Idaho Republicans want to ban TV with Premarital Sex

[ClosedCaption]

Say it all together: Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are...

 

[Esmeralda]

Republicans are for freedom, but only if it fits their ideology.

Yeah.....Family Values....and, all that.....

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHxWpsCmgIc]White supremacist building new compound in Idaho - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruqsUGonkus]KKK leader running for Sheriff in Idaho - YouTube[/ame]​

You make a good point. Idaho is pretty much a crap hole now as it is haven, a paradise for white supremacy.

 

[BreezeWood]

why is premarital sex not Freedom - what exactly is wrong with it - are the Republicans including 40 year old divorcees ??? - good luck with that.

 

[Darkwind]

this is what happens when you elect progressive Republicans.

Conservatives don't believe in banning things from full gown adults who can make their own choices in life. Even if those choices harm them.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

If people do not want that crap in their homes, they can change the channel. I don't mind sex in television shows as long as it is essential to the plot line and not gratuitious, simply to throw sex out there because they can.

In the Showtime series Homeland there are several scenes where Brody has sex with the CIA agent investigating him. The purpose of the sex content isn't to throw genitalia on the screen, it's to illustrate his confusion and inability to reconnect with his wife and family. When Brody's wife has been driven to the brink she has adulterous sex with the family friend. It portrays her complete break with her husband and her willingness to move on. All were essential to the development of the characters.

It's quite different from showing teenagers having sex because this is the way they deal with an afternoon of boredom.

If people don't want that crap in their homes, they have every right not to have it.

Your facetious example of Homeland is illustrative of the vapid thought processes of leftists in general. Ignoring the fact that it's primarily Israeli propaganda, Homeland is not the kind of thing that the people in Idaho are upset about. They want a wholesome atmosphere for their children to thrive in. No, they do not weant to spoil the plot of Homeland.

Lefties are ALWAYS crying about people imposing their moral code on them while happily imposing their own code on everyone else.

I would call it hypocrisy, but you have to have a moral framework to be a hypocrite.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

this is what happens when you elect progressive Republicans.

Conservatives don't believe in banning things from full gown adults who can make their own choices in life. Even if those choices harm them.

That would make perfect sense if this discussion wasn't about children.

 

[BlindBoo]

Being against the promotion of immoraity isn't being against free speech.

Promoting licentiousness is not protected free speech.

Libertarians are not libertines.

Libertarinans most certainly can be libertines. Not the fake Republican off shoot teabag-libertarians mind you......

 

[BlindBoo]

It's not?

What is it, then?

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why would any statist(Republican or Democrat) have a problem with governement dictating to it's citizens. Of course they could demostrate some personal responsibilty and just turn off the idiot box.

 

[BlindBoo]

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

If people do not want that crap in their homes, they can change the channel. I don't mind sex in television shows as long as it is essential to the plot line and not gratuitious, simply to throw sex out there because they can.

In the Showtime series Homeland there are several scenes where Brody has sex with the CIA agent investigating him. The purpose of the sex content isn't to throw genitalia on the screen, it's to illustrate his confusion and inability to reconnect with his wife and family. When Brody's wife has been driven to the brink she has adulterous sex with the family friend. It portrays her complete break with her husband and her willingness to move on. All were essential to the development of the characters.

It's quite different from showing teenagers having sex because this is the way they deal with an afternoon of boredom.

If people don't want that crap in their homes, they have every right not to have it.

Your facetious example of Homeland is illustrative of the vapid thought processes of leftists in general. Ignoring the fact that it's primarily Israeli propaganda, Homeland is not the kind of thing that the people in Idaho are upset about. They want a wholesome atmosphere for their children to thrive in. No, they do not weant to spoil the plot of Homeland.

Lefties are ALWAYS crying about people imposing their moral code on them while happily imposing their own code on everyone else.

I would call it hypocrisy, but you have to have a moral framework to be a hypocrite.

They have the right to ban it from thier own homes. The problem is they want it banned from everyones home don't they?

 

[there4eyeM]

So, all the actors have to be married? How would we know? Isn't just a story, anyway?

What about pre-war violence?

What about actors who play police, but aren't?

What about the first amendment?

You have completely misunderstood.

Try again.

LOL No, you've misunderstood her satirical comment.

You can make satire, but not see it?

Nothing was misunderstood; the wording was purposely turned around to show the foolishness of such ideas.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just turn it off! Every TV set comes with parental controls, use them. If you want your children to watch the Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver, the Andy Griffith show or even I Love Lucy, they are still on television, watch them.

 

[Katzndogz]

If people do not want that crap in their homes, they can change the channel. I don't mind sex in television shows as long as it is essential to the plot line and not gratuitious, simply to throw sex out there because they can.

In the Showtime series Homeland there are several scenes where Brody has sex with the CIA agent investigating him. The purpose of the sex content isn't to throw genitalia on the screen, it's to illustrate his confusion and inability to reconnect with his wife and family. When Brody's wife has been driven to the brink she has adulterous sex with the family friend. It portrays her complete break with her husband and her willingness to move on. All were essential to the development of the characters.

It's quite different from showing teenagers having sex because this is the way they deal with an afternoon of boredom.

If people don't want that crap in their homes, they have every right not to have it.

Your facetious example of Homeland is illustrative of the vapid thought processes of leftists in general. Ignoring the fact that it's primarily Israeli propaganda, Homeland is not the kind of thing that the people in Idaho are upset about. They want a wholesome atmosphere for their children to thrive in. No, they do not weant to spoil the plot of Homeland.

Lefties are ALWAYS crying about people imposing their moral code on them while happily imposing their own code on everyone else.

I would call it hypocrisy, but you have to have a moral framework to be a hypocrite.

They have the right to ban it from thier own homes. The problem is they want it banned from everyones home don't they?

The point to the rather silly quote is that it's all the fault of the Jews. Shoulda known that one was coming.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Republicans are for freedom, but only if it fits their ideology.

Yeah.....Family Values....and, all that.....

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHxWpsCmgIc]White supremacist building new compound in Idaho - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruqsUGonkus]KKK leader running for Sheriff in Idaho - YouTube[/ame]​

You make a good point. Idaho is pretty much a crap hole now as it is haven, a paradise for white supremacy.

.....Not-to-mention.....​

....the Heath-family's "roots".​

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not?

What is it, then?

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

No, they really don’t. You don’t have the right to restrict MY life with your bullshit laws when they simply do not affect you. You have an answer, the power button. Hell, you don’t even need to have a TV in the first place. Measures like this illistraight how the republicans have become democrats. They want to control my life without cause. This is no different than banning large soda drinks. It is disgusting and why the republicans are being slaughtered by the democrats in elections. Even republicans are sick to death of this bullshit.

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

If people do not want that crap in their homes, they can change the channel. I don't mind sex in television shows as long as it is essential to the plot line and not gratuitious, simply to throw sex out there because they can.

In the Showtime series Homeland there are several scenes where Brody has sex with the CIA agent investigating him. The purpose of the sex content isn't to throw genitalia on the screen, it's to illustrate his confusion and inability to reconnect with his wife and family. When Brody's wife has been driven to the brink she has adulterous sex with the family friend. It portrays her complete break with her husband and her willingness to move on. All were essential to the development of the characters.

It's quite different from showing teenagers having sex because this is the way they deal with an afternoon of boredom.

Well, not really. Who makes the judgment that something is ‘essential for the plot?’ That is a bullshit qualifier. The government has no right or responsibility for taking sex out of television. I don’t mind some sensible regulation (that is one of the functions of the government) so that you, as an adult and a parent, have the ability to control what content is beamed into your home but I certainly do not want the government making some bullshit arbitrary moral judgment on what I can and cannot watch.

Why are we always so ready to give the government more power when it is something that we agree with? Power is power and censoring TV is no different than limiting the quantity of soda I can purchase. The entire concept is rather asinine.

this is what happens when you elect progressive Republicans.

Conservatives don't believe in banning things from full gown adults who can make their own choices in life. Even if those choices harm them.

That would make perfect sense if this discussion wasn't about children.

Good because it is NOT about children. Get your head out of your ass. What your children watch is NOT, I repeat, NOT the responsibility or the job of the state. That is the responsibility of the PARENT. No one else and it should never be given to the state.

Say it all together: Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are...

Funny that, in these rare instances you liberals are all over this and how it should not happen and it is insane yet when your own politicians partake in this bullshit liberals support it.

This is a democrat tactic. It is what you are democrats are known for. Demanding that others do without or give up freedoms because they are doing things that democrats disagree with or dislike. The only difference here is that this one is a thing that democrats don’t have a problem with.

The fact is, the action or item in question is not the core issue, the practice itself is downright wrong. Period.

 

[ClosedCaption]

[

Say it all together: Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are...

Funny that, in these rare instances you liberals are all over this and how it should not happen and it is insane yet when your own politicians partake in this bullshit liberals support it.

This is a democrat tactic. It is what you are democrats are known for. Demanding that others do without or give up freedoms because they are doing things that democrats disagree with or dislike. The only difference here is that this one is a thing that democrats don’t have a problem with.

The fact is, the action or item in question is not the core issue, the practice itself is downright wrong. Period.

Right liberals have long supported no sex on TV laws.
Right, this is a dem tactic coming from a Republican.
ahsure, This is what the Dems are known for, only thing is this is a Repub doing it.
Riiight...

 

[Katzndogz]

Idaho is pretty much the retirement center for law enforcement. Coeur d'Alene is almost entirely retired LAPD and they don't take kindly to others moving in who aren't LAPD. Sandpoint is another California Cop city.

In a way, I can't blame them. Cops have had a lifetime of dealing with the worst crap humanity can vomit up, they don't want it to follow them. Which isn't realistic. Just change the damn channel. Get Hulu or Netflix. No one is wedded to network, or cable, or even satellite.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Being against the promotion of immoraity isn't being against free speech.

Promoting licentiousness is not protected free speech.

Libertarians are not libertines.

Libertarinans most certainly can be libertines. Not the fake Republican off shoot teabag-libertarians mind you......

If you had a brain in your head, and you've demonstrated that you do not, you'd know that libertarianism has nothing to do with libertines. The fact that a few reprobates attach themselves to the Libertarian Party in the wan hope that their excesses will be tolerated really has nothing to do with this discussion.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Why would any statist(Republican or Democrat) have a problem with governement dictating to it's citizens. Of course they could demostrate some personal responsibilty and just turn off the idiot box.

Or they could demonstrate some grit and stop that shit from being piped into their homes. That ignorant, turn off the TV mentality just doesn't cut it. The state, via the media, IS dictating to its citizens. Evidently, as long as it fits with what you deem acceptable, it's alright with you.

As I said, they have every right to address the legislature. Would you take that away, too?

 

[Katzndogz]

Licentious: 1. lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

In your oppressive, puritanical little world, your values and 'moral restraints' may be that pre-marital sex is against 'strict rules of correctness,' but for the rest of the developed, modern world, it isn't. And it isn't against the law. You are living in a time warp and should not feel you have the right to impose your personal values on everyone else. If you don't like what is on TV, change the channel.

Who said it was against the law? Do you condone the practice? Do you long for more teen pregnancies? Do you get a vicarious thrill from teen sex? Do you wish to push your ignaroant, amoral views on the American public?

If people don't want that crap in their homes via the idiot box, they have a perfect right to address the issue with the legislature.

Why do you have a problem with that?

No, they really don’t. You don’t have the right to restrict MY life with your bullshit laws when they simply do not affect you. You have an answer, the power button. Hell, you don’t even need to have a TV in the first place. Measures like this illistraight how the republicans have become democrats. They want to control my life without cause. This is no different than banning large soda drinks. It is disgusting and why the republicans are being slaughtered by the democrats in elections. Even republicans are sick to death of this bullshit.

Well, not really. Who makes the judgment that something is ‘essential for the plot?’ That is a bullshit qualifier. The government has no right or responsibility for taking sex out of television. I don’t mind some sensible regulation (that is one of the functions of the government) so that you, as an adult and a parent, have the ability to control what content is beamed into your home but I certainly do not want the government making some bullshit arbitrary moral judgment on what I can and cannot watch.

Why are we always so ready to give the government more power when it is something that we agree with? Power is power and censoring TV is no different than limiting the quantity of soda I can purchase. The entire concept is rather asinine.

That would make perfect sense if this discussion wasn't about children.

Good because it is NOT about children. Get your head out of your ass. What your children watch is NOT, I repeat, NOT the responsibility or the job of the state. That is the responsibility of the PARENT. No one else and it should never be given to the state.

Say it all together: Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are for freedom, Republicans are...

Funny that, in these rare instances you liberals are all over this and how it should not happen and it is insane yet when your own politicians partake in this bullshit liberals support it.

This is a democrat tactic. It is what you are democrats are known for. Demanding that others do without or give up freedoms because they are doing things that democrats disagree with or dislike. The only difference here is that this one is a thing that democrats don’t have a problem with.

The fact is, the action or item in question is not the core issue, the practice itself is downright wrong. Period.

The WRITER is the sole author of what is essential to the plot. The audience judges whether the writer is wrong or not. There was recently a controversy over a play in which the star has a moment in which she decides to escape an emotional bondage and slams a cigarette into a cup of coffee. Liberals want that scene cut because it requires the use of a cigarette. It is the most powerful scene in the play. Without it, the entire play is meaningless.

Inserting sex into a show or play just to have it there, it doesn't do anything, it doesn't indicate a change of momentum. It's just put there for titillation or to take up time because there's not much else to say and they gotta use up that hour somehow.

Is this because we no longer teach Literature? If we taught literature maybe we wouldn't have to discuss time wasters.

 

[Oldguy]

Sorta gives the lie to this thread, doesn't it?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hy-are-they-trying-to-ban-so-many-things.html