More Articles from Toptenz

11 Responses

  1. 5minutes at |

    “In the end, abortion is a personal decision, not one that is made based on race.”

    Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, would disagree. She headed up a eugenics project under Planned Parenthood whose purpose was to make sure that as many black babies got aborted as possible.

    1. CapN at |


    2. weaselspleen at |

      What a fail. Margaret Sanger promoted birth control, not abortion, and in fact one of her reasons for promoting birth control was because she was OPPOSED to abortion. However thank you for proving once again that there’s no lie too outrageous and stupid for a conservative.

      1. 5minutes at |

        Congrats on being 2 years late to the debate.

        What Sanger opposed were self-induced and illegal abortions. She supported physician-recommended abortions. However, you are correct: she was also on the record as opposing abortion, favoring birth control as the perfect solution for “voluntary motherhood”.

        She said all this while she was pushing for eugenics to sterilize black people. So… tell me again how much of an angel she was.

  2. Jonathan Michael Reiter at |

    I definitely agree with #2, but that’s just me.

    1. andrew at |

      I laughed hard at #2, and I agree with it 100% too.

    2. Ed at |

      I don’t agree with it, but I don’t really mind it. Those who have a religion will have a religion, and no billboard is going to stop them.

  3. Jeremy at |

    Read the fine print!
    #5 was not put up by the “Tea Party in northern Ohio” the bottom of the billboard reads “NORTHIOWATEAPARTY.COM”.
    Iowa, not Ohio

  4. Liz at |

    I was kind of surprised that the infamous United Colors of Benetton billboards from the nineties were not on the list. One of the most shocking ones was the family gathered around a man dying of AIDS. Yeah…that makes me want to buy clothes…

  5. m at |

    i find the obama one quite good

  6. Tom White at |

    “…not everyone should be able to see such sexually suggestive ads, especially younger children.”

    Why? And no, simply appealing to tradition or common notions of decency are not real answers.

    Simply seeing something offensive to you does not constitute an act of aggression against your freedom, unless it constitutes harassment (eg., someone is following you around trying to sell you something that you’ve said you already don’t want.)

    If someone can post a billboard promoting, say, religion, then someone else should be able to use a billboard to promote pornography. After all, there are people that will claim that both can damage or enslave minds. To allow words and pictures so long as they aren’t commonly considered “dirty” is a disrespect for equal rights.


Leave a Reply