Fox "Terrorist Won" Because Samuel Adams Beer Didn’t Use God In Their Ad

[Missourian]

NO, there is no "misquote" because they're not quoting it and it is the height of idiocy to pretend that that's what a beer commercial is.

Paraphrase
Definition:

A restatement of a text in another form or other words, often to simplify or clarify meaning

What Fox Noise and Whirled Nuts Daily are doing is playing the part of the Unreliable Narrator:

>> The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to his or her unreliability. <<

Beer commercials are not historical documents. They are marketing tools. The Unreliable Narrator lies with his false premise that to use phrases that exist in the DofI automatically means the entire text must be used. So let's cut the bullshit.

Moreover, what business is it of Fox Noise, or WND, or us, to declare that a private company must invoke a deity in its marketing? Why is Fox Noise taking the side of authoritarian theocracy here?

Irrelevant, Sam Adams chose to amend the quote...no one is responsible for the change except Sam Adams...

...and the consequences and ramifications of that decision are theirs to bear.

The only "consequences" are those earned by Fox Noise, Whirled Nuts and their ilk, for trying to float this intentionally dishonest premise that a beer commercial represents a direct historical quote.

And I have to say, sycophants who defend this dishonesty like you're doing right now.

Nothing dishonest about it.

Sam Adams amended the quote.

They made a choice...they are going to have to live with the consequences.

Anything here dishonest?

 

[Pogo]

Irrelevant, Sam Adams chose to amend the quote...no one is responsible for the change except Sam Adams...

...and the consequences and ramifications of that decision are theirs to bear.

The only "consequences" are those earned by Fox Noise, Whirled Nuts and their ilk, for trying to float this intentionally dishonest premise that a beer commercial represents a direct historical quote.

And I have to say, sycophants who defend this dishonesty like you're doing right now.

Nothing dishonest about it.

Sam Adams amended the quote.

They made a choice...they are going to have to live with the consequences.

Anything here dishonest?

Yeah. Your post. I put the dishonest part in bold red.
Denial is a deep river.

I'm sure Sam Adams is living with the consequences all the way to the bank with all this free publicity too. Everybody who doesn't believe in dishonest pseudojournalistic hackery (let alone authoritarian theocrats who want to force private companies into religious themes) now has a reason to pick their product. They couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

Seeing as how the country Sam Adams and his cohorts founded specifically and Constitutionally distanced itself from this kind of theocratic bullshit, I'd say Fox Noise ironically played right into their hands on the Independence Day theme.

By the way I still want to know why Fox Noise has an interest here in promoting theocracy.... I already know the answer but will entertain stabs

 

[Missourian]

The only "consequences" are those earned by Fox Noise, Whirled Nuts and their ilk, for trying to float this intentionally dishonest premise that a beer commercial represents a direct historical quote.

And I have to say, sycophants who defend this dishonesty like you're doing right now.

Nothing dishonest about it.

Sam Adams amended the quote.

They made a choice...they are going to have to live with the consequences.

Anything here dishonest?

Yeah. Your post. I put the dishonest part in bold red.
Denial is a deep river.

I'm sure Sam Adams is living with the consequences all the way to the bank with all this free publicity too. Everybody who doesn't believe in dishonest pseudojournalistic hackery now has a reason to pick their product. They couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

I can't argue with intentional ignorance of fact.

It's like arguing with someone who insists water is not wet.

There is no denying that the commercial was based on a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There is no denying that Sam Adams chose to amend that quote.

You can attempt to tap dance arround those two facts to your hearts content...

...but it won't change them.

 

[Pogo]

Nothing dishonest about it.

Sam Adams amended the quote.

They made a choice...they are going to have to live with the consequences.

Anything here dishonest?

Yeah. Your post. I put the dishonest part in bold red.
Denial is a deep river.

I'm sure Sam Adams is living with the consequences all the way to the bank with all this free publicity too. Everybody who doesn't believe in dishonest pseudojournalistic hackery now has a reason to pick their product. They couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

I can't argue with intentional ignorance of fact.

It's like arguing with someone who insists water is not wet.

There is no denying that the commercial was based on a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There is no denying that Sam Adams chose to amend that quote.

You can attempt to tap dance arround those two facts to your hearts content...

...but it won't change them.

Ah, NOW the goalposts move. First it was:

...this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.
.

... now all of a sudden it's moved downfield to "based on". Like nobody was going to notice.

I accept your concession.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It's instructive to see the emotional dependent relationship the Fox viewers have with it, to go this far to try to deflect any criticism when they have plainly engaged in dishonest hackery. It just reaffirms what I keep describing: Fox Noise doesn't sell news; it sells emotion. You don't have an emotional relationship with a real news channel.

Now Pogo, let's be perfectly fair here. In terms of this thread, you seem to have the biggest emotional relationship with Fox. You sound like a man talking about his ex wife. Your anti-Fox creed is pure emotion to such a knee jerk reactionary level that you can't even tell when a Fox news anchor/personality is joking. If what you say is true and Fox news sells emotion then I hope you got a great deal on all that piety you've exuded. Now have a Sam Adams and relax.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah. Your post. I put the dishonest part in bold red.
Denial is a deep river.

I'm sure Sam Adams is living with the consequences all the way to the bank with all this free publicity too. Everybody who doesn't believe in dishonest pseudojournalistic hackery now has a reason to pick their product. They couldn't buy that kind of advertising.

I can't argue with intentional ignorance of fact.

It's like arguing with someone who insists water is not wet.

There is no denying that the commercial was based on a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There is no denying that Sam Adams chose to amend that quote.

You can attempt to tap dance arround those two facts to your hearts content...

...but it won't change them.

Ah, NOW the goalposts move. First it was:

...this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.
.

... now all of a sudden it's moved downfield to "based on".

I accept your concession.

Danth's law.

The basis of the commercial was a direct quote from the D.o.I.

There is no concession to accept.

 

[Pogo]

I can't argue with intentional ignorance of fact.

It's like arguing with someone who insists water is not wet.

There is no denying that the commercial was based on a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence.

There is no denying that Sam Adams chose to amend that quote.

You can attempt to tap dance arround those two facts to your hearts content...

...but it won't change them.

Ah, NOW the goalposts move. First it was:

...this is a direct quote from an American Historical Document.
.

... now all of a sudden it's moved downfield to "based on".

I accept your concession.

Danth's law.

The basis of the commercial was a direct quote from the DoI.

There is no concession to accept.

Oh I realize you don't see your own concession. But in fact as demonstrated, you abandoned your earlier insistence that the commercial script was a 'direct quote' and accepted my position that it's a paraphrase: "based on". That's on the record.

And it destroys your whole previous stance, because that false premise was the basis of the lying video in the OP. Now you've come around to agree that that premise is false, ergo you cannot have your "misquote". A paraphrase isn't a misquote.

Welcome to the side of rationality. Even if you're a hostile witness thereto.

Edit: and now you've got to neg me because you painted yourself into a corner and blame me for your own illogic.

 

[Pogo]

It's instructive to see the emotional dependent relationship the Fox viewers have with it, to go this far to try to deflect any criticism when they have plainly engaged in dishonest hackery. It just reaffirms what I keep describing: Fox Noise doesn't sell news; it sells emotion. You don't have an emotional relationship with a real news channel.

Now Pogo, let's be perfectly fair here. In terms of this thread, you seem to have the biggest emotional relationship with Fox. You sound like a man talking about his ex wife. Your anti-Fox creed is pure emotion to such a knee jerk reactionary level that you can't even tell when a Fox news anchor/personality is joking. If what you say is true and Fox news sells emotion then I hope you got a great deal on all that piety you've exuded. Now have a Sam Adams and relax.

I really haven't discussed Fox, John; I've been discussing logic and the false premise herein. That's my usual M.O. ya know.

But I did float the question, sitll laying out there unmolested, as to why Fox Noise would want to take the side of authoritarian theocracy. I got no nibbles but if you want to bite, we can discuss Fox instead of bad logic. It's not much of a leap.

I observed the emotional relationship because it is quite a leap to either defend what crimes against logic the Fox Fiends committed here, or dismiss them as a "joke". Only such an emotional irrational basis would keep you guys afloat in the river DeNial to defend illogic like this.

However I regret that I have no Sam Adams to pop open, although in light of the obvious Merkin love of DumbDown the Elephant, I may have to buy some next shopping trip. If only to make the statement that we're not all drones who swallow illogical bullshit.
Does it go well with babies and salsa?

 

[Missourian]

Ah, NOW the goalposts move. First it was:

... now all of a sudden it's moved downfield to "based on".

I accept your concession.

Danth's law.

The basis of the commercial was a direct quote from the DoI.

There is no concession to accept.

Oh I realize you don't see your own concession. But in fact as demonstrated, you abandoned your earlier insistence that the commercial script was a 'direct quote' and accepted my position that it's a paraphrase: "based on". That's on the record.

And it destroys your whole previous stance, because that false premise was the basis of the lying video in the OP. Now you've come around to agree that that premise is false, ergo you cannot have your "misquote". A paraphrase isn't a misquote.

Welcome to the side of rationality. Even if you're a hostile witness thereto.

Edit: and now you've got to neg me because you painted yourself into a corner and blame me for your own illogic.

It is not my fault that you are having trouble with the english language today.

The basis of the commercial is the direct quote from the Declaration.

Now do you understand.

"Why did we name a beer after Sam Adams?

Because Sam Adams signed the Declaration of Independence."

Really? That's why? I suppose it is important to point out EXACTLY what he signed, right?

"HE BELIEVED there was a better way to live."

So this commercial is about what SAM ADAMS BELIEVED, and WHAT SAM ADAMS SIGNED...gotcha.

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Whoa...needle jumps of the record....

That's what Sam Adams signed, and as far as we know, that is what he believed...

...but the beer company took it upon themselves to change that to...

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed (removed) with certain unalienable Rights..."

That was their choice...

...and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice.

Is it more clear now that I've taken the time to draw you a picture?

Or are you still of the mindset water isn't wet.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It's instructive to see the emotional dependent relationship the Fox viewers have with it, to go this far to try to deflect any criticism when they have plainly engaged in dishonest hackery. It just reaffirms what I keep describing: Fox Noise doesn't sell news; it sells emotion. You don't have an emotional relationship with a real news channel.

Now Pogo, let's be perfectly fair here. In terms of this thread, you seem to have the biggest emotional relationship with Fox. You sound like a man talking about his ex wife. Your anti-Fox creed is pure emotion to such a knee jerk reactionary level that you can't even tell when a Fox news anchor/personality is joking. If what you say is true and Fox news sells emotion then I hope you got a great deal on all that piety you've exuded. Now have a Sam Adams and relax.

I really haven't discussed Fox, John; I've been discussing logic and the false premise herein. That's my usual M.O. ya know.

But I did float the question, sitll laying out there unmolested, as to why Fox Noise would want to take the side of authoritarian theocracy. I got no nibbles but if you want to bite, we can discuss Fox instead of bad logic. It's not much of a leap.

I observed the emotional relationship because it is quite a leap to either defend what crimes against logic the Fox Fiends committed here, or dismiss it as a "joke". Only such an emotional irrational basis would keep you guys afloat in the river DeNial.

However I regret that I have no Sam Adams to pop open, although in light of the obvious Merkin love of DumbDown the Elephant, I may have to buy some next shopping trip. Does it go well with babies?

I have observed the emotional relationship between Fox News and Fox News haters. Usually the hate tends to derive from a different political view since Fox leans right while other networks leans left. This part is obvious. However, when you accuse Fox News of siding with an authoritarian theocracy because they did a beer story then your bias simply becomes an odd emotionally irrational position.

 

[Pogo]

Danth's law.

The basis of the commercial was a direct quote from the DoI.

There is no concession to accept.

Oh I realize you don't see your own concession. But in fact as demonstrated, you abandoned your earlier insistence that the commercial script was a 'direct quote' and accepted my position that it's a paraphrase: "based on". That's on the record.

And it destroys your whole previous stance, because that false premise was the basis of the lying video in the OP. Now you've come around to agree that that premise is false, ergo you cannot have your "misquote". A paraphrase isn't a misquote.

Welcome to the side of rationality. Even if you're a hostile witness thereto.

Edit: and now you've got to neg me because you painted yourself into a corner and blame me for your own illogic.

It is not my fault that you are having trouble with the english language today.

The basis of the commercial is the direct quote from the Declaration.

Now do you understand.

"Why did we name a beer after Sam Adams?

Because Sam Adams signed the Declaration of Independence."

Really? That's why? I suppose it is important to point out EXACTLY what he signed, right?

"HE BELIEVED there was a better way to live."

So this commercial is about what SAM ADAMS BELIEVED, and WHAT SAM ADAMS SIGNED...gotcha.

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Whoa...needle jumps of the record....

That's what Sam Adams signed, and as far as we know, that is what he believed...

...but the beer company took it upon themselves to change that to...

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed (removed) with certain unalienable Rights..."

That was their choice...

...and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice.

Is it more clear now that I've taken the time to draw you a picture?

Or are you still of the mindset water isn't wet.

The phrase "there was (is) a better way to live" is also no part of the DofI. Nor does the actor-bartender utter the phrase "that among these are". It's clearly a paraphrase, not a quote, and no amount of Denial posting or negging changes that.

What also can't be changed is grammar. The famous sentence that begins:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" (which is also not in the ad by the way)
-- is in the first person. "We hold" = "we", the writers, are speaking. Nominative case.

While the sentence that begins:
"He believed there was a better way to live"
-- is in the third person. Now we're referring to a third party, not the speaker referring to himself. Objective case.

That's an intro to a paraphrase. "He believed (that)..." or "she said that..." or "they made the case that..." need in no way to quote what follows verbatim, whether a document exists or not. The premise that it must, is as ludicrous and indefensible as is the idea that the ideas in the DofI may never be paraphrased.

The Fox Fiends are lying here by presenting that false premise. Admit it, you'll feel better.


Fox Noise: Unreliable Narrator.

 

[Pogo]

Now Pogo, let's be perfectly fair here. In terms of this thread, you seem to have the biggest emotional relationship with Fox. You sound like a man talking about his ex wife. Your anti-Fox creed is pure emotion to such a knee jerk reactionary level that you can't even tell when a Fox news anchor/personality is joking. If what you say is true and Fox news sells emotion then I hope you got a great deal on all that piety you've exuded. Now have a Sam Adams and relax.

I really haven't discussed Fox, John; I've been discussing logic and the false premise herein. That's my usual M.O. ya know.

But I did float the question, sitll laying out there unmolested, as to why Fox Noise would want to take the side of authoritarian theocracy. I got no nibbles but if you want to bite, we can discuss Fox instead of bad logic. It's not much of a leap.

I observed the emotional relationship because it is quite a leap to either defend what crimes against logic the Fox Fiends committed here, or dismiss it as a "joke". Only such an emotional irrational basis would keep you guys afloat in the river DeNial.

However I regret that I have no Sam Adams to pop open, although in light of the obvious Merkin love of DumbDown the Elephant, I may have to buy some next shopping trip. Does it go well with babies?

I have observed the emotional relationship between Fox News and Fox News haters. Usually the hate tends to derive from a different political view since Fox leans right while other networks leans left. This part is obvious. However, when you accuse Fox News of siding with an authoritarian theocracy because they did a beer story then your bias simply becomes an odd emotionally irrational position.

But here there are no left-right politics involved, so that's moot. Again I've been discussing the Fox Fiends' (lack of) logic, not the channel.

I say "authoritarian theocrats" because their complaint is that God is not being used to sell beer. Therefore, they must believe that God should be used to sell beer, if not to sell everything. And while they may grudgingly concede that the country Sam Adams passionately argued for specifically and directly prohibits religion in the government of that country, clearly they're arguing for if not theocracy, at least for, and this makes their whine poignantly ironic, a certain minimum of religious content in its TV commercials.

Now ... why would they argue for that? Is Fox and Fiends a religion show?

 

[Missourian]

Oh I realize you don't see your own concession. But in fact as demonstrated, you abandoned your earlier insistence that the commercial script was a 'direct quote' and accepted my position that it's a paraphrase: "based on". That's on the record.

And it destroys your whole previous stance, because that false premise was the basis of the lying video in the OP. Now you've come around to agree that that premise is false, ergo you cannot have your "misquote". A paraphrase isn't a misquote.

Welcome to the side of rationality. Even if you're a hostile witness thereto.

Edit: and now you've got to neg me because you painted yourself into a corner and blame me for your own illogic.

It is not my fault that you are having trouble with the english language today.

The basis of the commercial is the direct quote from the Declaration.

Now do you understand.

"Why did we name a beer after Sam Adams?

Because Sam Adams signed the Declaration of Independence."

Really? That's why? I suppose it is important to point out EXACTLY what he signed, right?

"HE BELIEVED there was a better way to live."

So this commercial is about what SAM ADAMS BELIEVED, and WHAT SAM ADAMS SIGNED...gotcha.

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Whoa...needle jumps of the record....

That's what Sam Adams signed, and as far as we know, that is what he believed...

...but the beer company took it upon themselves to change that to...

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed (removed) with certain unalienable Rights..."

That was their choice...

...and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice.

Is it more clear now that I've taken the time to draw you a picture?

Or are you still of the mindset water isn't wet.

The phrase "there was (is) a better way to live" is also no part of the DofI. Nor does the actor-bartender utter the phrase "that among these are". It's clearly a paraphrase, not a quote, and no amount of Denail posting or negging changes that.

What also can't be changed is grammar. The famous sentence that begins:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" (which is also not in the ad by the way)
-- is in the first person. "We hold" = "we", the writers, are speaking. Nominative case.

While the sentence that begins:
"He believed there was a better way to live"
-- is in the third person. Now we're referring to a third party, not the speaker referring to himself. Objective case.

That's an intro to a paraphrase. "He believed (that)..." or "she said that..." or "they made the case that..." need in no way to quote what follows verbatim, whether a document exists or not. The premise that it must, is as ludicrous and indefensible as is the idea that the ideas in the DofI may never be paraphrased.

The Fox Fiends are lying here by presenting that false premise. Admit it, you'll feel better.


Fox Noise: Unreliable Narrator.

Water still dry...gotcha.

I suppose we'll just have to agree that you are wrong.

 

[Pogo]

It is not my fault that you are having trouble with the english language today.

The basis of the commercial is the direct quote from the Declaration.

Now do you understand.

"Why did we name a beer after Sam Adams?

Because Sam Adams signed the Declaration of Independence."

Really? That's why? I suppose it is important to point out EXACTLY what he signed, right?

"HE BELIEVED there was a better way to live."

So this commercial is about what SAM ADAMS BELIEVED, and WHAT SAM ADAMS SIGNED...gotcha.

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Whoa...needle jumps of the record....

That's what Sam Adams signed, and as far as we know, that is what he believed...

...but the beer company took it upon themselves to change that to...

" all men are created equal, that they are endowed (removed) with certain unalienable Rights..."

That was their choice...

...and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice.

Is it more clear now that I've taken the time to draw you a picture?

Or are you still of the mindset water isn't wet.

The phrase "there was (is) a better way to live" is also no part of the DofI. Nor does the actor-bartender utter the phrase "that among these are". It's clearly a paraphrase, not a quote, and no amount of Denail posting or negging changes that.

What also can't be changed is grammar. The famous sentence that begins:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" (which is also not in the ad by the way)
-- is in the first person. "We hold" = "we", the writers, are speaking. Nominative case.

While the sentence that begins:
"He believed there was a better way to live"
-- is in the third person. Now we're referring to a third party, not the speaker referring to himself. Objective case.

That's an intro to a paraphrase. "He believed (that)..." or "she said that..." or "they made the case that..." need in no way to quote what follows verbatim, whether a document exists or not. The premise that it must, is as ludicrous and indefensible as is the idea that the ideas in the DofI may never be paraphrased.

The Fox Fiends are lying here by presenting that false premise. Admit it, you'll feel better.


Fox Noise: Unreliable Narrator.

Water still dry...gotcha.

I suppose we'll just have to agree that you are wrong.

I suppose we could agree that gainsaying proves nothing.
I've got grammar, multiple examples of why it's a paraphrase and not a quote, and evidence from your own words of your own shift of position admitting it's a paraphrase. And the Beer Institute guidelines.

You've got ipse dixit and Denial. And oh yes, a neg when I run rings around you logically. Don't be offended if I observe that this is not your best work.

Next slide please...

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I really haven't discussed Fox, John; I've been discussing logic and the false premise herein. That's my usual M.O. ya know.

But I did float the question, sitll laying out there unmolested, as to why Fox Noise would want to take the side of authoritarian theocracy. I got no nibbles but if you want to bite, we can discuss Fox instead of bad logic. It's not much of a leap.

I observed the emotional relationship because it is quite a leap to either defend what crimes against logic the Fox Fiends committed here, or dismiss it as a "joke". Only such an emotional irrational basis would keep you guys afloat in the river DeNial.

However I regret that I have no Sam Adams to pop open, although in light of the obvious Merkin love of DumbDown the Elephant, I may have to buy some next shopping trip. Does it go well with babies?

I have observed the emotional relationship between Fox News and Fox News haters. Usually the hate tends to derive from a different political view since Fox leans right while other networks leans left. This part is obvious. However, when you accuse Fox News of siding with an authoritarian theocracy because they did a beer story then your bias simply becomes an odd emotionally irrational position.

But here there are no left-right politics involved, so that's moot. Again I've been discussing the Fox Fiends' (lack of) logic, not the channel.

I say "authoritarian theocrats" because their complaint is that God is not being used to sell beer. Therefore, they must believe that God should be used to sell beer, if not to sell everything. And while they may grudgingly concede that the country Sam Adams passionately argued for specifically and directly prohibits religion in the government of that country, clearly they're arguing for if not theocracy, at least for, and this makes their whine poignantly ironic, a certain minimum of religious content in its TV commercials.

Now ... why would they argue for that? Is Fox and Fiends a religion show?

What video did you watch? I know the far left aren't exactly big supporters of the first amendment but the 20 second discussion had nothing to do with wanting God in beer commercials. They were asking about some "beer code" forbidding God in beer commercials nonsense. The discussion was about freedom of speech as opposed to speech codes from some unknown beer-speech code king. Seriously! You need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Pogo]

I have observed the emotional relationship between Fox News and Fox News haters. Usually the hate tends to derive from a different political view since Fox leans right while other networks leans left. This part is obvious. However, when you accuse Fox News of siding with an authoritarian theocracy because they did a beer story then your bias simply becomes an odd emotionally irrational position.

But here there are no left-right politics involved, so that's moot. Again I've been discussing the Fox Fiends' (lack of) logic, not the channel.

I say "authoritarian theocrats" because their complaint is that God is not being used to sell beer. Therefore, they must believe that God should be used to sell beer, if not to sell everything. And while they may grudgingly concede that the country Sam Adams passionately argued for specifically and directly prohibits religion in the government of that country, clearly they're arguing for if not theocracy, at least for, and this makes their whine poignantly ironic, a certain minimum of religious content in its TV commercials.

Now ... why would they argue for that? Is Fox and Fiends a religion show?

What video did you watch? I know the far left aren't exactly big supporters of the first amendment but the 20 second discussion had nothing to do with wanting God in beer commercials. They were asking about some "beer code" forbidding God in beer commercials nonsense. The discussion was about freedom of speech as opposed to speech codes from some unknown beer-speech code king. Seriously! You need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

How in the world is this about "free speech"?? Not even the Fox Fiends claimed that. The First Amendment -- and I will always capitalize it-- is about restricting what the government can do with religion. There's no government involved in how a beer company puts its TV commercial together. The only "free speech" aspect of this shoddy piece of pseudojournalistic turd is the Fox Fiends wanting to control the free speech of a private company, sanctimoniously insisting they "left something out".

Two, it's the It's the "Code of Good Practice for Distilled Spirits Advertising and Marketing" from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), which I've already quoted and linked... how does that morph into "some beer code nonsense"? How did the Fox Fiends morph it into "whatever bogus organization" and "some old red tape"? That 'bogus organization' supervises how the alcohol advertisers on their own channel stay responsible in their advertising. Now they wanna play dumb about it?

Two-A, when have you ever seen a beer commercial -- or any alcohol advertising anywhere -- invoke a deity to sell booze? Doesn't happen. Now on what basis should this particular company start violating that code?

Three, you've contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences here:

...the 20 second discussion had nothing to do with wanting God in beer commercials. They were asking about some "beer code" forbidding God in beer commercials nonsense.

'Nuff said there.

Four, the segment is over three minutes long, not "20 seconds". Why are you understating it by 900%? Trying to shrink it until it goes away? Embarrassed? Or are you suggesting that Fox Noise can run a 30 second spot and have a discussion on it in less time than it takes the spot itself to run? That reminds me ... Einstein called. He was screaming. My German is not great but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with your stretching time.

And Five, you didn't address the question at the end -- is Fox and Fiends a religion show, or is it not? If it is not, then why is it pushing for religion in advertising?

 

[whitehall]

Is that the best the "news hounds" (we watch Fox so you don't have to) can do with a cherry picked sentence? What a pathetic bunch.

 

[Pogo]

Is that the best the "news hounds" (we watch Fox so you don't have to) can do with a cherry picked sentence? What a pathetic bunch.

What "cherry picked sentence"? The segment is over three minutes long. It's all there.

Do you ever read anything?

 

[JohnA]

So samual adams TOOK OUT the words * by our creator * in a add
well the christians PUT IN the words * under god * in the pledge so its works out even

any more questions ?

No, Sam Adams didn't TAKE OUT the words "by their Creator"; they were never in the script to start with. (and btw it's "their Creator" in the DofI, not "our").

Number one, it's a beer commercial, not a recitation of any document, DofI or otherwise, and number two, there's no reason a paraphrase or excerpt of a phrase known for a famous usage in a certain document, must then quote that document in toto. That idea is absurd. By that logic we could not use the phrase "they are endowed" without going on to "by their Creator". That's ludicrous. Nobody claimed to be reciting the DofI -- it's a fucking beer commercial.

So the question is: why can't you figure this simple shit out? And the secondary question: how come you think the Pledge of Allegiance is the same thing as a beer commercial?

i know its a fucking beer commercial the post was sarcasm this whole thread is a fuss over nothing lighten up

 

[JohnL.Burke]

But here there are no left-right politics involved, so that's moot. Again I've been discussing the Fox Fiends' (lack of) logic, not the channel.

I say "authoritarian theocrats" because their complaint is that God is not being used to sell beer. Therefore, they must believe that God should be used to sell beer, if not to sell everything. And while they may grudgingly concede that the country Sam Adams passionately argued for specifically and directly prohibits religion in the government of that country, clearly they're arguing for if not theocracy, at least for, and this makes their whine poignantly ironic, a certain minimum of religious content in its TV commercials.

Now ... why would they argue for that? Is Fox and Fiends a religion show?

What video did you watch? I know the far left aren't exactly big supporters of the first amendment but the 20 second discussion had nothing to do with wanting God in beer commercials. They were asking about some "beer code" forbidding God in beer commercials nonsense. The discussion was about freedom of speech as opposed to speech codes from some unknown beer-speech code king. Seriously! You need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions.

How in the world is this about "free speech"?? Not even the Fox Fiends claimed that. The First Amendment -- and I will always capitalize it-- is about restricting what the government can do with religion. There's no government involved in how a beer company puts its TV commercial together. The only "free speech" aspect of this shoddy piece of pseudojournalistic turd is the Fox Fiends wanting to control the free speech of a private company, sanctimoniously insisting they "left something out".

Two, it's the It's the "Code of Good Practice for Distilled Spirits Advertising and Marketing" from the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), which I've already quoted and linked... how does that morph into "some beer code nonsense"? How did the Fox Fiends morph it into "whatever bogus organization" and "some old red tape"? That 'bogus organization' supervises how the alcohol advertisers on their own channel stay responsible in their advertising. Now they wanna play dumb about it?

Two-A, when have you ever seen a beer commercial -- or any alcohol advertising anywhere -- invoke a deity to sell booze? Doesn't happen. Now on what basis should this particular company start violating that code?

Three, you've contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences here:

...the 20 second discussion had nothing to do with wanting God in beer commercials. They were asking about some "beer code" forbidding God in beer commercials nonsense.

'Nuff said there.

Four, the segment is over three minutes long, not "20 seconds". Why are you understating it by 900%? Trying to shrink it until it goes away? Embarrassed? Or are you suggesting that Fox Noise can run a 30 second spot and have a discussion on it in less time than it takes the spot itself to run? That reminds me ... Einstein called. He was screaming. My German is not great but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with your stretching time.

And Five, you didn't address the question at the end -- is Fox and Fiends a religion show, or is it not? If it is not, then why is it pushing for religion in advertising?

The Fox segment was about restricting what the government can do with religion? When the hell did that happen? The segment was about leaving out the part of the constitution that mentions God. I personally don't give a damn and Sam Adams can do any damn thing they want but this segment had nothing to do with the government.
You're quite right, the segment was longer than twenty seconds. I was referring to the discussion as opposed to the clip of the commercial but I was still off by a minute or two. Kindly give my apologies to Einstein. I didn't mean to confuse him.
You finally ask is Fox and Friends a religious show. No it's not. I have no idea what your point is. Only religious shows can talk about beer commercials? What? Only religious shows can report on references to God in the constitution? What? Only the 700 club can report on the Pope's travels? What exactly is your point?
Finally, if you think I contradicted myself then it's because you are talking about an authoritarian theocracy and I'm talking about a beer commercial reported on by Fox.
Let me end with some bullet points
1. It was a segment on Fox about some people angry because a beer commercial left out the God part in the constitution.
2. Mr. Watera was joking when he claimed "The terrorists have won".
3. Thanks to this report, I now know there is some sort of beer speech code thingy.
4. The segment had nothing to do with overthrowing the government.
Just as a side note, I would like to assure you that this country will not fall into a religious fervor and start burning witches anytime soon. So please relax. Trust me. I would be the first one burned...with damn good reason I might add.