The American Family Association Has Completely Lost It

the afa may be onto something. i hear ford's planning on launching new hybrid (heheheh)called the sodoma.

My Mustang does have an appealingly sexy tail-pipe...

What kind of car is Paris Hilton rolling around on in that Carl's Jr. ad? We should boycott that manufacturer, too. They're contributing to the delinquency of minors.

What kind of car is Paris Hilton rolling around on in that Carl's Jr. ad?

car?

there's a car in that ad?

i'll have to pay more attention next time i see it.

i hear ford's planning on launching new hybrid (heheheh)called the sodoma.

I heard it was going to be the GoMore, eh?

Nice to have you back Philo.  Rant away, but just remember, no one listened to their boycott of Disney.  I doubt they are going to have much of an impact (some yes) on Ford.

i hear ford's planning on launching new hybrid (heheheh)called the sodoma. I heard it was going to be the GoMore, eh?

Where they went too far with the pandering was changing their slogan to "Hung Ford Tough."

What's that Bible verse? "Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom"? Tent, Lot, Pitch -- Can you get more blatant? It's all about cars! This is more obvious than backward masking!

Tent, Lot, Pitch

Sounds more like what happened to a certain Senate leader a few years back.

While I'm not a big fan of the whole "Boycott Bandwagon", I don't see the problem here. A private organization (Ford) is enjoying its freedom to cater to whoever they think will bring in the bucks, while another private organization (the AFA) is enjoying its freedom to boycott Ford. Their both sitting pretty because they both get to put their money and whatever clout they carry where they want it.

Freedom works both ways.

Ok, so what exactly is wrong with an organization standing up for the principles in which they believe. You, I, or someone else may not hold the same views they do, or agree with what they are doing, but they have every right to use their purchasing power to express themselves to that company.

Many special interest groups use public boycott campaigns to garner attention to their cause as well as a myriad of other techniques. The groups that use this sort of boycott or other public attention technique include gay rights groups. Why is this deemed to be acceptable for them, but when it's someone who publicly disapproves of them, or isn't on the PC bandwagon, it's suddenly a bad thing?

I personally disgree with many special interest group's goals, but I heartily support their right in this country to voice their opinions, including the boycotting of companies if they feel the need. It doesn't mean they have "lost it", it means they are exercising their rights just as much as a group of people holding gay rights parades, civil rights marches, or other activities. Do you make fun of those people too? Or just the ones you disagree with?

Philomedy,

In all fairness, where is your criticism of Buyblue.org? I don't participate in most boycotts, as I firmly support a business owner's right to spend their money as they see fit, but the entire purpose of buyblue.org is to boycott the political right. They rank GM (competing automaker, for those of you keeping score at home) at 26%; I'm not sure of Ford's ranking, but I'm sure their contributions to gay rights groups doesn't hurt.

The AFA is doing the EXACT same thing as many of these other organizations: Educating those for whom the political donations to causes by an organization DO matter so that they can appropriate their money in a manner they see fit. So I neither endorse nor condemn the AFA's actions. Now, if they start blocking Ford dealerships with pickets, I might jump over on your side.

Freedom works both ways.

This was the point. I very explicitly said my problem was with the AFA condemning actions that they themselves use.

Ok, so what exactly is wrong with an organization standing up for the principles in which they believe. You, I, or someone else may not hold the same views they do, or agree with what they are doing, but they have every right to use their purchasing power to express themselves to that company.Many special interest groups use public boycott campaigns to garner attention to their cause as well as a myriad of other techniques. The groups that use this sort of boycott or other public attention technique include gay rights groups. Why is this deemed to be acceptable for them, but when it's someone who publicly disapproves of them, or isn't on the PC bandwagon, it's suddenly a bad thing?I personally disgree with many special interest group's goals, but I heartily support their right in this country to voice their opinions, including the boycotting of companies if they feel the need. It doesn't mean they have "lost it", it means they are exercising their rights just as much as a group of people holding gay rights parades, civil rights marches, or other activities. Do you make fun of those people too? Or just the ones you disagree with?

^^ yeah, what he said!

In all fairness, where is your criticism of Buyblue.org? I don't participate in most boycotts, as I firmly support a business owner's right to spend their money as they see fit, but the entire purpose of buyblue.org is to boycott the political right. They rank GM (competing automaker, for those of you keeping score at home) at 26%; I'm not sure of Ford's ranking, but I'm sure their contributions to gay rights groups doesn't hurt.The AFA is doing the EXACT same thing as many of these other organizations: Educating those for whom the political donations to causes by an organization DO matter so that they can appropriate their money in a manner they see fit. So I neither endorse nor condemn the AFA's actions. Now, if they start blocking Ford dealerships with pickets, I might jump over on your side.

See above response. And there was no criticism of buyblue.org because I didn't see an article about them. Sorry.

Actually they aren't condemning actions they themselves use. They aren't condemning the company for choosing to financially support a cause. They are condemning the company's choice of who they are supporting.

Again, that is their right to do so, just as it is Ford's right to choose to whom they wish to contribute and support.

Just looks like freedom of speech in action to me. They have no more "lost it" than Ford has "lost it" for choosing to support a gay rights cause.

Why continue to perpetuate the lie about Spongebob? Because it sounds funny? Is your argument so weak that you have to lie to prop it up? That myth has been hashed out too many times for people to keep saying the AFA thought spongbob was gay.

Gay and Lesbian organizations boycott all the time. Environmental organizations organize boycotts all the time. Racial (ist?) organizations boycott all the time.

I have to wonder what the problem is with the AFA doing the same thing that all these other organizations do? Or is it the fact that you just don't like what they believe in? Should they have checked with you first?

He's not attacking their rights to protest, merely voicing his opinion that he thinks what they're protesting is dumb. How many here have written at length bashing anti-war protesters in the past few years? Why do you mock them? Because you disagree with what they are protesting about. Protesting Bush/Iraq/Whatever in recent years has brought down a rash of people here yelling "Anti-American!" "Traitor!" etc...

So it's ok to insult and disagree with protests when it fits YOUR vision, but not when it doesn't?

He's not attacking their rights to protest, merely voicing his opinion that he thinks what they're protesting is dumb.

No, actually he's calling them hypocrits, claiming

the AFA condemning actions that they themselves use.

which just isn't the case and is twisting things a bit.
Personally, yes I think it's kind of dumb, but people and groups have every right to be dumb if they so choose.
But the real point is they aren't condeming the actions they themselves use, but rather the company's choice of who they are supporting. That's really the only thing I take issue with here.

Actually they aren't condemning actions they themselves use. They aren't condemning the company for choosing to financially support a cause. They are condemning the company's choice of who they are supporting.

They are condemning a company for donating money to push what they believe is an agenda...remind me again what they donate money to do?

which just isn't the case and is twisting things a bit.

Really? Let's revisit some gems from the website since I doubt anyone actually went to it:

"From redefining family to include homosexual marriage,"

Really. Ford has the power to do that now, huh? Pretty soon they'll be rewriting the Constitution. Who's twisting things now?

"to forcing managers to attend diversity training on how to promote the acceptance of homosexuality,"

Yeah, I remember the last time I tried to buy a Ford...I had to sit through a 2 hour presentation about why being gay is alright.

Why continue to perpetuate the lie about Spongebob? Because it sounds funny? Is your argument so weak that you have to lie to prop it up? That myth has been hashed out too many times for people to keep saying the AFA thought spongbob was gay.

I mention Spongebob once in but part of a sentence. You mention it in an entire paragraph, repeatedly. By your logic, your argument against mine is weaker than my initial one.

I have to wonder what the problem is with the AFA doing the same thing that all these other organizations do? Or is it the fact that you just don't like what they believe in? Should they have checked with you first?

They are condemning a business for spending money to push what they perceive to be agenda. That is what they do. That is hypocritical. That is my problem.

God, I wish I had a "see above response" button on this thing.

They had a gay-lesbian kiss-off in front of a Disney Store in St Louis that I was unlucky enough to witness. They showed up en masse and proceeded to lock lips and dry hump each other right in front of the store's entrance, causing horrified parents to take little Suzie's hand and march her firmly in the opposite direction.Is the AFA picketing Ford, preaching hellfire and condemnation to anyone wandering onto their lots?Nah, didn't think so.

If we're going to turn this into a series of examples as to why the AFA or gay rights groups are stupid and hurtful to society, this is going to devolve into a series of one-upmanship that will never end.

"So you all know the AFA, right? We all love the AFA. They're those bastions of human decency that keep hyperventilating and yelling and making everyone think that all conservatives think Spongebob is gay! We remember these folks now? Good.

It doesn't change the fact that the AFA never made such a claim about Spongebob, and to say they did is the same strawman, liar, stereotyping tactics secularist bigots constantly use when they want to mock someone they consider religious. It doesn't matter how many words you use, a lie is a lie.

They are condemning a business for spending money to push what they perceive to be agenda. That is what they do. That is hypocritical. That is my problem.

You can call them hypocrites, but then all the other protest examples given to you could be shown to be doing the same thing. Homosexual organizations have boycotted businesses time and time again. You choose to overlook them and keep banging away that this Ford thing is different. It isn't, YOU just choose to whine about this particular organization and overlook the rest. That to me is the textbook definition of hypocrite.

What is so difficult to understand? It's the "agenda" the company is supporting they find objectionable, not the fact that the company is contributing to "some cause".

Ah, what's the use? Either some people are being intentionally obtuse, or they just can't understand the difference. Either way, the discussion is pointless.

The original point defeats itself. He says that Ford is donating money to gay organizations, and then he says they aren't, that ' Ford is spending money to support gay people buying Fords'. The obfuscation comes from being a hypocrite but needing to twist the situation to seem that you aren't.

If Ford donated to the "Whales are Delicious!!" foundation, Greenpeace wouldn't be hypocritical to boycott them. I don't think the AFA is any worse for boycotting Ford when they donate huge sums to organizations like GLAAD.

Me, personally, I have no urge to send a single thin dime to GLAAD, nor would I want to enrich a company so that it is easier for them to do so. So, I'd opt to buy a different brand of car. For some reason that I am unable to understand, that is hypocritical.

I'd just like to point out how civil the conservatives among us are being in this debate. The same ones that don't resort to childish and out-of-context techniques like name-calling. Lets see, so far I'm a lying, stereotyping secularist bigot, and being purposely stupid or just stupid. I gotta give it to Baker, at least his was creative. Mason tried to spice things up by using the word "obtuse," which Baker picked up on in a heartbeat (props for "obfuscation") but really, who's impressed with obtuse? Honestly. A 2 dollar thesaurus gets you obtuse.

And btw i'm aware Baker didnt actually call me a bigoted secularist but y'all already know my stance on the happy little smokescreens the conservatives here put up to be able to call names but say they didnt. And by the way, "Ford is donating money to gay organizations" and "Ford is donating money to support gay people buying Fords" aren't contradictory sentences. Ford is donating money to gay organizations, but not to support a supposed "gay agenda." Is it clear to everyone now?

That all having been said, I will admit that the original article was written in haste and I do see your point. (That comment being directed at Mason, who remains the only one here who remained civil long enoug to make a point. Kinda lost it in the end, but still, 3 responses must be a conservative record.)

I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If you lie in order to stereotype a party so that your point will find more fertile ground, lying and stereotyping would be valid words to use, wouldn't they? So when Liberals accuse me of making strawman arguments I should be outraged that they are out of line...

And no, I wasn't calling you those things, I was pointing out that you were acting like people who are those things, which is a lot less then I generally expect from you. Sorry that I hold you to an unreasonable standard.

P.S. What I get tired of is people who use an insulting and condescending tone in their blogs being irritated when it provokes the same in the responses.

Any one of us could be a member of the AFA, Phil. Ask yourself you started degrading whose values first.

And no, I wasn't calling you those things, I was pointing out that you were acting like people who are those things, which is a lot less then I generally expect from you. Sorry that I hold you to an unreasonable standard.

Yeah, and you know I'm not buying that excuse from you all anymore. Maybe the first 3, 4 or 10 times it happened, but not anymore. I expected a lot better from you, as I do from a lot of the others who do it. Hopefully we can get past it like usually happens.

P.S. What I get tired of is people who use an insulting and condescending tone in their blogs being irritated when it provokes the same in the responses. Any one of us could be a member of the AFA, Phil. Ask yourself you started degrading whose values first.

Where was I insulting or condescending? Where did I have any sort of attitude before y'all started in on me?

I could care less whose a member of what. No one here cares whose a member of what. Do you stop and think about the democratic contingent before you write something? No. You write what you feel. So do I. If it offends you, I'm sorry. The title gives away what the article's gonna be about. It was obvious, if you are/were a member of the AFA, that it was gonna make you angry. Don't read it.