Another morsel from The American Family Values folks:
Pepsi promoting gays---oh my!
- Thread starter gyrafoam
- Start date
Help Support :
CORRECTION:
That would be the American Family Assoc. paaaaardon mois.
That would be the American Family Assoc. paaaaardon mois.
Good Information . . .
It makes me want to go right out and have a Crawford or two (that's Pepsi with Vodka, lol).
It makes me want to go right out and have a Crawford or two (that's Pepsi with Vodka, lol).
brettsomers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,993
...
and I thought Pepsico
was owned by the Mormon jerks who brought us Prop. 8?
was owned by the Mormon jerks who brought us Prop. 8?
pturo
New member
So, people should buy Coke, a good, old fashioned, wife beaters lifestyle, according to these fanatics?
It it so rediculous to assign sexual preference boycott to a mundane product like soda pop and create a divisive forum about it.
What about Nabisco vs Keebler (Keebler would be gay)
What about Mobil vs Qick Fill (I'll leave that alone)
What about Betty Crocker v Duncan Heinz?
What about Stolis vs Skyy?
What about Ikea vs Ethan Allen?
What about Astroglide vs KY?
The world has bigger fish to fry than someone deciding what the gay soda pop is.
However:
Pepsi=New York, Joan Crawford, once on the board of directors
Coke= Atlanta, with no famous flamboyant stars on the board.
Where are these "FAMILY ALERT GROUPS" on boycotting those terrible, violent, video games, clearly aimed at children to promote violence as a means of settling things??? I think there was one where you could have cyber sex with a prostitute and then kill her after.
Two people who love each other are not a threat to the family sturcture in America. Bigitiosm, alcoholism, drugs and violence,child abuse and divorce are threats to the straight American family.
How in the hell are two men getting married in California a threat to Rush Limbaugh's family life in Florida?
If the Christian 'right' people don't belive in same sex marriage or same sex couples, then perhaps they should not marry or go out with someone of the same sex. Their 'moral' solution is rediculously simple that exists within thier own internal tribe of bigotry.
Meanwhile,they should leave the rest of us the f*** alone, what with our Constitutional Rights, and all,and should STFU about Jesus in the this nation's law, who probably is astounded by their fear and hatred of their fellow man who decides to make his or her own family, based on love.
It it so rediculous to assign sexual preference boycott to a mundane product like soda pop and create a divisive forum about it.
What about Nabisco vs Keebler (Keebler would be gay)
What about Mobil vs Qick Fill (I'll leave that alone)
What about Betty Crocker v Duncan Heinz?
What about Stolis vs Skyy?
What about Ikea vs Ethan Allen?
What about Astroglide vs KY?
The world has bigger fish to fry than someone deciding what the gay soda pop is.
However:
Pepsi=New York, Joan Crawford, once on the board of directors
Coke= Atlanta, with no famous flamboyant stars on the board.
Where are these "FAMILY ALERT GROUPS" on boycotting those terrible, violent, video games, clearly aimed at children to promote violence as a means of settling things??? I think there was one where you could have cyber sex with a prostitute and then kill her after.
Two people who love each other are not a threat to the family sturcture in America. Bigitiosm, alcoholism, drugs and violence,child abuse and divorce are threats to the straight American family.
How in the hell are two men getting married in California a threat to Rush Limbaugh's family life in Florida?
If the Christian 'right' people don't belive in same sex marriage or same sex couples, then perhaps they should not marry or go out with someone of the same sex. Their 'moral' solution is rediculously simple that exists within thier own internal tribe of bigotry.
Meanwhile,they should leave the rest of us the f*** alone, what with our Constitutional Rights, and all,and should STFU about Jesus in the this nation's law, who probably is astounded by their fear and hatred of their fellow man who decides to make his or her own family, based on love.
pturo
New member
OK,that was a little strong..
brettsomers . . .
Thanks for that lovely pic; I can just imagine a slightly over-refreshed Miss Crawford staring down Donald Wildmon and his cohorts as she says "Don't fuck with me, fellas!"
Thanks for that lovely pic; I can just imagine a slightly over-refreshed Miss Crawford staring down Donald Wildmon and his cohorts as she says "Don't fuck with me, fellas!"
danemodsandy
Well-known member
Photo of Joan:
I thought I'd seen every photo of Joan ever taken, but that's a new one on me. What the hell is that in her hair - Krylon?
I thought I'd seen every photo of Joan ever taken, but that's a new one on me. What the hell is that in her hair - Krylon?
Philip,
That was not too strong, it was exactly right.
I have had it up to HERE with the christianists trying to tell me how to live my life.
They have chosen us as their rallying cry, and are only one tiny step removed from the Nazis.
If we don't defend ourselves, that tiny step will be taken.
And for pities' sake, before somebody gets their panties in a twist, 'christianist' is NOT Christian. If you don't know the difference, look it up.
That was not too strong, it was exactly right.
I have had it up to HERE with the christianists trying to tell me how to live my life.
They have chosen us as their rallying cry, and are only one tiny step removed from the Nazis.
If we don't defend ourselves, that tiny step will be taken.
And for pities' sake, before somebody gets their panties in a twist, 'christianist' is NOT Christian. If you don't know the difference, look it up.
This will be a sales boon for Pepsi, as it's been a boon for every other company who's dealt with these "boycotts" in the last 30 years. In every case, far more consumers went out of their way to support these companies rather than boycott them.
So let them rant. The harder the better.
So let them rant. The harder the better.
The way I see it
Pepsi has the right to give their money to any cause or lobby they like because they pay their taxes.
Pepsi has the right to give their money to any cause or lobby they like because they pay their taxes.
laundromat
Well-known member
"....Hello,is this Miss J as in Joan,Joan Crawford??Ms.Crawford,I just lost my 10 cents in one of your Pepsi Cola machines.When can I expect payment?----p-parden,when what freezes over?Ms.Crawford,do you remember the popular tune"Pepsi Cola hits the spot!Twelve full ownces,that's a lot!!" I'll bet you think Pepsi hits the spot,don't you? Well,if you don't fork over my ten cents,Ma Bell's gonna hit you where you and this is no idle threat!No! I will not except a stamp!We are your telephone company and I have the power to pull your plugs a sixpack at a time!That's great! Overnight express? Wonderfull!Please ask them to rush! I'm just dieing for a Coke!"*
*Just a clip from one of Lilly Tomlin's album's LOL
*Just a clip from one of Lilly Tomlin's album's LOL
alanlendaro
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 161
Where is a nice pride of hungry lions when you need them
... Just a thought. It almost worked the first time. :=)
... Just a thought. It almost worked the first time. :=)
spankomatic
Well-known member
I gave up sodas years ago. It's time for a Pepsi!
Jim
Jim
The Flip Side
Of this for me is Pepsi's recent change from selling 12-packs of soda to 8-packs. The problem is that the price didn't change much. My partner drinks a lot of carbonated soda due to issues he's had for years with his esophagus. Carbonation helps to get the food down. But I've stopped buying Pepsi products due to them having shrunk down their 12-packs by 1/3 but not the price. So far Coca Cola is sticking with the 12-pack and so are the store brands, so that is what I buy. For myself I just get store brand club soda or seltzer as I'm not interested in loading up my system with aspartame, but I steer clear of Pepsi products as they are a rip-off compared to other brands.
Of this for me is Pepsi's recent change from selling 12-packs of soda to 8-packs. The problem is that the price didn't change much. My partner drinks a lot of carbonated soda due to issues he's had for years with his esophagus. Carbonation helps to get the food down. But I've stopped buying Pepsi products due to them having shrunk down their 12-packs by 1/3 but not the price. So far Coca Cola is sticking with the 12-pack and so are the store brands, so that is what I buy. For myself I just get store brand club soda or seltzer as I'm not interested in loading up my system with aspartame, but I steer clear of Pepsi products as they are a rip-off compared to other brands.
Andrew Sullivan has an
interesting comment on civil unions versus gay marriage this morning, here's the meat of it:
Civil Unions Vs Civil Marriage
France created a civil unions law in 1999 for gays but failed to designate gender and now about a third of straight couples getting married in France opt for civil unions because they are easier to get out of. Don George points out the obvious:
...it is terribly humorous and ironic that the French created civil unions to protect the institution of marriage...and now civil unions are undermining marriage because people are opting for them instead of marriage. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. So possibly the lesson for our country is that the best way to protect the institution of marriage is not to deny people marriage by creating a separate but equal system, but to allow gays to marry.
Er: yes. If you read my first ever essay on the topic, in 1989, you will find it was exactly this possibility that led me to back full marriage equality over marriage-lite options such as domestic partnership and civil unions. It was a way to integrate gay people and protect marriage. Civil unions and other such institutions really will undermine marriage in a way gay couples never could. In fact, in France, civil unions are now overwhelmingly heterosexual:
[T]he number of heterosexual men and women entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year.
In this, the gay movement, in its support for civil marriage equality, is a force right now for social conservatism; and the Christianist movement is the one fomenting the real attack on the institution of marriage. Christianist doctrine - unrelated to the social facts of our time - is, in fact, a social solvent. It helps destroy the family (ask the Haggards); it undermines civil marriage's uniqueness; and it discourages social responsibility. That's because it is about maintaining the stigma toward homosexuality rather than about supporting the important social role of marriage in keeping society together.
As I have said many times, Christianism is not, properly understood, a force for social conservatism; it is a force for denial, religious neurosis and social decay. Which is why those parts of America that are most imbued with Christianist cant often have such higher levels of divorce, abortion, illegitimacy and family breakdown.
end quote
He uses the term 'Christianism'. Those are his words (with which I heartily agree), not mine. So if the word bothers you, please don't start yet another flame war.
I think he has hit the nail on the head here. In Germany and most other European countries, by the by, it is not as easy to dissolve a gay union, marriage or whatever as in France.
This is, I think, a strong argument for gay marriage as opposed to separate but equal. Leave the religious ceremony up to the individual religious community, those who hate us may continue to do so, those who see us as human can perform the religious ceremony. But why need we bend to the will of the christianists on this matter? We shouldn't!
interesting comment on civil unions versus gay marriage this morning, here's the meat of it:
Civil Unions Vs Civil Marriage
France created a civil unions law in 1999 for gays but failed to designate gender and now about a third of straight couples getting married in France opt for civil unions because they are easier to get out of. Don George points out the obvious:
...it is terribly humorous and ironic that the French created civil unions to protect the institution of marriage...and now civil unions are undermining marriage because people are opting for them instead of marriage. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. So possibly the lesson for our country is that the best way to protect the institution of marriage is not to deny people marriage by creating a separate but equal system, but to allow gays to marry.
Er: yes. If you read my first ever essay on the topic, in 1989, you will find it was exactly this possibility that led me to back full marriage equality over marriage-lite options such as domestic partnership and civil unions. It was a way to integrate gay people and protect marriage. Civil unions and other such institutions really will undermine marriage in a way gay couples never could. In fact, in France, civil unions are now overwhelmingly heterosexual:
[T]he number of heterosexual men and women entering into a PACS agreement has grown from 42 percent of the total initially to 92 percent last year.
In this, the gay movement, in its support for civil marriage equality, is a force right now for social conservatism; and the Christianist movement is the one fomenting the real attack on the institution of marriage. Christianist doctrine - unrelated to the social facts of our time - is, in fact, a social solvent. It helps destroy the family (ask the Haggards); it undermines civil marriage's uniqueness; and it discourages social responsibility. That's because it is about maintaining the stigma toward homosexuality rather than about supporting the important social role of marriage in keeping society together.
As I have said many times, Christianism is not, properly understood, a force for social conservatism; it is a force for denial, religious neurosis and social decay. Which is why those parts of America that are most imbued with Christianist cant often have such higher levels of divorce, abortion, illegitimacy and family breakdown.
end quote
He uses the term 'Christianism'. Those are his words (with which I heartily agree), not mine. So if the word bothers you, please don't start yet another flame war.
I think he has hit the nail on the head here. In Germany and most other European countries, by the by, it is not as easy to dissolve a gay union, marriage or whatever as in France.
This is, I think, a strong argument for gay marriage as opposed to separate but equal. Leave the religious ceremony up to the individual religious community, those who hate us may continue to do so, those who see us as human can perform the religious ceremony. But why need we bend to the will of the christianists on this matter? We shouldn't!
