Its sort of humorous this uproar over the SB halftime. On so many levels. Has anyone watched MTV that is acting aghast over the MTV sponsored halftime? That is all that has been on MTV the several hours I've been forced to watch it in the past year. And what of the beer commercials? What is the difference between a farting horse and Joe Camel? Yeah, those commercials are aimed at the over 21 crowd. Give me a break. They are saying to the teens, the next time you and your friends use your fake ID or raid your parents fridge, drink Budweiser products. But if the FCC is so appalled by the actions of CBS/Viacom, there's a reasonable solution. Take away their license to use the public airwaves. Yep. Punish CBS/Viacom the same way you would a 7-11 that sells beer to minors or an establishment that breaks liquor laws. Take away their license. Treat CBS/Viacom the same way the govt. does strip clubs who break the law. Shut them down. Treat CBS/Viacom the same way you would any small business who violates the law. Fine them into oblivion or straight up take away their license to operate. What are the chances of that happening to CBS/Viacom?
can you use paragraphs please? why is every sentence on a new line? i realize i am not perfect and i never use capitals, but i find your style to be particularly worthless. weren't you taught how to structure paragraphs? writing like this. is annoying. and not enjoyable to read. all that because we saw a breast? grow up, its just a breast, it didnt hurt anyone.
The FCC is given regulatory authority over the public airwaves. As much as you would want to defer and give away to Big Business, CBS/Viacom does not own those airwaves they broadcast over. If you or I opened a business licensed to cut hair and featured bare breasted women, we would be shut down. If you or I went to a public park and sold tickets to a strip show we put on, we would be arrested. We wouldn't be hurting anyone, but we would be held to the rules and laws. As we progress as a society, we will have videos of a loveable dog and his little owner next to a video of a dog making love to a little boy. They have that in Sweden already. That's where we are headed as a progressive society. all that because we saw a breast? grow up, its just a breast, it didnt hurt anyone. [/B][/QUOTE]
I've seen many a naked breast in my lifetime. Some less offensive than others I must admit. But, that's really not the point, which you obviously fail to understand. CBS/Viacom does not own the public airwaves.
I get a kick out of those who continually say that the beer companies pander to the young... I hate to say this...I'm 25..and I've been 21...and I've been 18...and I've been 17...and you get the picture... I watched the game with my 50 year old father on Sunday, and we BOTH laughed our ASSES off at that horse farting, and we both feel like that's the most comical advertisement there was to be seen last night... However, neither I nor my father would say that the commercial was geared towards attracting young drinkers. It was geared to make you laugh, and to say, "Man, that Bud commercial was HILARIOUS!" It is not designed to say subliminally, "Hey, all you 17-20 year olds out there, Budweiser is so funny, and their advertising so slick, you should drink it and fall into our evil clutches, losing your soul to the horrors of cirrohsis and renal failure!" I'm 25, and my father's 50, and we BOTH laughed our asses off. This means that the advertisement appealed to a WIDE AGE DEMOGRAPHIC. What's funny to 25-50 may indeed be funny to 16-20 year olds, and that should not hinder a beer company from saying, "Well, let's not do this shot because it's too funny for 16-20 year olds, and they might relate." You cannot legislate what is or is not "funny" or "catering to" or even "what is designed towards younger viewers" or compare Joe Camel, which in written documentation by the tobacco companies was designed to lure in younger smokers... A live horse's patoot passing gas while some obviously over 21 couple is sitting behind it in a sleigh while the man's down getting the Bud Lite and having the woman blow up like Michael Jackson filming a Pepsi Commercial? That's not pandering to kids...That's funny....and what's more, it's got people mentioning, "that Bud Light" commercial....Which is exactly what they wanted to achieve... Next you'll say that Cedric the Entertainer is too funny, and he appeals to children too much...Nevermind the fact that 90% of his movies have been Rated-R, and 100% of his comedy routine is Rated-R...He's just too funny, get him off the air and stop him from pandering to children about Bud Light! Gimme a break, and stop being such a wet blanket...I've heard from you and your neo-prohibitionistic idealistic brethren for a while, and you make me sick... Go start up a local temperance movement, or a baby-sitting/afterschool mentoring service if you're so concerned... What a joke...
i am aware of how the fcc works. and you are right i don't understand. nothing a breast can do can offend me, so i cant relate. and if i had children, i would teach them not be scared of naked breasts also. but i can see they offend you. i hope you recover. i know it hurts, and i hope you overcome the pain that viewing the breast has caused. if you are lucky the government will step in and protect us from further breast-related emotional trauma.
Obviously the mistake the producers of Joe Camel made was to put it in a memo. Never put it in writing. A lesson I'm sure Budweiser took to heart. I don't really blame Budweiser, they have swill to sell. Its the NFL and College sports that have become as dependent on their dollars as Budweiser is on teen-ager dollars.
M.O.M...Right here, right now...back up your accusations with FACTS, or never bitch about them again... Provide me with a VERIFIABLE link pointing out FACTUAL STATISTICS on beer consumption by underage youth of this nation... Provide me with FACTUAL PROOF that the alcohol industry said, "let's pander to kids" like RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris did to them with the Joe Camel ads... You'll be dispatched as quickly as CB'66 is when you ask him to discuss the salient and logical points of your rebuttals... You'll just ignore the main thrusts, fail to provide ANY proof whatsoever to back up your stances or blind accusations, and just go on repeating what Machiavellian organizations like MADD spit out there... Go find out more about the RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) and how much money MADD makes off of it... Then go find out about the actual FOUNDER of MADD and what she decided to do and go lobby AGAINST when she realized that Neo-Prohibitionists had infiltrated her scrupulous and well founded organization and actually rerouted its funding and agenda towards curbing LEGITIMATE DRINKING OF ADULT BEVERAGES BY OF AGE ADULTS...Which has never been their mission! The woman-the FOUNDER-quit and actually lobbies AGAINST MADD now! The state director of MADD in Louisiana is in cahoots and lobbies actively-which is illegal according to state law for her to do in her position-with Mr. Champagne of the Highway Safety Board, who also illegally lobbies the state legislature out of a personal disdain for the amount of influence that the alcohol lobby wields over his office... The man lobbies for draconian alcohol policies out of personal disdain for people. He's a supporter of neo-prohibition for no other reason than penis-envy! You'd almost get on my nerves, if you weren't so uneducated and ill informed on the subject...But step up to the plate, big guy...
