new ad campaign

[gt_ltd]

A little bird told me that Subaru is working on new TV campaign for the 06 models, and the following videos are some of the candidates:

Forester (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/roads.mov)
B9 (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/opposites.mov)
Outback (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/shadows.mov)

Discuss.

[jagcars26]

They all are better then the "Dust in the Wind"mistake.
plus, I still cant stand the looks of the B9,,in pictures OR in person.

I liked the Forester,,Outback just ok.

Rudy

[LegGTLT]

Was that a sexual reference at the end of the Forester commercial?:dm: "Whichever way you go" then the pics of the man/woman symbols all tied together.:lol: Hmmm... Subaru is moving out there a bit! I like it!:) The music is far and above better then what I've heard from SOA before. Much more "modern" I guess? Not sure how to summarize it...

[gt_ltd]

Was that a sexual reference at the end of the Forester commercial?:dm:

:eek: forester is really for homo's?! :eek: no wonder girls didn't look at me when i was in my forester! :lol:

[*Jedimaster*]

The beginning of the Forester ad reminded me of that Legacy game where you guide the car around the track. I thought the circles at the end were going to turn into a model of Fallopian Tubes :lol:

The B9 is just horrible.

The Outback one was ultra gay- and are they changing the roofrails for the 06's? The one in the commercial had the flush mounted ones a la Legacy wagon.

[melayout]

No effin way.

If SoA airs ads that have any kind of homo references, this will be my last Subaru.

[gfxdave99]

okay, those are pretty funny..

Up next...

Come in now for Subaru GAY DAYS! Gays and Lesbians get special financing offers with a low low so good it must be queer APR...

[tantal]

Why the @#$% don't they have any decent ads for the GT? It's no wonder they don't sell many.

@##^ing morons.

[*Jedimaster*]

No effin way.

If SoA airs ads that have any kind of homo references, this will be my last Subaru.
I wouldn't go that far. But I like the idea of gays getting a discount. I like to think of myself as an honorary lesbian, so I'll take my rebate now please.

[melayout]

I wouldn't go that far. But I like the idea of gays getting a discount. I like to think of myself as an honorary lesbian, so I'll take my rebate now please.

I guess you're not the man in the relationship. :dm:

[LegGTLT]

I wouldn't go that far. But I like the idea of gays getting a discount. I like to think of myself as an honorary lesbian, so I'll take my rebate now please.

+1 :lol:

Not really into the gay bashing thing myself :rolleyes:, so the comment was more just an observation not to be taking literally. I thought it was a pretty sneaky and funny thing to put in there myself! If it even means what I/we think it means...

[gfxdave99]

+1 :lol:

Not really into the gay bashing thing myself :rolleyes:, so the comment was more just an observation not to be taking literally. I thought it was a pretty sneaky and funny thing to put in there myself! If it even means what I/we think it means...

Who'se bashing gays?

I thought we were just joking around about the ongoing gay/lesbian theme across outback/forester owners ;)

I think they should make a pink rainbow edition outback

[tantal]

OMFG, if subaru develops any more of gay image than it already has, it will actually be difficult to continue owning my car.

UGH, the second-to-last demographic group I want to be associated with (a certain political party would be first; don't ask)

[LegGTLT]

I think they should make a pink rainbow edition outback

^^^ :lol: :lol: :lol: NICE! Would you upgrade jedi? What about Redbeast?

I was just refering to some comments made before jedi's, don't worry about it gfx. :D

[ADirtyLegacy]

yeah those were full of homoeroticism....of course i'm sure when guys see me get out of mine they go "oh yeah she's a lesbian"...STBM!!

Kenda :dm:

[PhilT]

A little bird told me that Subaru is working on new TV campaign for the 06 models, and the following videos are some of the candidates:

Forester (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/roads.mov)
B9 (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/opposites.mov)
Outback (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/shadows.mov)

Discuss.

If the "little bird" that gave you this info is looking for some feedback before making the full length commercials, you had better tell them to start again from scratch.

All three are way off mark with the homo theme. Concentrate on telling people how good the cars are, not how gay you have to be to drive one. Nothing against gays, but it isn't going to sell cars !

[tantal]

A little bird told me that Subaru is working on new TV campaign for the 06 models, and the following videos are some of the candidates:

Forester (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/roads.mov)
B9 (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/opposites.mov)
Outback (http://home.comcast.net/%7Ehid_gb/shadows.mov)

Discuss.

The little bird should take his boyfriend's member out of his mouth for long enough to get off his political agenda. makes me want to join the anti-fag movement; in the past I've been against it, but shit like this is too much in your face.

Definately ditching my car if I see crap like this on tv.

[rfd425]

The commercials are out there all right, but they certainly wouldn't make me get rid of my LGT, or discourage me from buying another Subaru. I bought the car for what it is; if I was that concerned about image, I would have bought another slow, unreliable Audi.

I think those commercials would be fine in the appropriate context, e.g. thrown on to the DVDs of "The 'L' Word", or in late-night reruns of the Ellen show on the Oxygen channel or whatever. They might generate a bad reaction in network prime-time, although there's a school of thought that says any publicity is good publicity.

I have to admit, I would prefer that they emphasize the female couples in the commercials rather than the male couples. Gay males probably have more money to spend on cars, though.

[The B4]

A little bird told me these ads have nothing to do with north america and were not done by the ad agencies for Canada or the U.S.

[rfd425]

A little bird told me these ads have nothing to do with north america and were not done by the ad agencies for Canada or the U.S.

They certainly look like they're done professionally. My guess is that they are targeted pieces that will only be shown to limited audiences.

[ADirtyLegacy]

if they want me to pony up for a new subie...less lesbianism (not saying its bad) and more Bruce!!

Kenda:dm:

[The B4]

They certainly look like they're done professionally. My guess is that they are targeted pieces that will only be shown to limited audiences.

They are professionally done...just not for North America...they are for our friends down under

[sebberry]

Linky no worky :(

[gt_ltd]

Linky no worky :(

pls try again..

[raz-0]

well they look like fairly complete pre-vis. If they aren't pre-vis, they might want to get 3d artists who make the car models actually have the proportions of the real thing. They just don't look quite right to me.

As for the homosexual theme, it is exceptionally heavy handed. I'm exceedingly tolerant of alternative lifestyles, and it turned me off. What you drive and what you have sex with are really not related. Saying "hey, we like gay people, so could you gay people buy our cars," doesn't make your vehicles of higher quality or better features. They don't even make the car more emotionally appealing. At best it might make the brand more emotionally appealing and thus get some foot traffic in dealerships.

If they were made up for video billboards or something like that at a targeted event subaru was sponsoring, they'd be appropriate. On prime-time tv? I think it could hurt.

[The B4]

they were originally made for Canada, aired in Australia and NZ...no plans what so ever for the US

[PhilT]

they were originally made for Canada, aired in Australia and NZ...no plans what so ever for the US

Never been aired in Canada either, well not on TV anyways, maybe on a gay satellite channel, if there is such a thing.

[tennebrac]

I recently did a fairly detailed online survey for Subaru that seemed to focus A LOT on what short of shows and networks/cable stations I watched, how much attention I paid to them, whether I was more likely to buy a product that was advertised on a show or network I liked etc., so I guess that Subaru is considering targeted marketing with niche commercials.

The 3 commercials are technically excellent but I think that the overt gay theme would turn A LOT of people off and will not fly here. I thought that the interlocking male/male; female/female symbols in the Forester ad was totally corny. Subura should know that cutesiness and corniness are major turn-offs too.

The survey also asked what sites I go to for Subaru information. One of the check boxes was for legacygt.com. COOL!

Just my 0.02.

[mccorry]

I'm not a homophobe or anything.... but those are just a little TOO gay orientated for me.

[heightsgtltd]

A lot of companies from every industry target gay men and women with advertising, as they statistically have high income, and no kids to spend it on.

These ads aren't meant for general audience..

People of all minority groups appreciate when marketing is skewed towards them. Companies realize that people like seeing people who are similar to their lifestyles using their products. For example, if you watch BET, you will see car commericals that have definitely been made for African American audience using only African American actors.


I am kind of surprised at the closed mindedness of people who say they wouldnt buy another subaru becuase of ads like this.

No one is going to think that someone is gay because of the car that they drive...

[PhilT]

No one is going to think that someone is gay because of the car that they drive...

Well I sure as hell wouldn't drive a rainbow coloured beetle if my life depended on it. Cars are an extension of your personality. You are what you drive !

[heightsgtltd]

Well I sure as hell wouldn't drive a rainbow coloured beetle if my life depended on it. Cars are an extension of your personality. You are what you drive !

I don't think Subaru is planning on selling any "rainbow colored" cars...My point was just driving a standard version of a certain car model doesnt make anyone think that.

Okay well maybe a VW cabrio...:lol:

Seriously, I just find it funny that people get so nervous that someone is going to think that they are gay if they drive a certain car model.

If someone chooses to paint their car in rainbow flag colors, that is an entirely different story, and becomes a personal preference.

People say that foresters are real popular with lesbians, but I know a bunch of guys with Forester XT's who would beg to differ.

[tantal]

+10

Well I sure as hell wouldn't drive a rainbow coloured beetle if my life depended on it. Cars are an extension of your personality. You are what you drive !

[tantal]

I don't think Subaru is planning on selling any "rainbow colored" cars...My point was just driving a standard version of a certain car model doesnt make anyone think that.

Okay well maybe a VW cabrio...:lol:

Seriously, I just find it funny that people get so nervous that someone is going to think that they are gay if they drive a certain car model.

If someone chooses to paint their car in rainbow flag colors, that is an entirely different story, and becomes a personal preference.

People say that foresters are real popular with lesbians, but I know a bunch of guys with Forester XT's who would beg to differ.

It's not a question of nervousness. It's the in your face style of the gay movement that offends me. I have no problem with gay people being gay. I have a problem with it being shoved in my face, and in my children's faces, in particular. I am offended by ppl wanting to teach children that being gay is natural and acceptable. It's neither, even though I don't think gays should be persecuted in any way. I do not want to be associated with that. It's fine if you're gay, but I don't need to know about it. Do normal ppl shove it in your face that they are normal? Don't ask, don't tell is fine, but we are way way beyond that now.

Despite my strong feelings, no, I am not a republican :D

[rfd425]

A lot of companies from every industry target gay men and women with advertising, as they statistically have high income, and no kids to spend it on.

These ads aren't meant for general audience..

People of all minority groups appreciate when marketing is skewed towards them. Companies realize that people like seeing people who are similar to their lifestyles using their products. For example, if you watch BET, you will see car commericals that have definitely been made for African American audience using only African American actors.

I am kind of surprised at the closed mindedness of people who say they wouldnt buy another subaru becuase of ads like this.

No one is going to think that someone is gay because of the car that they drive...

I totally agree with this post, except possibly the last sentence. I've had several people mention the Subaru-gay connection when I told them I bought a Suby. Ever since I found out about it myself, I have to admit I occasionally look over to see who's driving a Forester when I see one.

I'm married & have a family, so I don't much care if some idiot thinks I'm gay because I drive a Subaru. All I care about is that I think I have the best car on the road for my purposes.

BTW, I am a staunch Republican, but I'm the libertarian type. Tantal, I'm with you on the in-your-face stuff, but I don't think these targeted marketing pieces are meant to cram gay propaganda down the throats of the mainstream community.

[tantal]

Tantal, I'm with you on the in-your-face stuff, but I don't think these targeted marketing pieces are meant to cram gay propaganda down the throats of the mainstream community.

I didn't mean to imply that it is purposely propoganda to be crammed down our throats (which it may or may not be); I just meant that that's how it came across to me. Could be I'm taking it too seriously, though ;)

[sebberry]

Anyone know what music is in the Forester ad? I kinda like that song...

[IwannaSportSedan]

RFD, and Tantal...

I agree with both of you. People can do their thing. This country is free, and people are free to do what they want, regardless of my moral judgements. People are free to do all sorts of right and wrong things, because the government is not supposed to be our cultural arbiter. I don't agree with tolerance of inappropriate behavior for the sake of political correctness, but I also believe that people should inherently be free to make their own decisions and live their lives. (sounds pretty libertarian, right?)

My only thing is this... You both have valid points of view. Why must you qualify it by either distancing yourself from republicans, or qualifying your republican affiliation with additionally describing yourself as a libertarian?
Why mention it at all, unless you think it important to distance yourself from "right-wing crazies?"

Almost all republicans and the vast majority of real-world democrats believe in liberty. That is like qualifying yourself as a human. Of course you are human, it is hard for a house cat to post on this forum...

Republican is frequently being treated as a bad word, or something. That isn't open political discourse. Just the political opponents of republicans gaining traction with their cultural smear tactics. I don't think democrats are inherently evil. Liberal tends to actually describe socialists, but they are who they are, and they are free to be.

I am a Lutheran, a conservative republican, and of a germanic descent. I also excercise my second amendment rights. (And Oh Noes!, I want to buy a Subaru!!! :eek: )

If you are offended by that statement, it is not me who has the problem, because none of it is inappropriate for me to say. If you have a bad opinion of me based on that previous statement, what does that say about you?

[ih8vtec13]

:eek: forester is really for homo's?! :eek: no wonder girls didn't look at me when i was in my forester! :lol:

ROFLS you homo JK but that realy does suck


They certainly look like they're done professionally. My guess is that they are targeted pieces that will only be shown to limited audiences.

I know that some cable networks now have a gay chanels on them so it could be for that. That could be where they are going to be used. As for the proffesional lokk they are well done, and it think the Tribeca one was the most visualy stimulating of the 3 even though I dont like it inside or out.

__________________________________________________ _______________________


As for my feeling about the adds they are very homosexual, but it doesn't bothere me that much unles it is al the advertizing they use, I don't want people to think wow hes gay and proud when they see me, i want them to think se that can don't mess with it it will smoke you.

One final thought, I already suck with them thinking that I'm gay and having to over that obsticle first. ( wait chicks like gay guys, so if I act it and dress god maybe it will work bring on t3h homoxors:lol: )

[gt_ltd]

"who will you take with you?" :lol:

just leave the legacy and the impreza alone and i will be quiet.

[rfd425]

One final thought, I already suck with them thinking that I'm gay and having to over that obsticle first. ( wait chicks like gay guys, so if I act it and dress god maybe it will work bring on t3h homoxors:lol: )

Yeah, if the chicks think you're gay, run with it and let them know they might be able to turn you if they work for it.:lol:

[rfd425]

IWannaSportSedan:

:offtopic: , but that's okay with me. I don't think either one of us was trying to distance ourselves from right-wing crazies, we were just trying to add some perspective to our opinions. I took Tantal's comment to mean that it's not just republicans who feel the way he does, and I added mine in response to mean that all republicans don't feel the same way either.

When I say I'm the "libertarian-type", I just basically mean that I'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, who believes in minimal governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens. That's where I fall on the spectrum, and that's all I was saying.

You describe yourself as a "conservative" republican; well, I think I'm the most conservative guy in the world. To me, conservatism means strict adherence to the Constitution. Included in that is minimal government intrusion into people's lives. I don't think the Constitution originally said anything about sodomy or abortion, but somehow, the term "conservative" has come to have a connotation of representing certain religious or moral viewpoints relating to those issues, among others. I'm probably just as annoyed by you calling yourself a conservative as you are by me calling myself a libertarian.

The Constitution does give certain sovereignty to states, and that, to me, is why Roe v. Wade can legitimately be called into question (although I am totally pro-choice), and why sodomy laws may be perfectly valid (although I am basically pro-gay rights).

I'm all for you excercising your second amendment rights, although I've never owned a gun and never intend to. I also support your right to practice your religion and be of germanic descent.:)

I'm not sure what in your statement you thought I might be offended by, but the only part I find offensive is that people with certain religious and or moral viewpoints have co-opted the word "conservative". In any case, nothing that you said gives me a bad impression of you.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I actually wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, rfd, or with tantal, I agree with most of what you guys were saying.

You both seemed to qualify good and reasonable opinions with either not being a republican, as if it were a bad thing, or being a republican, but not a conservative, which now I see is not the case with you, rfd. You are about as conservative as conservative is. You are absolutely correct that political conservatism is all about adhereing to the limits on government that the constitution specifies, and not introducing things that are not there...

Conservatism and christianity tend to come to the same conclusions, so naturally they make good companions, but certainly they are not required to be paired. I am not annoyed with you describing yourself as libertarian, I am annoyed with people treating conservatism like "cooties", and distancing themselves because it is socially provocative.

The whole point of my statement about what I am, was to illustrate one single point. As much as people talk about the homosexual agenda, such as the ads this thread is about, and being tolerant when it is thrown in our collective faces in many different ways, we all are expected to be tolerant of it. All sorts of special interests are vying for social acceptance and normalizing.

I am a man, and a traditional husband. Feminists don't like that, but I think women are the glue that hold families, and thus civilization, together.

I am a germanic-descent white man. Minorities like to claim racism, or nazism where none exists. I have nothing but respect for people regardless of skin color, but very dependent on the content of someone's character.

I am a protestant Christian, and a faithful believer. All sorts of groups malign, minimize or outright decry christianity as either fake, or hypocritical, or worse. I am neither, any more, nor any less than any other sinner in this world. I don't force anyone else, and I don't malign others. But I also don't shy away from discussing it appropriately either.

I own a gun. I fervently hope I never, EVER have to use deadly force. I never want to have to defend my family, but certainly never want to FAIL to defend my family, if needed. There are numerous groups of people who favor gun control, or outright disarmament of the population, directly against the constitution. A disarmed populace is very easy to rule unethically. Look at most tyrannys in this world. The powerful have weapons, while the population has no defense against them.

Those four criteria make me much more likely NOT to be tolerated by the "tolerance crowd" than any racial, or social minority. Yet all four of those criteria are perfectly legal, and either determined by nature, or gauranteed by the bill of rights.

I just am very tired of having to defend those criteria as legitimate as they get drug through the mud by the opponents I mentioned, while those opponents fight FOR the right to terminate the lives of those who cannot defend or choose for themselves, for the social welfare state that demonstrates failure daily, and for the forced acceptance for, rather than ambivalence toward abnormal behavior.

I know this is off topic, but this is life, and this is politics. This is a politically charged subject.

I am glad that you are not offended by how I described myself. That is the epitome of tolerance, but I am sure there are some who have, or will read it, and not be so tolerant of it, and it is to them that I make my point.

I am sorry that you feel that the word "conservative" has been co-opted by anyone. People who participate in religion come to all sorts of different political viewpoints, and plenty of them are significantly liberal. Everyone should have morals. Morality is another word that has become soiled, as if it is a bad thing, or should only be associated with religious behavior.

Everyone should be moral, in an ideal world. In the real world that is not the case, of course. Do you want to live, work, or deal with immoral people? I'd choose to deal with moral people, whether they are religious or not, if I had that choice. I do have the choice to behave morally myself.

Again, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, rfd, or with tantal. I respect your viewpoints, as you've expressed them, and most of the others here. I just don't think you need to justify them. And if you do, you don't need to shy away from labels that others have decided are distasteful. Your opinions are reasonable, don't worry if people think they are unpopular.

[tantal]

RFD, and Tantal...

I agree with both of you. People can do their thing. This country is free, and people are free to do what they want, regardless of my moral judgements. People are free to do all sorts of right and wrong things, because the government is not supposed to be our cultural arbiter. I don't agree with tolerance of inappropriate behavior for the sake of political correctness, but I also believe that people should inherently be free to make their own decisions and live their lives. (sounds pretty libertarian, right?)

My only thing is this... You both have valid points of view. Why must you qualify it by either distancing yourself from republicans, or qualifying your republican affiliation with additionally describing yourself as a libertarian?
Why mention it at all, unless you think it important to distance yourself from "right-wing crazies?"

Almost all republicans and the vast majority of real-world democrats believe in liberty. That is like qualifying yourself as a human. Of course you are human, it is hard for a house cat to post on this forum...

Republican is frequently being treated as a bad word, or something. That isn't open political discourse. Just the political opponents of republicans gaining traction with their cultural smear tactics. I don't think democrats are inherently evil. Liberal tends to actually describe socialists, but they are who they are, and they are free to be.

I am a Lutheran, a conservative republican, and of a germanic descent. I also excercise my second amendment rights. (And Oh Noes!, I want to buy a Subaru!!! :eek: )

If you are offended by that statement, it is not me who has the problem, because none of it is inappropriate for me to say. If you have a bad opinion of me based on that previous statement, what does that say about you?

IWanna; I didn't mean to make such a strong statement as you have taken it. I am very strongly anti-republican due to the selfish way they run things, and how badly they are damaging our world-wide reputation as well as our economic future, however like the republicans say (if it can be trusted) I strongly believe in the natural family unit and in its critical importance to the survival of any human culture. And by the way, all politicians use smear tactics, I find the republican usage most reprehensible. This is one reason I am strongly anti-republican.

I also strongly believe in personal freedom, the constitution guarantees it. HOWEVER, your personal freedom is strictly limited to that which does no harm to others or to society. i.e, you cannot kill another or steal or whatever as an expression of your "personal freedom."

Finally, I am strongly in favor of what the republicans SAY they stand for, but I am strongly opposed to what they ACTUALLY stand for. Not a big demo fan either, trial lawyers and unions are both parasites.

UGH what a state of affairs we have. Rome burns.

[tantal]

I actually wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, rfd, or with tantal, I agree with most of what you guys were saying.

You both seemed to qualify good and reasonable opinions with either not being a republican, as if it were a bad thing, or being a republican, but not a conservative, which now I see is not the case with you, rfd. You are about as conservative as conservative is. You are absolutely correct that political conservatism is all about adhereing to the limits on government that the constitution specifies, and not introducing things that are not there...

No hurt feelings here. Your second comment, though, is exaclty why I said what I originally did. In contrast to your opinion that christianity and conservatism happen to share similar ideals; I disagree. It is an old-fashioned power play where the party has been controlled by one type of person for a very long time; one who allows his religious beleifs to affect his views and decisions about government.

This is my single greatest reason for being strongly anti-republican; they ideologically violate the foundation of our government which is a strict separation of church and state. For hudreds of years this country was made up of innocent people fleeing religious persecution by governments. We are dangerously close to revisiting that path in this country over the next few decades, and it is wrong.

[IwannaSportSedan]

The foundation of our government was on christian principles. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. Inherent freedom granted by the creator. We place our hand on the bible when testifying under oath, and elected officials swear their oath by it, as well.

IF, and this is a HUGE IF, people have religious views, and spiritual beleifs, are you honestly saying it should have NO affect on the rest of their lives?
Yet people of similar opinion to yours decry Christians at the first sign of hypocrisy. IF you expect that someone is spiritual and/or religious, but should put that under wraps outside of the church, you are asking people like me to be hypocrites.

People can't scream about hypocrisy, and then turn around and expect people to abide by your restrictions.

If you honestly think conservatism and christianity are at odds, you don't fully understand one, the other, or both. They are not inexorably linked, but they are certainly not at odds. And altough some unethical people use conservatism, or christianity, or both, but that is a condemnation of unethical behavior. Unethical people will use ANYTHING to advance their cause. There are plenty of unethical people on the other side, as well.

The wall of separation between church and state was a term used by Thomas Jefferson when writing to a concerned citizen in the early days of our country, about the government staying out of church business, and letting people manage their own religious freedom, UNLIKE most of europe at the time. The very things that the bill of rights gaurantees.

Hugo Black, a Liberal justice on the supreme court in the 1950s, and a Ku Klux Klan member (matter of fact, nothing more.) decided that Jefferson's term, WHICH NEVER APPEARS IN ANY RATIFIED FOUNDING DOCUMENT, meant that religion and government had to be strictly separated from each other. Freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion. We can all see the modern results. People are afraid, resentful, and suspicious of christians, and christianity at it's base doesn't deserve that derision.

I certainly DO NOT see anyone persecuting people on ANY basis. Political correctness has gauranteed that almost nobody can be even criticized for anything. IF anyone is being bombarded, it is christians, by rhetoric stronger than Tantal's.

Who is currently being critizised for being catholic? None other than the nominee for the new Chief Justice. I thought Freedom of Religion meant that anyone could participate, regardless of religious affiliation? It doesn't mean that religious people should be barred from service in important roles.

From now on, I'll be happy to discuss this in PM, because this is departing completely from the topic, but I just thought that some historical context might help people reading your comments about a policy that has been twisted.

[tantal]

The foundation of our government was on christian principles. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. Inherent freedom granted by the creator. We place our hand on the bible when testifying under oath, and elected officials swear their oath by it, as well.

IF, and this is a HUGE IF, people have religious views, and spiritual beleifs, are you honestly saying it should have NO affect on the rest of their lives?
Yet people of similar opinion to yours decry Christians at the first sign of hypocrisy. IF you expect that someone is spiritual and/or religious, but should put that under wraps outside of the church, you are asking people like me to be hypocrites.

People can't scream about hypocrisy, and then turn around and expect people to abide by your restrictions.

If you honestly think conservatism and christianity are at odds, you don't fully understand one, the other, or both. They are not inexorably linked, but they are certainly not at odds. And altough some unethical people use conservatism, or christianity, or both, but that is a condemnation of unethical behavior. Unethical people will use ANYTHING to advance their cause. There are plenty of unethical people on the other side, as well.

The wall of separation between church and state was a term used by Thomas Jefferson when writing to a concerned citizen in the early days of our country, about the government staying out of church business, and letting people manage their own religious freedom, UNLIKE most of europe at the time. The very things that the bill of rights gaurantees.

Hugo Black, a Liberal justice on the supreme court in the 1950s, and a Ku Klux Klan member (matter of fact, nothing more.) decided that Jefferson's term, WHICH NEVER APPEARS IN ANY RATIFIED FOUNDING DOCUMENT, meant that religion and government had to be strictly separated from each other. Freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion. We can all see the modern results. People are afraid, resentful, and suspicious of christians, and christianity at it's base doesn't deserve that derision.

I certainly DO NOT see anyone persecuting people on ANY basis. Political correctness has gauranteed that almost nobody can be even criticized for anything. IF anyone is being bombarded, it is christians, by rhetoric stronger than Tantal's.

Who is currently being critizised for being catholic? None other than the nominee for the new Chief Justice. I thought Freedom of Religion meant that anyone could participate, regardless of religious affiliation? It doesn't mean that religious people should be barred from service in important roles.

From now on, I'll be happy to discuss this in PM, because this is departing completely from the topic, but I just thought that some historical context might help people reading your comments about a policy that has been twisted.

The constitution quotes "the creator" NOT the god worshipped by this or that group. I grew up catholic; I'm not saying anyone in government shouldn't be religious. However, they should never put their religion before what the people want. Freedom of religion means that no legislation should be tied to religion, and religious principals should not be used in making legislative decisions. The republicans flaunt their religious beliefs at every opportunity. I'm complaining about unethical people and unethical choices, not religion. There are people in power who are making bad decisions, and cloaking themselves in religion as justification. This is also very undesirable.

I love to hear about christians being persecuted. That's a laugh. How? Because they don't get their way at every turn? What about the bullshit rhetoric about teaching creationism in schools? It's a sound theory because it's what people believe in? What a joke. Since you accuse me of using rhetoric, there is some for you.

Regardless of one's beliefs, it is very difficult to respect a person or a group that shovels the amount of shit that conservative christians shovel in the US today. When religous people, and young people, begin to turn their backs on you, it should give a message. Apparently that message goes unheard - I guess there's enough money to fight against it.

[IwannaSportSedan]

And liberal athiest socialism is just above reproach... They are shoveling pure, wind-driven snow... This is where political discourse goes out the window. I come with facts, you have talking points. And by the way, the Declaration of Independence is what I was quoting.

That is enough. Like I said, PM.

[tantal]

And liberal athiest socialism is just above reproach... They are shoveling pure, wind-driven snow... This is where political discourse goes out the window. I come with facts, you have talking points. And by the way, the Declaration of Independence is what I was quoting.

That is enough. Like I said, PM.

I never said any side was "above reproach," you brush aside comments by inferring that they are less than factual by stating all of your comments are factual, using the above wording. THIS is rhetoric - brush aside the point while patting yourself on the back.

I never said your ideas or positions were wrong - I accuse people in power of making poor, highly self-motivated decision. I did not say their religion was wrong; I said using their religion in government was wrong. You cry persecution of the majority by minorities; I said that the use of influence by this majority was incorrectly and badly executed.

It is also typical, and offensive, how, in particular, conservative christians so easily cloak themselves in a convenient holier than thou attitude.

Christians in their two millenia history have been one of the most aggressive persecutors of all time - the crusades, the inquisition, the KKK, man these are disgusting operations. Christianity and slavery went hand in hand in this country two centuries ago. Created equal, indeed. :mad:

Not saying they are better or worse than anyone else; but the holier than thou attitude is out of line.

[Aczwild]

See this is what happens when a Digital Cinematographer with a little extra time, or has an interresting school project to, say market a product to a minority, say gays. These adds are in no way a represntation of commercials that Subaru intends to use, just someone's little project.

Oh and this crap ^^^^ is hilarious

[rfd425]

http://www.cultofthejedi.com/funforum/images/smilies/myhijackedX.gif

I have nothing further to add.