PTC lost a LOT of their political clout after WWE kicked their ass in court [washingtonpost.com] a couple years ago. Other targets should repond the same way.
These people just got the president re-elected. They have more power today then they have ever had. Not only does the president agree with them pretty much 100% he is indebted to them for his election.
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
I'm replying to this anonymously, becasue I've lost enought karma over this election.
Frankly, I think the "The Christians put Bush in the white house" argument is a bunch of bull and just another excuse why Kerry lost without pointing the finger at Kerry himself.
If that was the case, then how the hell did Clinton win against Dole in 96? The Christian fundemantilist movement wanted Clinton out so bad it wasn't even funny. They saw Clinton as a Morality Void soul that killed babies, smoked dope, loved Gays
Dole was a horrible canidate, and Perot took away alot of his votes.
Carter was an Evangelical... but he was a liberal one... he probably pissed off the fundies more then Clinton did, one of the reasons Reagan was elected.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
Perot didn't take any that many votes from Dole. You are thinking the PRIOR election, when Perot killed GB 41's chances of re-election by capturing 20% of the national vote. Perot was pretty marginalized by the 1996 election. I can't think of any state that Clinton won by less than the margin that Perot recieved, thus making Perot's showing irrelevent.
I was one of those that voted for him in 92 and worked for United We Stand as a founding member. Before discovering he was basically a nut, and wasn't ju
It is pretty obvious that a huge block of the people for Bush (including all Bush supporters I know) were more concerned about Terrorism or economic policies or taxes or the free market than about "moral issues". They believe that Bush would be better for the economy or their safety or for their future, and the extreme conservative social values are a *problem* with Bush, but don't outweigh their desire for Bush's other policies. Trying to claim that Kerry lost because of a small group of religous bigots is just an attempt by the left to pretend that only crazy people disagree with them.
The best proof of the unimportance of the "moral majority" is that they are starting to go crazy with attempts to kill any change to the constitution to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to be president. You would think the liberals would be the ones trying to stop it, but they are not. The "moral majority" knows that Arnold would easily win the Republican nomination despite the fact that he disagrees with their "majority" on virtually everything.
Arnold is a California Republican. He'd be a democrat in most of the rest of the states.
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one.
Yes, and I think a growing population with preferences similar to yours exists, and will become the next large voting block of the Republican party. That is if the evangelicals currently running things realize that they'll need new blood to stay in power and shift toward the center. If the Democrats don't do the same, I'd imagine that these people will break off and make a new party. We saw the possibilty of that with Perot in 92, I think given the current state of things, buy the 2012 elections, there w
I'm just curious... Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory? In an ideal world, I think that there is true justice in a fair and reasonable application of the death penalty. If a person is convicted by a jury of their true peers, then once they've exhausted their appeals it's toasty time for them.
My problem with the implementation in this country is that it seems all too often that if you've got enough money to pay a good legal team t
Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory?
More or less both. While I'm not entirely happy with how it's been implemented in some states, it's more or less what I want. Use it in the most heinious cases(multiple murders, child murder, torture&murder), where guilt is clear. No implementation will ever be perfect, so if we hold to that standard, we might as well go with life sentences, but then, even true life sentences don't prevent the murderer from doing it ag
I realllly don't like this. As much as I grin about dahmer getting it, we're trying to teach prisoners how to act properly, and shanking somebody in the restroom isn't proper.
Do you honestly believe that prison is about rehabilitation? It may happen, but it's not the focus of incarceration in this country. Prison is about punishment. It's about the removal of one's freedom. It's about vengeance and payback. At the very least, it's about locking people away from society for a while. No one cares what
I've read that in some countries the state pays for both the prosecution and defense in all cases (no determination of ability to pay).
How's this: The government pays for both prosecution and defense. Like for sports, they're both allowed an equal amount of money. I won't even quible if the defense is allowed a little more. Limit the budget of the prosecution, so they have to consider carefuly which cases they go after.
How's this: The government pays for both prosecution and defense. Like for sports, they're both allowed an equal amount of money.
Hey, it's a great idea, but good luck getting that law passed. Remember that many in Congress were trial lawyers from both sides of the courtroom, and a lot of 'em made boatloads of dirty lucre as lawyers before they started bringing it in as Congresscritters.
...since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
Your "logic" boggles me. We can't guarantee Johnny a fair trial, so we shouldn't put him to death (just in case he is innocent, I guess). Just let him rot in jail, which shouldn't be a nice place. He was innocent you say? Who cares?
We can't guarantee Johnny a fair trial, so we shouldn't put him to death (just in case he is innocent, I guess). Just let him rot in jail, which shouldn't be a nice place.
... So what's your point? Did you have one? Or were you just looking to piss on my sneakers?
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois [google.com] was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern. If you'd really taken the
So what's your point? Did you have one? Or were you just looking to piss on my sneakers?
Yep, from the first phrase, I can see this is going to be a high-road kind of debate. Anyway.
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern.
It probably should be. Punishing the guilty and absolving the innocent is the most important thing in a legal s
And yet, you seem unconcerned that the poor-but-innocent are going to rot in jail, as long as they are not executed. Abolishing the death penalty is not the answer. Trying to get everyone a fair shot at a legal defense is. And saying "that's too hard" is not an excuse to stop trying.
Well, the original comment was in regard specifically to the death penalty and how it's applied in this country, not the overall state of the legal system in the US.
Your inference that I don't care about innocent people being
See, this paragraph is what threw me in your original post:
For that reason, I believe that the death penalty should be outlawed. I can't see our legal system being reworked to guarantee truly fair trials (too much money involved), so since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison m
You would never vote for a democrat so please stop saying such ridiculous things. Why not? I'm for pro-choice, for gay rights, balanced budget, legalized drugs, free speech, the environment, and equal opportunity. You say your against big governmant which has increased 100 fold during Bush During Clinton's time, government consumed approximately 30% of the economy. You could barely triple the federal government before taking everything up. Did you miss the part where I said I'm unhappy with Bush? I thin
What I meant was that the people who voted for Bush believed that the reason for voting for him is that he would be better for the economy. What they believe has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. But it does mean they did not vote for him because they agreed with the "moral majority".
Sure. We can't trust a war veteran with combat. We should trust a guy who never finished his national guard training.
Give me a break. They said that because they did not want to say "God chose bush to lead this country during the end days, only a christian fundamentalist can fight the islamic fundamentalist".
Yes, but that doesn't mean that everybody who thinks George Bush has better morals than John Kerry is an Evangelical Christian. Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well. Nor does it mean that everybody who voted for Bush is one again. I think that greater mobilization among Evangelicals is responsible for Bush being relected, but to say that even 20% of americans are that hard line is silly. ( and I believe it was 22% that stated morals, but nearly as many said the economy 21% and ter
"Yes, but that doesn't mean that everybody who thinks George Bush has better morals than John Kerry is an Evangelical Christian"
I think it does. Why else would somebody claim that Bush has better morals then Kerry? Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in both iraq and afghanistan and opened up the guantanamo concentration camps.
"Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well."
No, not everybody but most. Have ever traveled in the south? I have, most towns have more churc
The exit polls disagree with you. Christian/moral values were the reason most sited by bush voters.
I hate that people keep interpreting the poll results this way. It's a possible explanation, but still a significant leap.
The poll was multiple choice, for one thing. So, let's say I hate most of GW Bush's policies, and I think he's made some horrible decisions, but... I don't trust Kerry. His voting record is horrible and his character is more than questionable. His running mate made his fortune as an ambulance chaser, and these guys' most vocal supporters are folks like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.
So... let's see... Why did I vote for Bush?
Taxes... no
Education... no
Iraq... not really, no
Terrorism... no
Economy/Jobs... um, no
Health care... what? no
Moral values... well, ok, I guess that's the best fit
Civics lession 101: We live in a contitutional democracy in which people vote. more people voted for Bush in more states representing more of the population of the united states so that george bush did win a 3% margin over his opponent.
The American people just got Bush elected. Not some group that you want to make a boogyman.
Doesn't it just give you the most secure feeling all over knowing that the country is being run by an administration selected by the same people who entrusted their retirements and life savings to Jim and Tammy Faye?
And he is also a religious fundamentalist. During his vice presidential campaign he did not leave his house on saturdays. He made a joke about it on David letterman.
There are not a lot of democrats that are religious fundamentalists but he is one.
So? Democrat and conservative are not mutually exclusive, as Lieberman and Zell Miller (who was a key speaker at the Republican national convention) prove.
I think television has been going into the crapper for years. I rented 'Blues Brothers'. I had seen it as a kid, and remember the R rating... watched it, and decided it might have gotten a PG rating today.
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
"I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: 'Who in the world would watch this trash?'"
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not ho
...the emphasis is not only on 'anything [...] that would "oh so damage" their children'. They also worry about what little Johnny [netfunny.com], who lives next door and whose parents use the TV as a baby sitter, is going to learn and teach [netfunny.com] to their darling little angels.
I do see some of their concern... but disagree with both premises and conclusions. I don't support the values they want to instill, and I don't think censorship is the way to do it. When raising kids, you need to instill both values and judgement. Part
Ahh, so only a parent who is an "Adult of God as well as a Child of God" can properly supervise their children?
No. Sorry about the imprecision. What I was trying to convey thereby was that just being a "Child of God" is not sufficient qualification to supervise children.
I would have thought my saying "I don't support the values they want to instill" or my comment on values failing under scrutiny might have made my attitude about Xians clear. I'm a lot closer to Wiccan than Catholic these days, and ei
But you absolutely have zero right to force your bullshit into our houses.
That's just it, though. It's not being forced into your house. You have every right to change the channel. You have every right to purchase or view alternative programming (whether that be purchasing cable or choosing to NOT purchase cable) and, most importantly, you have the one option that proves most telling to advertisers, you can simply turn the television off.
> and God [...] is the only one to get to say what is acceptable for man to do
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON??? Just because YOU are foolish enough to believe in big mean fairies in the sky, it does not mean you have the right to force that idiocy on the rest of us. _I_ AM THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS TO SAY WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO DO!
The police try claim they have more rights than the rest of us and can judge what is acceptable for man to do. Do you call them sinners or the antichrist because of it?
> One day you will realize that there is NOTHING to watch but trash
So you come to/., where the info/trash ratio is only slightly higher, depending on who you ask. You are entirely wrong. The Discovery channel is not trash, the History channel has all kinds of good stuff. Oh, but you didn't mean the GOOD channels, did you. Only the trashy channels are trash. I see.
> Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people.
I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
On the contrary, they have *NO* right to do this. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn't offer a person the ability to take away someone elses speech becuase they disagree with what is being said. They clearly have a right to complain if they wish, but there is no way that a fringe organization should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be heard/seen over the public airwaves becuase they find it indecent. You see, indecency is in the eye of the beholder, it is subjective and therefore one cannot say something is indecent becuase another may not find that same thing idecent. If they care about what their childern watch on T.V. then they should sit with their children and monitor what they watch, and if the find it innapropriate, TURN IT OFF.
Well... they're using their right to express ther will to curb what other people can see on TV. I think this right is protected by the first amendment too.
Isn't that the underlying principle of the democratic and political processes? The first amendment protects the right to protest and use political means to get what they want. The problem is, IMHO, that those dissatisfied with this "censorship" are not organized and do not sound off.
Also, there's no doubt that they are censoring stuff on TV based on sub
just because I actually think there should be limits to what is shown on TV.
And therein lies the problem, you just said "I" think there should be limits to what is shown on T.V. and that was my point in the parent post, we as a control cannot fall into the trap of becoming controled by a few "I's" out there, instead there must be a unified "WE". Of course we may disagree on many things at many times, but my point, and the point of this article, was that th
And you Sir are one from the scary bunch of doublethinkers, who confuse a nanny state with a republic, censorship of "bad things" with freedom of speech, general authoritarism with freedom and coercion, force and a compulsory way of life with the "American Way".
People like you are responsible for ruining the values the United States of America stood and were respected for.
Freedom means being free to do whatever one wants while not hurting others. A free person can participate in the process of law making, own firearms, has inalienable rights against governmental force and sure as hell can watch anything he wants on his TV in his home.
If you're not someone from the former Soviet Union, that is...
When the TV is basically a government-provided or government-approved (the FCC - rightly or wrongly - gives out licenses to use companies to transmit over the air and cable), there is nothing wrong with people trying to convince the government that some things should not air over the *free* channels or at least not at time when children will likely be watching.
I am not a threat to this republic. I am a mostly Libertarian-thinking and acting person, but I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug pol
TV should not be government-approved. Not more than a technical check so they don't leave their assigned frequencies driving airline traffic into the ground.
I don't buy doublespeak and therefore "free" channels are something very different to me than "can be received by anyone for no cost". Although I agree on the protection of children by severely limiting "adult" content during times when children may be watching, I cannot agree on other parts of your opinion. Child protection from "a
> there is nothing wrong with people trying to convince the government that some things should not air over the *free* channels
Freedom of speech, or press. Who decides what those things are? YOU? Christians? The government itself?
> I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug policies.
Freedom to choose for yourself and take responsibility for those choices is one of the hallmarks of Libertarianism. That doesn't mean "freedom to choose for yourself, except when I don't like what you are ch
they are not *taking* away anyone's speech, just to make sure that the "speech" in question is done in a different venue
Yes, freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere, it means you can say what you want while hiding in your basement. Sigh. Have you ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority?" It is why we have a bill of rights. The majority should not be able to take basic human rights away from a minority, including the freedom of speech. That is why it takes a constitutio
Very well said, esp. about the sex ed programs. When the majority of sex ed programs are tainted by religious beliefs, it is unfair for those of other religions or no religion at all to get correct information. The idea that preventing sex education would prevent sexual contact is crazy, I would venture to say that the more education we provide, the better decisions the young people will make.
the study you are commenting on only applied to programs that taught primarily abstinence (which are, actually, the religiously oriented ones). It does not apply to sex ed programs in general.
You are in idiot for believing that. They felt *wronged*. Give me a break... terrorists and their kind are IDIOTS and Satanists.
Wow, where to start. First you seem to have a habit of naming anyone who does not think just like you an idiot. Second, you seem very confused about what a satanist is. Very few people act in a way that they think is wrong. Most people do what they see as right, although you may not understand or agree with their reasons for doing what they do. Calling someone evil, and sa
> I see a terrorist and their supporters and call it like I see it: They ARE whacko, sick, crazy, insane, un-loving, hating bastards - you should be ashamed for even symathizing with their *plight*.
I see an American and his supporters and call it like I see it: They are whacko, oppressive, warmongering, hating bastards for invading my country -- you should be ashamed for sympathizing with them, only 3,000 of their people were killed, and we didn't even do it!
All of them have been purposely taught to hate America, Christians, and Jews and that killing them will delight Allah.
This is just not true. The majority of them do not hate America, or Christians, or Jews. Most of them strongly dislike America and Christians because of all of the things that we have done to their countries. Christians invaded their countries, killing, raping, and pillaging, repeatedly. You know the red cross, well they call themselves the red crescent there because the red cross was
I don't think it's fair for someone to be able to petition the government for, let's say, same-sex marriage and then not allow others to petition for the disallowance of such.
The difference in this case is that they are petitioning to remove a restriction, while you are petitioning to keep or add one. Why is it that every law passed takes more rights out of the hands of the people and makes decisions for them? When was the last law that gave more rights to the people? If you don't think gay marriage is
> Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too)
You mention that in passing as if it weren't the PRIMARY reason! No, it's not the fault of the adult who fucked up their lives, it's because their parents looked at porn from time to time. Do you think these kids would have been closer to normal if their parents didn't look at porn, all else the same?
> They then let that addiction get to their kids and screw up their lives, too
I understand what you were trying to say, and I'm saying it was probably being RAPED that screwed up their lives, not the porn. Almost all kids see some porn. Sure, if they see a ton of it, that may be a bad thing, but I think the molestation likely played a bigger role. How's that for clear?
The Herbal Essence Commercial is a 30 second spot having a woman recieving a "fully organic experience" from her shampoo, complete with a screaming organsim. Now, Explain a screaming organsim to a 5 year old.
See son, this comercial is designed to make you think that the product makes you feel good if you use it. This is one of the things that people do to try and sell you something. They try to make it seem like the product will make you something that you are not.
seems prety simple to me.
if your kids can recognize an orgasm then perhaps its time to be talking to them more frankly about sex. Other than that, you talk around it... Parents have been doing this for a very long time.
"The lady is screaming with joy because she enjoyed the shampoo so much". Kids are a lot smarter than you think. And they understand the concept of screaming with joy without the need for an orgasm. My 13-months old kid is Exhibit A on that one.
> I don't think I've seen this Herbal Essences commercial, but I suspect we're talking naked/semi-naked people here. Hardly damaging the child.
You don't know the half of it. There is no nudity shown, not even a single peep of a breast. The offensive material he refers to is a woman washing her hair & moaning with pleasure... "yes, yes, YESS!"
I just read something about a book that theorized that the rapture had already occured... back around the end of the roman empire or something like that... as I understand it, it had evidence of much of the prophecies coming true . I wish I could find it now.
remember, the rapture means that the worthy are taken into heaven and the rest of us sit around and wait for the end of time... I dont think they gave a schedule for that.
As far as your reference to your other post, I will not take biased surmisings by CHRISTIANS as proof of God's existence. There IS NO PROOF for the resurrection of Jesus. You have none. Saying there is "compelling evidence" is a far cry from having any at all, which you do not. Ergo, BUNK!
His reply seemed pretty decent: You're making the extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you to prove positive (you can't prove a negative) and you can't cherrypick what's literal and what's not (at least, wi
> Wait a minute you do believe in one man one vote don't you?
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
I was being sarcastic, I know there is no way for slavery to return in our current state. I was relying on that fact to make the point to the AC that just because 51% of the people vote yes on something it does not automatically make it right or constitutional.
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on
> Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
Oh, how I wish this were the case. There is no sex on tv, only implied wussy sexual suggestion. And occasionally janet jacksons boob. While mindless it would be more entertaining to have more sex like in Europe. As far as violence, well they do alot, but the cheasy bloddy special effects from cheasy horror movies(which is the only reason to watch them anyway) is always sensored out. Only the implication
How come everybody with your views is posting anonymously?
It's not about pretending something doesn't exist. It's about exposing children to things in a controlled manner. I'm sure when you first started surfing for scat you only opened afew pictures. It probably took you awhile to move on to furries.
Children need to be old enough to understand things before they are exposed to them. Sex and violence are part of life, but you don't walk down the streets and see people decapitated every day or even ev
Try watching it again. It was a PG movie. Not PG-13. I was shocked at how clean the movie was. My memory of the movie was it was a "pushing the envelope" type movie. How far the envelope has moved.
Perhaps I should have said Network TV/Cable/Any broadcast TV. I have the box, but only a VCR and DVD player.
For the record, it was about five years ago I watched the movie again. It was one of the events that lead to my getting rid of the access. Things that were "pushing the envelope" 20 years ago are considered tame today. I choose not to be programmed by it.
But thanks for jumping on the irrelevancy. I will be more careful in choosing my words for folks like you.
Same here! Except I have a slightly different approach. I keep an open mind instead of believing everything that comes out of the TV, nor do I sit through programs I don't like just because "nothing else is on."
People telling others to not watch, or those who are uppity about the fact that they don't own a TV really need to get over themselves (I noticed you didn't tell anyone they should throw their TV away - thank you). There is intelligent material on the TV
Yea, I do the same thing. I call getting rid of all broadcast TV getting rid of TV.
I am curious about your kids with Autism. If they are the right age, do they like 'Thomas the Tank Engine'? I know of others who do. I believe it has to do a lot with the mostly stationary faces.
I work with a lot of children on a volunteer basis, and worked with one before I knew anything about the condition. Was wondering what insights you can give...
What you're actually saying is you're not opposed to crap on TV. You're opposed to worthless parents. That's the real problem: parents who don't do their job. Don't blame "crap on TV" for the creation of mindless masses or violence in children. Instead blame the parents who are too lazy to give a damn about what their children watch. A parent is supposed to guide their children through their youth, teach them right from wrong, and raise them to be responsible adults. A parent that can't do that shoul
The athiest left is every bit as bad about trying to shove its agenda down everyone else's throat as the religious right ever was.
It is called the culture war, and every war has at least 2 sides. The battleground is our society itself and the hearts and minds of the american people are the prize.
Both the left and the right want the rest of us to buy into their respective bullshit and I for one would much rather just line the whole lot of them up against a wall and execute them.
Just read matt 6:5-6 and then 7 caught my eye. "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Heh, no wonder catholicism started steadily declining as literacy increased--"that particular sin requires 5318 hail mary's".
I am personally the owner of four different versions of the bible, including a German translation from 1918, translated by dr. Menge. (Yes, I thought that was the other guy first... and I'm only writing this as a funny aside, especially since I am deeply agnostic)
Adelphia is run by greedy, largely ignorant assholes. These are the people who once cut my cable off because I wasn't sending them payments on the bills coming in marked "do not pay, this will be deducted automatically". When I confronted them, I was told it was my own fault because I wasn't explicitly looking at my bank statements for their autotmatic charges.
I imagine this has more to do with the fact that Adelphia - indeed, cable in general - is the worst, least customer-ce
Seriously, to generate this volume of bull, they must be using a common document template for all their complaints: 'Ms Crudgeworthy, would you fill in the blanks on the Leno complaint? No, the one for the 23rd - we've already done the 16th'. These people need to get some lives. Or maybe they'd be better off campaigning against people watching 'objectionable material'. The reborn masses are likely to be a more receptive audience - and broadcasters listen to ratings.
Wait, are you one of those right-wing nutjobs who thinks that things can actually be solved through market activism rather than crying to the government to hold our hands? You people make me sick.
Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology.
-- R. S. Barton
PTC (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect the PTC and the rest of the Christian fundemantilist movement to push and get through most of their agenda in the next four years.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the "The Christians put Bush in the white house" argument is a bunch of bull and just another excuse why Kerry lost without pointing the finger at Kerry himself.
If that was the case, then how the hell did Clinton win against Dole in 96? The Christian fundemantilist movement wanted Clinton out so bad it wasn't even funny. They saw Clinton as a Morality Void soul that killed babies, smoked dope, loved Gays
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Carter was an Evangelical... but he was a liberal one... he probably pissed off the fundies more then Clinton did, one of the reasons Reagan was elected.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
And Kerry was a horrible candidate too.
The man could not do sincere, and being a senator, with the public voting record, made it easy to determine his policies, regardless of what came out his mouth.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I was one of those that voted for him in 92 and worked for United We Stand as a founding member. Before discovering he was basically a nut, and wasn't ju
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty obvious that a huge block of the people for Bush (including all Bush supporters I know) were more concerned about Terrorism or economic policies or taxes or the free market than about "moral issues". They believe that Bush would be better for the economy or their safety or for their future, and the extreme conservative social values are a *problem* with Bush, but don't outweigh their desire for Bush's other policies. Trying to claim that Kerry lost because of a small group of religous bigots is just an attempt by the left to pretend that only crazy people disagree with them.
The best proof of the unimportance of the "moral majority" is that they are starting to go crazy with attempts to kill any change to the constitution to allow Arnold Schwartzenegger to be president. You would think the liberals would be the ones trying to stop it, but they are not. The "moral majority" knows that Arnold would easily win the Republican nomination despite the fact that he disagrees with their "majority" on virtually everything.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I oppose ammending the constitution to allow him to run. I especially dislike the one that simply makes it so that you have to have been a resident of the USA for fourteen years(which is already there, you can't be president if you've been a US citizen living abroad until fourteen years later). I'd rather change the age requrement to a "Has been a United States Citizen for at least thirty-five years" than that one.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just curious... Are you pro-death penalty as it's implemented in this country, or just in theory? In an ideal world, I think that there is true justice in a fair and reasonable application of the death penalty. If a person is convicted by a jury of their true peers, then once they've exhausted their appeals it's toasty time for them.
My problem with the implementation in this country is that it seems all too often that if you've got enough money to pay a good legal team t
Death penalty... Expanded (Score:2)
More or less both. While I'm not entirely happy with how it's been implemented in some states, it's more or less what I want. Use it in the most heinious cases(multiple murders, child murder, torture&murder), where guilt is clear. No implementation will ever be perfect, so if we hold to that standard, we might as well go with life sentences, but then, even true life sentences don't prevent the murderer from doing it ag
Re:Death penalty... Expanded (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that prison is about rehabilitation? It may happen, but it's not the focus of incarceration in this country. Prison is about punishment. It's about the removal of one's freedom. It's about vengeance and payback. At the very least, it's about locking people away from society for a while. No one cares what
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I've read that in some countries the state pays for both the prosecution and defense in all cases (no determination of ability to pay).
How's this: The government pays for both prosecution and defense. Like for sports, they're both allowed an equal amount of money. I won't even quible if the defense is allowed a little more. Limit the budget of the prosecution, so they have to consider carefuly which cases they go after.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Hey, it's a great idea, but good luck getting that law passed. Remember that many in Congress were trial lawyers from both sides of the courtroom, and a lot of 'em made boatloads of dirty lucre as lawyers before they started bringing it in as Congresscritters.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Your "logic" boggles me.
We can't guarantee Johnny a fair trial, so we shouldn't put him to death (just in case he is innocent, I guess). Just let him rot in jail, which shouldn't be a nice place. He was innocent you say? Who cares?
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois [google.com] was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern. If you'd really taken the
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Yep, from the first phrase, I can see this is going to be a high-road kind of debate. Anyway.
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern.
It probably should be. Punishing the guilty and absolving the innocent is the most important thing in a legal s
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Well, the original comment was in regard specifically to the death penalty and how it's applied in this country, not the overall state of the legal system in the US.
Your inference that I don't care about innocent people being
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
See, this paragraph is what threw me in your original post:
For that reason, I believe that the death penalty should be outlawed. I can't see our legal system being reworked to guarantee truly fair trials (too much money involved), so since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison m
I wouldn't vote for a democrat? News to me. (Score:2)
Why not? I'm for pro-choice, for gay rights, balanced budget, legalized drugs, free speech, the environment, and equal opportunity.
You say your against big governmant which has increased 100 fold during Bush
During Clinton's time, government consumed approximately 30% of the economy. You could barely triple the federal government before taking everything up. Did you miss the part where I said I'm unhappy with Bush? I thin
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Give me a break. They said that because they did not want to say "God chose bush to lead this country during the end days, only a christian fundamentalist can fight the islamic fundamentalist".
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
I think it does. Why else would somebody claim that Bush has better morals then Kerry? Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people in both iraq and afghanistan and opened up the guantanamo concentration camps.
"Nor does it mean that everyone in a Red state is one as well."
No, not everybody but most. Have ever traveled in the south? I have, most towns have more churc
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate that people keep interpreting the poll results this way. It's a possible explanation, but still a significant leap.
The poll was multiple choice, for one thing. So, let's say I hate most of GW Bush's policies, and I think he's made some horrible decisions, but ... I don't trust Kerry. His voting record is horrible and his character is more than questionable. His running mate made his fortune as an ambulance chaser, and these guys' most vocal supporters are folks like Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo.
So... let's see... Why did I vote for Bush?
Ok, yea, I'll say moral values, then, Bob.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
The American people just got Bush elected. Not some group that you want to make a boogyman.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
in one breath, these people are a tiny minority that the FCC should ignore.
in the next, they're a monsterous force that got the president elected.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
They are religious fundamentalists. It's no surprise that a fundamentalist like Leiberman was on their board.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Earth to killjoe: Lieberman is a Jewish Democrat.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
There are not a lot of democrats that are religious fundamentalists but he is one.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
The rule is that any group with a family related word in it isn't really about the family at all.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gradually, TV and movies have devolved into very little content, but a lot of sex and violence.
I got rid of TV altogether about four years ago. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Now, when I see TV at a friend's house, I think to myself: "Who in the world would watch this trash?"
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing down of America... but if you complain that the US elected George Bush (twice), I will laugh in your face. You reap what you sow.
Re:I think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you know? You haven't watched TV in four years.
But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun.
No, he/she is someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone else, and should therefore make their decisions for them.
And you are free, of course, to use your first ammendment right to support the dumbing
PTC is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I did about the same thing at about the same time. I remember commercials for the first Survivor series just before I unhooked the antenna. I only hooked it back up again on September 11th, and had it unhooked by the time television started to somewhat return to normal. I also see what's on and think, "What the hell?! This crap sucks!"
"But of course, we must pander to the mindless majority. If someone speaks up, he/she is just an old prude who wants to stop everyone else's fun. I am not a member of the PTC, but I support their right to do this."
I don't, and here's why: The TV has an off button. It also has channel up, channel down, mute, and some even have an image surpression mode. The city that I live in has the major four networks, the lightweight other three or so, a few independent stations of mainstream rerun programming, and at least three religious Christian channels, with shows like The 700 Club. Additionally there are at least four Christian radio networks in addition to the large number of conservative talk radio stations and music stations that have a more conservative bend. All of this conservative programming gives the PTC people plenty of airwave to look at where they don't have to see Janet Jackson's boob, Dennis Franz's ass, Tara Reid's surgical scar, or anything else that would "oh so damage" their children.
These people need to grow the fuck up, or else we need to start complaining about their television programs, especially ones that take strong stances against ideas or actions like premarital sex, science, liberal politics, or homosexuality. Call out the programs that criticize these and label them as obscene. Get them slapped with fines, or get their 501(c)3 tax exempt status revoked for endorsing political candidates.
TV is not all crap, and crap != crap (Score:3, Interesting)
TV does suck - but it is also great. I will admit, I do watch some crap. But I try to learn from it. There is a show out now called "Nanny 911". An English nanny (not ho
Re:TV is not all crap, and crap != crap (Score:2)
You mean "The Hitler Channel". I swear, every time I flip past it, something is on about Hitler.
PTC is wrong, but... (Score:2)
I do see some of their concern... but disagree with both premises and conclusions. I don't support the values they want to instill, and I don't think censorship is the way to do it. When raising kids, you need to instill both values and judgement. Part
Re:PTC is wrong, but... (Score:2)
No. Sorry about the imprecision. What I was trying to convey thereby was that just being a "Child of God" is not sufficient qualification to supervise children.
I would have thought my saying "I don't support the values they want to instill" or my comment on values failing under scrutiny might have made my attitude about Xians clear. I'm a lot closer to Wiccan than Catholic these days, and ei
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just it, though. It's not being forced into your house. You have every right to change the channel. You have every right to purchase or view alternative programming (whether that be purchasing cable or choosing to NOT purchase cable) and, most importantly, you have the one option that proves most telling to advertisers, you can simply turn the television off.
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2)
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON??? Just because YOU are foolish enough to believe in big mean fairies in the sky, it does not mean you have the right to force that idiocy on the rest of us. _I_ AM THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS TO SAY WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO DO!
The police try claim they have more rights than the rest of us and can judge what is acceptable for man to do. Do you call them sinners or the antichrist because of it?
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2)
So you come to
> Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people.
Speaking o
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2)
Re:PTC is wrong (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary, they have *NO* right to do this. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, it doesn't offer a person the ability to take away someone elses speech becuase they disagree with what is being said. They clearly have a right to complain if they wish, but there is no way that a fringe organization should be allowed to decide what can and cannot be heard/seen over the public airwaves becuase they find it indecent. You see, indecency is in the eye of the beholder, it is subjective and therefore one cannot say something is indecent becuase another may not find that same thing idecent. If they care about what their childern watch on T.V. then they should sit with their children and monitor what they watch, and if the find it innapropriate, TURN IT OFF.
-kaplanfx
I don't (Score:2)
Isn't that the underlying principle of the democratic and political processes? The first amendment protects the right to protest and use political means to get what they want. The problem is, IMHO, that those dissatisfied with this "censorship" are not organized and do not sound off.
Also, there's no doubt that they are censoring stuff on TV based on sub
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
just because I actually think there should be limits to what is shown on TV.
And therein lies the problem, you just said "I" think there should be limits to what is shown on T.V. and that was my point in the parent post, we as a control cannot fall into the trap of becoming controled by a few "I's" out there, instead there must be a unified "WE". Of course we may disagree on many things at many times, but my point, and the point of this article, was that th
Re:I think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
People like you are responsible for ruining the values the United States of America stood and were respected for.
Freedom means being free to do whatever one wants while not hurting others. A free person can participate in the process of law making, own firearms, has inalienable rights against governmental force and sure as hell can watch anything he wants on his TV in his home.
If you're not someone from the former Soviet Union, that is...
Re:I think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not a threat to this republic. I am a mostly Libertarian-thinking and acting person, but I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug pol
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
TV should not be government-approved. Not more than a technical check so they don't leave their assigned frequencies driving airline traffic into the ground.
I don't buy doublespeak and therefore "free" channels are something very different to me than "can be received by anyone for no cost". Although I agree on the protection of children by severely limiting "adult" content during times when children may be watching, I cannot agree on other parts of your opinion. Child protection from "a
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Freedom of speech, or press. Who decides what those things are? YOU? Christians? The government itself?
> I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug policies.
Freedom to choose for yourself and take responsibility for those choices is one of the hallmarks of Libertarianism. That doesn't mean "freedom to choose for yourself, except when I don't like what you are ch
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
they are not *taking* away anyone's speech, just to make sure that the "speech" in question is done in a different venue
Yes, freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere, it means you can say what you want while hiding in your basement. Sigh. Have you ever heard of "the tyranny of the majority?" It is why we have a bill of rights. The majority should not be able to take basic human rights away from a minority, including the freedom of speech. That is why it takes a constitutio
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
-kaplanfx
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
to be fair... RE: sex education.
the study you are commenting on only applied to programs that taught primarily abstinence (which are, actually, the religiously oriented ones). It does not apply to sex ed programs in general.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
You are in idiot for believing that. They felt *wronged*. Give me a break... terrorists and their kind are IDIOTS and Satanists.
Wow, where to start. First you seem to have a habit of naming anyone who does not think just like you an idiot. Second, you seem very confused about what a satanist is. Very few people act in a way that they think is wrong. Most people do what they see as right, although you may not understand or agree with their reasons for doing what they do. Calling someone evil, and sa
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I see an American and his supporters and call it like I see it: They are whacko, oppressive, warmongering, hating bastards for invading my country -- you should be ashamed for sympathizing with them, only 3,000 of their people were killed, and we didn't even do it!
See how easy it is to make someone sound li
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
All of them have been purposely taught to hate America, Christians, and Jews and that killing them will delight Allah.
This is just not true. The majority of them do not hate America, or Christians, or Jews. Most of them strongly dislike America and Christians because of all of the things that we have done to their countries. Christians invaded their countries, killing, raping, and pillaging, repeatedly. You know the red cross, well they call themselves the red crescent there because the red cross was
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I don't think it's fair for someone to be able to petition the government for, let's say, same-sex marriage and then not allow others to petition for the disallowance of such.
The difference in this case is that they are petitioning to remove a restriction, while you are petitioning to keep or add one. Why is it that every law passed takes more rights out of the hands of the people and makes decisions for them? When was the last law that gave more rights to the people? If you don't think gay marriage is
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
You mention that in passing as if it weren't the PRIMARY reason! No, it's not the fault of the adult who fucked up their lives, it's because their parents looked at porn from time to time. Do you think these kids would have been closer to normal if their parents didn't look at porn, all else the same?
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I understand what you were trying to say, and I'm saying it was probably being RAPED that screwed up their lives, not the porn. Almost all kids see some porn. Sure, if they see a ton of it, that may be a bad thing, but I think the molestation likely played a bigger role. How's that for clear?
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
See son, this comercial is designed to make you think that the product makes you feel good if you use it. This is one of the things that people do to try and sell you something. They try to make it seem like the product will make you something that you are not.
seems prety simple to me.
if your kids can recognize an orgasm then perhaps its time to be talking to them more frankly about sex. Other than that, you talk around it... Parents have been doing this for a very long time.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
And they understand the concept of screaming with joy without the need for an orgasm. My 13-months old kid is Exhibit A on that one.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
so when your kid stubs his toe he goes
"yes... Yes...YES!!!"
I know I dont.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
You don't know the half of it. There is no nudity shown, not even a single peep of a breast. The offensive material he refers to is a woman washing her hair & moaning with pleasure... "yes, yes, YESS!"
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I just read something about a book that theorized that the rapture had already occured... back around the end of the roman empire or something like that... as I understand it, it had evidence of much of the prophecies coming true . I wish I could find it now.
remember, the rapture means that the worthy are taken into heaven and the rest of us sit around and wait for the end of time... I dont think they gave a schedule for that.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Jesus died for our sins...
Then came back to life...
And he'll come back again to judge us all.
Life is a gift from God.
Working on Sunday (or Saturday for those who can read & comprehend slightly better) is a sin.
Praying to someone or something other than the Christian God will land you in hell.
Being in love with a man will land you in hell. Well, that's not an original belief, but they sure seem to think that now.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
His reply seemed pretty decent: You're making the extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you to prove positive (you can't prove a negative) and you can't cherrypick what's literal and what's not (at least, wi
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Oh, how I wish this were the case. There is no sex on tv, only implied wussy sexual suggestion. And occasionally janet jacksons boob. While mindless it would be more entertaining to have more sex like in Europe. As far as violence, well they do alot, but the cheasy bloddy special effects from cheasy horror movies(which is the only reason to watch them anyway) is always sensored out. Only the implication
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
It's not about pretending something doesn't exist. It's about exposing children to things in a controlled manner. I'm sure when you first started surfing for scat you only opened afew pictures. It probably took you awhile to move on to furries.
Children need to be old enough to understand things before they are exposed to them. Sex and violence are part of life, but you don't walk down the streets and see people decapitated every day or even ev
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
For the record, it was about five years ago I watched the movie again. It was one of the events that lead to my getting rid of the access. Things that were "pushing the envelope" 20 years ago are considered tame today. I choose not to be programmed by it.
But thanks for jumping on the irrelevancy. I will be more careful in choosing my words for folks like you.
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
Same here! Except I have a slightly different approach. I keep an open mind instead of believing everything that comes out of the TV, nor do I sit through programs I don't like just because "nothing else is on."
People telling others to not watch, or those who are uppity about the fact that they don't own a TV really need to get over themselves (I noticed you didn't tell anyone they should throw their TV away - thank you). There is intelligent material on the TV
Re:I think so. (Score:2)
I am curious about your kids with Autism. If they are the right age, do they like 'Thomas the Tank Engine'? I know of others who do. I believe it has to do a lot with the mostly stationary faces.
I work with a lot of children on a volunteer basis, and worked with one before I knew anything about the condition. Was wondering what insights you can give...
Re:I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
but I live in Oklahoma
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't like something, so YOU shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Nice
N.
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
It is called the culture war, and every war has at least 2 sides. The battleground is our society itself and the hearts and minds of the american people are the prize.
Both the left and the right want the rest of us to buy into their respective bullshit and I for one would much rather just line the whole lot of them up against a wall and execute them.
I'm sick and tired of tryi
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
OT (Score:2)
(Yes, I thought that was the other guy first... and I'm only writing this as a funny aside, especially since I am deeply agnostic)
Re:I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
Never attribute to malice....
Adelphia is run by greedy, largely ignorant assholes. These are the people who once cut my cable off because I wasn't sending them payments on the bills coming in marked "do not pay, this will be deducted automatically". When I confronted them, I was told it was my own fault because I wasn't explicitly looking at my bank statements for their autotmatic charges.
I imagine this has more to do with the fact that Adelphia - indeed, cable in general - is the worst, least customer-ce
Re:I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so. - repressed sexuality (Score:2)
Seriously, to generate this volume of bull, they must be using a common document template for all their complaints: 'Ms Crudgeworthy, would you fill in the blanks on the Leno complaint? No, the one for the 23rd - we've already done the 16th'. These people need to get some lives.
Or maybe they'd be better off campaigning against people watching 'objectionable material'. The reborn masses are likely to be a more receptive audience - and broadcasters listen to ratings.
Re:I don't think so. - repressed sexuality (Score:3, Funny)