Siding with bigots? If you DON'T advocate gay stuff, you are just like most other businesses that don't actively support the "gay community". That's not bigotry, that's just doing business as usual.

And while they aren't flinching, they are losing money and customers hand over fist. they don't have to flinch, their customers did it for them. To Toyota, GM, and Dodge.

Actions speak louder than words. As long as they don't provide the AFA with ammunition to use in another boycott, Ford can deny all they want. They come across as innocent.

Your "bigotry towards gays" is another persons "don't want gay images in the media". And there are MILLIONS of people that don't want that as well.

But when they are providing the funds, that influence is still vital. I know I don't influence my wife to sign in online, but I still control many of the money decisions in my house. Considering the number of young people that rely on parents and grandparents for support, there's no denying how important that influence is.

Not the same thing and you know it. I'm not trying to run a business. Capitalism is a far cry from whether gay people have an easily identifiable problem.
Our concepts of bigotry differ, and many experts state that homosexuality IS dysfunctional.

Got any proof that that happened in this case Mr. Proofmiester?

No my article states that Ford is losing customers faster than any big automaker. Maybe you ought to take a look again. Ford lost 13% vs 3 and 2 percent for GM and Dodge? Nice attempt at spin thought when the truth is right there.

So where you gonna live then? Outside?

Do you have to what? That makes no sense.

If that's the case, there will be figures and studies to verify it. But if I really wanted to prove I didn't care what the AFA said, I would advertise a full page ad in a Gay outlet. The smart thing would be to just deny but conform. Both sides win.

If you say so. There's no proof.

Was there one?

Maybe you ought to read up a bit before you ask questions...
Generation gap? About $200,000 - USATODAY.com
It seems Social Security is but a small measure of older citizen wealth.

Do you? maybe when you figure that out you'll see why that median age and wealth, and your "intolerance" figures are all related.

I bore on how you contend that I say things are untrue but don't show why you feel that way. Duh.

Nope I rebutted your assertion that...young people approve of same sex marriage but older ones don't.

And this is not a moral issue to "me", but to many people, especially the older ones in your poll, it is. You seem to have a difficult time controlling your spin. When talking about a poll, I am talking about "them" when we are talking about how I feel, I talk about "me". Capiche.

Demographics are different, Subaru is known for catering to the gay community. They have a different customer base.



Naa, it's paranoia. I haven't even hinted at pedophilia, but it seems you are one needing a crutch in this subject so you pulled it out. If you were so disgusted by it, why bring it up? It seems you are being the "dishonest fool" in this case. As far as stupid crap, I find it stupid that you post these long ass posts to anyone who disagrees wth you. THAT is stupid crap.

Oh yeah, I stilll think pedophilia and homosexuality are related in that they are both deviant sexual urges. Snicker. Wanna talk about whining. Geez dude, drop a tab or something.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Nah, the whoole car market was down. GM and Dodge went way down. Toyota, Honda, Nissan... these vehicles are better made than their American counterparts. People are turning to them as gas prices go up. They realize that when they don't have to pay as much for repairs or maintenance, the gas prices are a little less of a hit to their wallet.

__________________
some days you're the dog, some days you're the hydrant

http://www.marchforbabies.com/chuck725 ... helping babies born prematurely and with birth defects

As usual, you're too thick to comprehend simple English.
"Siding with bigots"? WHO am I calling a bigot here? The AFA.
And are they JUST "not advocating gay stuff"?
No. They are ACTIVELY BOYCOTTING those who even dare to associate with gays.

Quit with the strawman crap. It fools nobody.
If you want to argue whether the AFA are bigots or not, then do so with honesty and integrity.
Otherwise, your reply makes as much sense as me saying that you are calling the KKK bigots because they don't advertise in Ebony...


The ENTIRE INDUSTRY LOST BUSINESS.
And you have shown NO proof that their customers went "to toyota, gm, or dodge".


You are that stupid, aren't you.
The AFA used to boycott Disney as well for its "Gay Day" at Disneyland.
And those AFA ended an 8-year boycott on Disney with no discernible effect. NOT because Disney actually acquiesced.
But because Disney produced "Narnia", a film which earned them quite a bit of money.

The AFA didn't get squat from Ford.
If you actually READ what the AFA said, you'll see that they didn't have the audacity to make the OBVIOUS lie that Ford "agreed" anything with them.
The AFA just "read signs" into things, with no substantiation of their claims...

The American Family Association’s head, Donald Wildmon, is claiming success of a boycott called against the Ford Motor Co. for its purported pro-gay policies and especially advertising in gay media. Wildmon’s Mississippi-based group is claimingthat "Ford had met the conditions of the agreement based on monitoring for several months."

This statement, however, is preceded by what seems to be an innocuous phrase but could be crucial in parsing out exactly what Wildmon may have accomplished. Here’s the statement in full: "We reached the conclusion that Ford had met the conditions of the agreement based on monitoring for several months."

In those few words there is room for dispute. Wildmon widely distributed his release through various channels that included sympathetic "news" sites like WorldNetDaily and more mainstream media. Soon enough, gay blog sites were openly wondering whether Ford, whose Volvo subdivision has been particularly active in gay media (to the point where women have been heard to half-jokingly complain that driving a Volvo marks them as lesbians) had capitulated to right-wing religious pressure.

Not so fast, according to Ford spokesman Jim Cain, who said via email, "The AFA has made its decision and is ready to move on. Our principles have not changed."

Was Anti-Gay Ford Boycott a Success-Or Just Hot Air? :: EDGE Boston

How much you want to bet that next year the HRC gives Ford another 100% for gay equality?
Ford didn't give the AFA squat.
The AFA caved because they thought now would be a good time to claim "victory".

Here's a question for you.
If you're so confident of the "AFA" effect, are you going out to invest in Ford for a rise in sales because the boycott is off?



Again, you say something that is just not actually addressing the argument.
Suppose we changed that comment to "Your 'bigotry towards blacks' is another persons 'don't want blacks in the media'."
Does the second one sound NOT bigotted to you?

And if there are "millions", then how come gay images in the media still exist?


When you play checkers, do you only think about the next move on the table, forgetting what your opponent did five seconds ago?
YOU brought up an ideal that those who did sign the petition could influence people who did NOT sign the petition to STILL NOT buy Ford products.
I showed that was an absurd idea to think significant.

And in response, you bring up a point that actually swings MORE MY WAY than it does yours.
Suppose a husband and wife sign an online petition.
How many trucks do you think the two of them are going to buy? Does that mean Ford lost sales for TWO trucks?
Or probably just one, if they were going to buy one at all.

Your comment points out how MULTIPLE people can sign the petition, but the ACTUAL TRUCK BUYING POWER is over-represented if you look at the sheer numbers of "signatures".


fxashun: Got any proof that that happened in this case Mr. Proofmiester?


Yeah. Of course not.
Those people speak out AGAINST your type, so they are ignored.


I always know that you KNOW you're losing when you try to start weaseling in the inane and pointless side-commentary which does little to further your argument.
No. You're not trying to run a business.
Cause if you were, you would listen to ALL indicators. Not just some nitwit group that announces a boycott.
From the same source above:
"Wilke is sure of one thing: "Historically, there has never been an effective boycott against the gay community." A case in point is the Southern Baptists, who noisily launched a boycott of the Walt Disney Co. because of a perceived pro-gay corporate stance. The boycott was called off after being widely perceived as a failure. "

If you WERE trying to run a business, I suspect you would fail.
If you were to ignore your bigotry, on one day you would have one group boycott, and you would foolishly run to acquiesce their complaints.
On the next day, the other side would boycott, and you would run the other way.
And when you got tired, you'd look for some weaselly comment to sneak in about gays, but it wouldn't help you...


Actually, I challenge you on that.
I challenge you to name ANY aspect of my labelling of "bigotry" where if it involved race with the same circumstances, you wouldn't call it as "bigotry".
For example, boycotting Ford because it advertises in black outlets.
Would you think the boycotters were bigotted?


"many experts"?
We've been over this crap before. I provided the stats.
1.5% of the "experts" say that.
The VAST MAJORITY say otherwise.

There is less of a consensus on global warming, and even THEN people acknowledge the experts agree on the existence.


I never claimed it did.
I simply pointed out the tactics that these types of people had used in the past. Blatantly lying and misrepresenting their numbers.
The AFA doesn't release the names, and keeps all that data to themselves, so they hide whatever evidence there could be...

I knew you were going to do that.
I KNEW you were going to misrepresent the numbers.
The 13% was with regards to ONE SPECIFIC TRUCK LINE for Ford. Not across the board.
Hell, by that standard the Honda Ridgeline dropped 15%. What did they do to piss off the AFA?
Or is that simply an example of how ONE TRUCK product dropped drastically in a time-period where the ENTIRE TRUCKING INDUSTRY was taking a down-turn?

And you deceitfully leave out that Chrysler has introduced a NEW FINANCE INCENTIVE program.
But of course, admitting that there might be OTHER reasons for a drop in one company isn't a good tactic for your assumptions, is it...


fxashun: There you go not reading the sarcasm....Again.
Gee. You would have thought the < end sarcasm > would have tipped him off...

But seriously, along those lines I've wondered something similar for the AFA.
MOST businesses these days, with rare exceptions, go to good lengths to ensure that there is no sexual orientation discrimination.
There are even businesses who are getting flack from state governments cause they offer "domestic partnership" benefits in a state that has a DOMA.

In this day and age, how can people who have the AFA mentality buy anything?
Soon, I expect they'll be either living like the Amish, or else perfectly content with their hypocrisy.


I swear. You complain about these posts getting long, and then you make them longer by insisting that I explain things you were too thick to get the first time.

The AFA wants Ford to flick their switch from "gay advertising" to "opposing gay advertising". (GA vs OGA)
Ford never flicks their switch away from "GA".
The AFA declares victory, ignoring the fact that the switch is still in "GA".
Do I have to join anybody to persuade Ford to reverse a decision they never made?

No. We'll take that a step further.
That IS the case, and the proof of that should be that the AFA NEVER MET WITH FORD for Ford to say they were going to do it in the first place.
The AFA just "read signs" that they wanted to interpret as being successful, so they could call it off. Like they did with Disney.

I am amused that you want "figures and studies to verify", but you offer ABSOLUTELY NONE on your side.
Not specific to this ACTUAL issue at hand.

You point to a down-turn in the truck industry, and try to allege things based on happen-stance. Not a study.
But here you are. About to demand one from me.

Here's a question from you.
Can you produce ANY "figure or study" to show that Ford gave in to the AFA?


1) Ford still advertises in Gay media.
2) They did deny.
3) WHERE is the "conform"?

It's just an issue of the AFA making a claim, and you provide NO EVIDENCE to substantiate the AFA's claim.
You don't even try to examine that issue. You don't even try to look for evidence that the AFA "conformed".


What is there about "there is no need" that you don't comprehend?
I might ask you if you have signed any petitions to ensure slavery isn't instituted in the U.S. in 2010.


From your own article: "The safety net — Social Security, pensions and Medicare — also has resulted in big increases in income for the elderly and a sharp decline in the rate at which they dissipate their assets in old age."


I'll take that as a "no".
It means that half of the NUMBER of people fall on one side of that value, and the other half of the NUMBER of people fall on the other side.
It gives no indication as to WHERE or HOW FAR they fall, but rather just what the middle point is.
Ergo, it is one of the WORST means of evaluating statistics there is, in some regards.


You really are this stupid. I mean seriously. You're THAT stupid.
fxashun: The fact that younger people have less of a grasp on moral issues is not in contention.
foundit66: I obviously would "contend" against that claim.
Ergo, your statement that it is "not in contention" is obviously false.
Do I really need to prove to you that I contend something different than your claim, beyond me actually saying it?

But moving a step further, you gave absolutely NO PROOF for your original claim. None whatsoever.
And then you criticize me for "not showing why I feel that way", when you just did EXACTLY THAT???

But moving a step further, I'm talking about YOUNG VOTERS. Not teen-agers.


Where the heck did you "rebutt" that?


You can't have it both ways moron.
You can't proclaim that it isn't a moral issue for you, but then observe a moral deficiency in young people who don't share your view.
It would be like saying "Painting the house red isn't about color coordination", but then criticizing the color coordination capabilities of people who don't agree with you that the house should be red.

I'm sorry, but you DID slip up. And we both know it.


And when you are talking about YOUR OPINION on whether or not "young people" have a grasp on morals, that is NOT a "poll", but you giving YOUR OPINION on the issue of the poll.
Capiche?


Who do you think you're fooling?
Everybody, even HERE, knows by now that you parade that out routinely where it doesn't fit.
Me pointing out your tactics is not a "crutch" for me.

And furthermore, how would that in ANY way be a "crutch" for me?
Especially since YOU are the one who keeps bringing it up...


Quite frankly, I know why you bring it up.
I also know that I can expose why you bring it up, and destroy your attempted association.
I would find it hilarious to actually engage you on the ACTUAL subject of pedophilia, without the "homosexuality", because from past encounters I know it would be icing on the cake to cement people's views on you.


As I keep pointing out, when I have to correct some idiocy on the part of another, the post gets longer.
I end up repeating myself, and then elaborating to remove doubt for the strawman. Or to correct the other person.

I have quick discussions with other people frequently, WHEN THEY ARE SMART ENOUGH to get what I am saying the first time.

I understand the whole retail market is in decline. But the other domestic trucks were down 2 and 3 percent, Fords were down 13%. That's a significant difference.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

That wasn't what I said. No one will take notice if you just quietly stop throwing advertising to gay outlets. That's not doing anything. No one will notice that either. A direct answer to that part of your post.

Says the king of Strawman Land.

No I'm saying that the business that don't advertise in gay oriented outlets are just being smart. When it become more profitable to advertise specifically to gay people, it'll happen. It's money, not bigotry.

That wasn't my point. More of their customers left them. In the truck market which is fiercely loyal.

Not as stupid as you evidently.

I loved that movie. And if they boycotted Subaru it would have negligible effect as well. Different customer base.

I guess we'll see. Any evidence of business as usual at Ford? What set the AFA off in the first place? Maybe the same monitoring that set them off showed that Ford ceased the advertising that they found objectionable.

But did any of those blogs actually check to seee if any advertising had ceased, or are they just a bunch of loudmouth blowhards like you that just post a lot of long winded bullsh#t about nothing. Like the AFA cept opposite.

And I'm sure the sales spokesman says that things at Ford aren't as bad as they obviously are with them losing position to Toyota in the U.S. as the number 2 automaker.

.
I guess we'll see won't we. I don't know what the HRC is.

[/quote]Here's a question for you.
If you're so confident of the "AFA" effect, are you going out to invest in Ford for a rise in sales because the boycott is off?[/quote]
I buy Honda. I've owned around 30 of them. 2 currently. Just concerned about the word "marriage" homosexual people should have equality if that's what they want. You mischaracterize my intent.

It's funny you would say that in the middle of all this bullshit that you have again created from my much shorter post.
Or short people, or red heads, or Jews. Which one would lose more money? Again it's all about money. Not many blacks on TV. Even fewer Asians. And the number of gay oriented shows on network TV has dropped to near 0. When it's profitable, it'll happen.

But to answer your question, no I don't think it's any more bigoted not to want children to see homosexual relationships on TV than any other situation that a majority of people find to be a perversion, especially one as obvious as homosexuality. "Why" would people not want to see blacks on TV? Because they imported them from their homeland as livestock and forced them to live in servitude? Who is more immoral? The slave trader or the "bigot" who is only reacting to the society that they happen to live in? What about the other myriad races and mixtures thereof? Should we include religions too like Jews? And why? I find it absolutely curious why "Black" is always used. Do you think I care?

I'm talking about the human being aversion to homosexuality, not just America. Humans have rarely agreed on much, but until recently, the societal aversion to homosexuality was universal. Big difference between that and not letting a couple ex-slaves on the television.

[/quote]And if there are "millions", then how come gay images in the media still exist?[/quote]
Just as with black people, mostly in a lampooning fashion. Is project runway or "Jack" not a comfortable stereotype for you? Ellen's show got canned when she "came out", check the gay contestants on Idol...gone.

No you didn't you just threw out more BS. You didn't "show" anything.

But that wasn't the point...Your comment was

If they couldn't influence them to sign an ONLINE petition, it's not rational to think they could influence the buying of a multi-thousand dollar vehicle.

And I merely said that I don't involve my wife in my online life, but if I didn't like a company, I would use my influence to steer my family toward a different one. You are extrapolating bullshit that doesn't matter...as usual.
Many families, especially the ones in the demographic buying trucks, will be led by the father, especially for a truck purchase. The segment that Ford lost 13% in.

Not necessary really in the case of trucks based on the demographics. But as far as regular cars...there is support that parents are buying more cars for kids. In this case, no, but in general, yes.

Yeah, but those that speak out against homosexuality are the "human" type. Even the parents of said homosexuals. I doubt a parent is gonna speak out against his own child for being his own race. All over the world. That's the difference you fail the acknowledge.

Funny, I know you are losing when I see you have replied to my post. LOL.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Really?
Ford said Tuesday, however that it has decreased overall charitable spending and advertising in recent years because of financial losses.

The Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association says the automaker has met its conditions, including not making donations to gay organizations and ceasing almost all advertising in gay publications.

It seems win/win to me. Both come across as not capitulating. No proof either way, but advertising is decreased and AFA has ceased the boycott. Hmm. Sounds like a good business decision to me.

I find it funny you think I hate gays...still. I don't hate gay people I just think they have a sexual issue. I don't have a retarded person for the same reason. Gay folk is fine by me. Your mischaracterization is tiring and as wrong as these long ass long winded posts.

Any weaselly comment is only for your enjoyment.
As we have discussed, not the same. "Why" boycott blacks? I am satisfied with the reason that homosexuality is kept off of mass media outlets.

Where are those statistics? I haven't seen them. Strange no link attached.

Global warming doesn't result in what most humans consider sodomy though. Much easier to decifer.

Maybe it worked.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Ford labels ALL their full sized cab-based trucks under the F-series name. Which actually makes that drop more significant.

Ridgeline only pertains to that one model, which has never sold that well for Honda.

Sure there are. But we are talking about a 9% disparity. That's significant.

Or you could rely on the AFA to tell you what to buy. Equal rights is one thing, promotion of it is another.

Naa, you have ben shown to be the thick one. In fact I'm convinced these posts are a pretty accurate representation of your "thickness".

Aren't the signs what brought the boycott in the first place?

I have offered several. The downturn favoring Ford by a large margin. The demographics for trucks. The fact that older Americans are more conservative. And yours?
Here's a someone else who wonders "the truth".

No. But I'm sure if it turns out to be capitulation by the AFA, there are plenty of gay advocates such as yourself just itching to trumpet this "victory".

1. Much less.
2. With a caveat.
3. See above.

Nor have you. It seems it is up in the air. But sales did drop. Precipitously in a vital Ford profit center.

Is there a movement? I am a member of a white supremacist web site, haven't heard anything about it. Still questioning the constant use of black. Maybe we ought to enslave them damn islamic dudes.

And that addresses the intent of your inquiry about Social Security checks how? And as it relates to the topic at hand? Clearly a bullshit irrelevant statement here. Many old folk have plenty of money to buy cars.



QUOTE]I'll take that as a "no".
It means that half of the NUMBER of people fall on one side of that value, and the other half of the NUMBER of people fall on the other side.
It gives no indication as to WHERE or HOW FAR they fall, but rather just what the middle point is.
Ergo, it is one of the WORST means of evaluating statistics there is, in some regards.[/quote]
Bullshit. If the MEDIAN age is 49, and that it is, that means HALF of the truck buyers are well over the age where you admitted "gay tolerance" drops off. And you have the audacity to try to call me ignorant. Hilarious.



Naa it's you who have been shown rather stupid time and time again. My point was that young people have a much weaker grasp on morality in general and homosexuality wouldn't matter to many of them. Like many thing immoral that older people decry like premarital sex and single parents. So if you can contend with that, go right ahead.

Okay.

Maybe the above link will suffice.

It seems your reading comprension skills have been reduced to moronic levels. When YOU are referring to the generation gap among other people, it is obvious that we are talking about THEM. And young people have a demonstrable lowering of MORALITY from older Americans. But if talking about ME, I simply fiind homosexuality unnatural and aberrant. Morals need not apply for a human perversion if the instinct to partner. It's aberrant to WANT to partner with a person of your gender before any actual partnering takes place. THAT is why MORALs don't matter to me...dipsh#t. Ohh this name calling is fun.

I would beg to differ.

No, I give the determination of the poll that says young people have diminished morals. My personal opinion about homosexuality does not depend on a "poll". I'm looking for some scientific proof that homosexuality is NOT an f'd up condition. And not some rationalistic bull that you and others spew.

[quoteWho do you think you're fooling?
Everybody, even HERE, knows by now that you parade that out routinely where it doesn't fit.
Me pointing out your tactics is not a "crutch" for me.[/quote]
When I "parade it out" it'll fit. Much unlike your "bringing it out".

But I didn't. Because it didn't fit. You are just trying to denigrate me for that mysterious "you" your ignorant butt keeps referring to. I know you are a bit delusional in your gaiety but damn.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)