (THEY MAKE TOOTHPASTE!!!) is connected to SATAN, and you consider gays radicals?
Excuse me, but Double-U Tee Efff?

Everybody do the propoganda,
And sign along to the age of paranoia!
whiskey tango foxtrot, over
Disganistan
17-09-2004, 22:40
Republicans are conservatives.

The Christian Coalition are fascists.
They differ in intensity only.

Utter nonsense. I was once a republican but was never a Christian.
CRACKPIE
17-09-2004, 22:41
*runs off to get as much tide and crest as humanly possible *
Roach-Busters
17-09-2004, 22:42
It's not fair to compare Republicans to the CC.

Republicans are conservatives.

The Christian Coalition are fascists.

The Republicons are neoconservatives, actually. Of course, they're also fascists.
CRACKPIE
17-09-2004, 22:45
Utter nonsense. I was once a republican but was never a Christian.

so you were a republican, but not Christian. so what, were you only in it for the racism and homophobia ?
Nerrethans
17-09-2004, 22:51
LeTs BLow shit up
T R Ambrose
17-09-2004, 22:52
homophobia! lol I love that term! because I am so scared of gay people like OMG! dressed in their little tight pants and purple purse! om my fucking god! so scary!
Sumamba Buwhan
17-09-2004, 22:52
so you were a republican, but not Christian. so what, were you only in it for the racism and homophobia ?


hehehe
Undecidedterritory
17-09-2004, 22:58
Question: can republicans be more pathetic?
Answer: yes, but could the democrats , that's pretty tough
Lewkowski
17-09-2004, 22:58
Liberals are worse when it comes to denying people their rights. In many cities liberals have succesfully OUTLAWED smoking in bars. Talk about taking way the rights of the owner!
Little Ossipee
17-09-2004, 23:03
Liberals are worse when it comes to denying people their rights. In many cities liberals have succesfully OUTLAWED smoking in bars. Talk about taking way the rights of the owner!
It's called for the good of the majority.

Totally Off Topic though. I mean, this is a thread about the CC boycotting a group because of their supposed ties with gay people. I dunno about the rest of you, but I find it hilarious.
Chess Squares
17-09-2004, 23:04
Liberals are worse when it comes to denying people their rights. In many cities liberals have succesfully OUTLAWED smoking in bars. Talk about taking way the rights of the owner!
oh yeah, and preventing the sale of alcohol on sundays...oh wait..
Sumamba Buwhan
17-09-2004, 23:07
Liberals are worse when it comes to denying people their rights. In many cities liberals have succesfully OUTLAWED smoking in bars. Talk about taking way the rights of the owner!

Because we all know that the conservative Christian right is all about letting everyone do what makes them happy.
T R Ambrose
17-09-2004, 23:08
It's called for the good of the majority.

Totally Off Topic though. I mean, this is a thread about the CC boycotting a group because of their supposed ties with gay people. I dunno about the rest of you, but I find it hilarious.no. it is called taking away the bill of rights. taking away our freedoms. no one has the right to tell someone else that people are not allowed to smoke on their own god damn property!
Sumamba Buwhan
17-09-2004, 23:08
It's called for the good of the majority.

Totally Off Topic though. I mean, this is a thread about the CC boycotting a group because of their supposed ties with gay people. I dunno about the rest of you, but I find it hilarious.

I have ties to gay people.. I wish Christians would boycott my house from being on their preachy route.
Little Ossipee
17-09-2004, 23:18
I have ties to gay people.. I wish Christians would boycott my house from being on their preachy route.
No, those are the Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses that I wish would boycott mine...

no. it is called taking away the bill of rights. taking away our freedoms. no one has the right to tell someone else that people are not allowed to smoke on their own god damn property!
So, if someone is on your property, then you are allowed to permit someone else to shoot them?

(Assuming they aren't tresspassing)
T R Ambrose
17-09-2004, 23:21
No, those are the Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses that I wish would boycott mine...

So, if someone is on your property, then you are allowed to permit someone else to shoot them?

(Assuming they aren't tresspassing)
do you believe in the legalization of any kinds of drugs? i don't nor will I ever smoke or do drugs, but it is not the governements responisbilty to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. especially on my own property!!!
Dempublicents
17-09-2004, 23:24
homophobia! lol I love that term! because I am so scared of gay people like OMG! dressed in their little tight pants and purple purse! om my fucking god! so scary!

hydrophobic! lol I love that term! because you know that silicone is so scared of water! all that polarity and all! om my fucking god! so scary!

Get over yourself. "-phobic" refers to more than just fear.
Little Ossipee
17-09-2004, 23:28
do you believe in the legalization of any kinds of drugs? i don't nor will I ever smoke or do drugs, but it is not the governements responisbilty to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. especially on my own property!!!
Did you answer my question? And no, I don't believe in legalization of any drug that is taken recreationally and is harmful, just as cigarettes are.
T R Ambrose
17-09-2004, 23:31
Did you answer my question? And no, I don't believe in legalization of any drug that is taken recreationally and is harmful, just as cigarettes are.
of course you are not allowed to shoot someone on your property...unless self defense. you would be fucking up their body not yours. i said it before and I will say it again. the governement cannot tell me what I can do with my own body. let me ask you one more question...are you pro-choice?
Sumamba Buwhan
17-09-2004, 23:35
second hand smoke harms people but I do think they shoudl be allowed to have smokigns ections in bars.

I also think all drugs shoudl be legal as prohibition is what makes things mmore danger ous and mroe available to youngsters without regulations.

Also People shoudl be able to recreationally kill themselves if they wish. I don't see how you could argue with that one.
Goed
17-09-2004, 23:43
As has been stated before, the problem with smoking in an enclosed area is the second hand smoke factor. Most bars really arn't large enough to have a smoking section, so it's either all or nothing.
Incertonia
17-09-2004, 23:46
Okay, here's where I'm going to defend Republicans in general. Dobson is a lunatic, and Focus on the Family has a deluded sense of its own importance. It's no more fair to hammer on Republicans in general for the actions of Dobson than it is for people to hammer on Democrats for say, the people who made the Hitler ad for the Moveon contest. They're a very samll, very non-representative subset of the larger whole.
Dakini
17-09-2004, 23:48
you know it's funny because i'm boycotting procter and gamble because they test unnecesarily on animals. i.e. for household cleaners and makeup, drugs have to go through animal testing phases...
Dakini
17-09-2004, 23:52
Liberals are worse when it comes to denying people their rights. In many cities liberals have succesfully OUTLAWED smoking in bars. Talk about taking way the rights of the owner!

smoking in bars is illegal here now too.

it makes going out so much nicer. i don't have to come home stinking of smoke and smokers seem alright with it too, they just go outside and have their smoker's community... there always seems to be that sense of community among smokers... and yeah, i know some people who have used the ban as incentive to quit smoking.