Idaho Republicans want to ban TV with Premarital Sex

[FA_Q2]

[

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...

No, they don’t support no sex on TV because liberals are fine with sex. What they are not fine with is sodas, smoking, student ran bible studies on school campus and a myriad of other things that they continually try and ban/restrict for ‘the good of everyone.’ Face it, it is your own damn playbook and it seems you don’t like democrat tactics when they are used by the right. It’s all right, I don’t like it ether. The difference is I am not a shill because I can’t stand it when the democrats use it as well.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Shoulda known you can't mention Israel without being branded an anti-Semite by an idiot.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Well, your statements are confusing though. In the first, it is the writer that is judging what is and is not essential to the plot. In the next you are making a judgment call as sex being jammed in as a time waster.

Here is what I want to clarify: this thread is basically on the state (not the audience or the writer) censoring what is on your TV. I disagree with mostly censorship in general as I believe that the audience can and should sensor what they wish to view. In that, it will be the audience that chooses weather or not sex is on the TV. The second statement though seems to leave the door open for the state to claim that such sex was not there to further the plot and is, therefore, open to demands of removal by the state. Is that what you are going for or am I misconstruing your statements in this thread?

 

[ClosedCaption]

[

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...

No, they don’t support no sex on TV because liberals are fine with sex. What they are not fine with is sodas, smoking, student ran bible studies on school campus and a myriad of other things that they continually try and ban/restrict for ‘the good of everyone.’ Face it, it is your own damn playbook and it seems you don’t like democrat tactics when they are used by the right. It’s all right, I don’t like it ether. The difference is I am not a shill because I can’t stand it when the democrats use it as well.

Wait, if this is a Dem tactic...Why are the Repubs doing it again Shilly McShillerson?

 

[FA_Q2]

Wait, if this is a Dem tactic...Why are the Repubs doing it again Shilly McShillerson?

I have already explained this to you. Stop being so damn dense, trying to use ‘I got you’ bullshit and actually have a discussion on this topic.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

Why not just go ahead and ban some books too, or internet sites? After all, it's "for the children," right?

You do realize, I hope, that advocating the restriction of people's freedom to watch what they like makes you a true, fire-breathing liberal.

 

[FA_Q2]

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

And you can pretend that you actually believe in freedom all while demanding that MY freedoms be removed to suit your moral objectives.

The process is disgusting and people like you kick and scream when something like this is done that disagrees with your moral code. Just realize that as long as you are going to condone this type of behavior YOUR moral code is not always going to be represented. No more complaining when liberals demand that mangers be removed from all public buildings. No more complaining when the liberals ban bibles in schools even when it is just the students that are heading the club. No more complaining when all religious tenants are outright banned from any public place. After all, it is just the community demanding that THEIR moral code be abided by.

 

[whitehall]

Never ending posts designed and built by the tax exempt propaganda network, Media Matters, that never sleeps. Republicans only propose that the FCC enforces the laws on the books. Radicals can still have sex with the species of their choice.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

i.e. BLACKS!!​

 

[boilermaker55]

Isn't it funny how ridiculous when some people try to push their morality upon others.
But if when they need to show a moral attitude they seem to be blind.

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?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

And you can pretend that you actually believe in freedom all while demanding that MY freedoms be removed to suit your moral objectives.

The process is disgusting and people like you kick and scream when something like this is done that disagrees with your moral code. Just realize that as long as you are going to condone this type of behavior YOUR moral code is not always going to be represented. No more complaining when liberals demand that mangers be removed from all public buildings. No more complaining when the liberals ban bibles in schools even when it is just the students that are heading the club. No more complaining when all religious tenants are outright banned from any public place. After all, it is just the community demanding that THEIR moral code be abided by.

There's really no need to reply to this post, its irrationality speaks for itself; however, I'll proceed for my amusement and your edification.

People most assuredly have the right not to have their property, public property and the airwaves polluted.

Who determines morality? Individuals do; no, you can't legislate that. Who determines ethical conduct? Societies do, and that kind of legislation is passed every single day.

Communities set standards. There is no getting around it.

Falling back on stupid moral equivalence arguments won't change that.

Religious people should have no say in public discussion. Is that the ideal?

Last I heard, everyone has the right to petition congress for redress of his grievances.

All but the religious, I guess.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

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?

Its ignorant to suggest that people take responsibility for themselves and turn off the TV rather than asking government to protect them from themselves?

Really?

Wow.

 

[there4eyeM]

Isn't television private enterprise? Isn't the market supposed to regulate that? We can regulate what everyone participates in, the airwaves, and not what a minority participates in, for example, oh, say, firearms?

What is needed is not all one way or all the other. Of course, different subjects may require different approaches. This is exactly why ideological prejudice has to be overcome, to be replaced by eclectic efficacy.

 

[Politico]

Good for them.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.


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.

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

Why not just go ahead and ban some books too, or internet sites? After all, it's "for the children," right?

You do realize, I hope, that advocating the restriction of people's freedom to watch what they like makes you a true, fire-breathing liberal.

Because books are something you purchase or borrow and are a matter of personal choice. They require thought, They are not on the public airwaves.

You do know that advocating one-size-fits-all standards for the entire country makes YOU look like a flaming liberal, right?

We do need a viable way to block pornography on the net. Any ideas?

...or are you just fine with kids watching it?

 

[Oldguy]

Go ahead and pretend that television is not a pervasive medium. Pretend that people can magically put an end to its influence by simply turning off the TV. Pretend kids never talk about it at school. Pretend that its unavaliable on a variety of devices. Pretend that it is not a hypnotic medium.

Since television affects the public -- even if some members don't have a TV in the home -- it necessarily follows that the public should have some input as to its content beyond that of the market.

No one really gives a damn what you watch. Some people care very much what their children are subjected to via a pervasive medium over which you'd not grant them a measure of control.

Why not just go ahead and ban some books too, or internet sites? After all, it's "for the children," right?

You do realize, I hope, that advocating the restriction of people's freedom to watch what they like makes you a true, fire-breathing liberal.

Because books are something you purchase or borrow and are a matter of personal choice. They require thought, They are not on the public airwaves.

You do know that advocating one-size-fits-all standards for the entire country makes YOU look like a flaming liberal, right?

We do need a viable way to block pornography on the net. Any ideas?

...or are you just fine with kids watching it?

The only "one size fits all" I support is the freedom to read, watch or listen to any damn thing you like.

If you want to block pornography it's pretty easy: Just turn off the TV and the computer.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Well, welcome to the club. The is no Bible reading or open prayer or Creationism or Intelligent Design expressed in public schools --- rarely on TV for that matter. What happened to the 2nd Amendment?

And they don't teach about Amer-Indian faiths, Buddhism, the Koran, or even philosophy at all.

Yup, they do keep the kids pretty damned ignorant.

And we can thank God for that.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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?

Its ignorant to suggest that people take responsibility for themselves and turn off the TV rather than asking government to protect them from themselves?

Really?

Wow.

It is willfully ignorant to deny that TV is a pervasive medium. It is willfully ignorant to assert that the televison medium is not available on a variety of devices. It is willfully ignorant to assert that TV is not infuential even for those who do not watch it. It is willfully ignorant to assert that the public does not have a valid interest in what is broadcast.

Yes, it's ignorant.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Why not just go ahead and ban some books too, or internet sites? After all, it's "for the children," right?

You do realize, I hope, that advocating the restriction of people's freedom to watch what they like makes you a true, fire-breathing liberal.

Because books are something you purchase or borrow and are a matter of personal choice. They require thought, They are not on the public airwaves.

You do know that advocating one-size-fits-all standards for the entire country makes YOU look like a flaming liberal, right?

We do need a viable way to block pornography on the net. Any ideas?

...or are you just fine with kids watching it?

The only "one size fits all" I support is the freedom to read, watch or listen to any damn thing you like.

If you want to block pornography it's pretty easy: Just turn off the TV and the computer.

As I said, no one gives a shit what you watch or don't watch. No one gives a shit what you read. No one gives a shit who you screw.

People do give a shit what their children are subjected to.

I just pissed in your drinking water., If you don't like it, you can always go thirsty, right?

If you don't like the crap being broadcast into your home on public utilities, you can always become a hermit, right?

You don't give a shit what kind of crap kids are subjected to as long as it doesn't affect your freedom to watch the shit, right?

Good for you.