Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Networks, the FCC, and Our Kids: It’s Time to Fight
Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | 4/26/2006 | Mark Earley

Posted on 05/01/2006 3:07:48 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: Mr. Silverback

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were able to read Mr. Franklin's mind.


41 posted on 05/02/2006 3:19:55 PM PDT by Crispus Attucks Patriot (The first to give his life for your liberty was a Black man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Crispus Attucks Patriot

I decided that a guy who died in the 18th Century might have given more thought to search and seizure than to the crucial need of slack-jawed yokels to view T&A on the public airwaves. Surely, that required me to read his mind.

Puh-leeze. Either defend your ideas or stay out of adult conversations.


42 posted on 05/02/2006 4:33:30 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; ...
This in-your-face attitude is indicative of how far our society has traveled along the path of radical individualism—especially when it comes to anything related to sex. Anything else can be restrained—smoking in public, driving without a seatbelt—all on the grounds that it’s good for society. But restrain sexual expression? No way—especially if it makes money.

Not exactly a Nanny State Ping -------- thought you would all be interesested in this.

43 posted on 05/02/2006 4:39:47 PM PDT by Gabz (Smokers are the beta version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; Mr. Silverback

Hmmm...I'll have to think on this one a bit. Not sure where I stand on regulating sexual content for adults. I usually love these Chuck Colson pings, but I'm not sure I agree with him on this one.

Of course, I draw the line when kids are exposed to this cr@p on purpose...but then, it was MY job to make sure I wasn't "The Coolest Mom" by indulging my boys in movies and music with gratuitous sex. I still remember the uproar when I popped "Coyote Ugly" out of the video player while they were (secretly) watching it, LOL!

If the 'Bra and Girdle Section' of the Sears Catalog was good enough for their Dad, it should've been good enough for them! ;)

You know, no one demands that we have TVs in our homes. They can be removed. I've done it. And when I have TIME to watch TV...I'm never impressed.

With TIVO and Netflix and computer & video games...do people really watch that much TV anymore? I've lost track.


44 posted on 05/02/2006 4:52:35 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AuteurEye

Bravo.

A very well thought out and stated commentary and I am in total agreement with you.

I'm an adult who has parents, and just like my parents controlled what I watched on TV, I control what my child watches on TV.........I don't need the government to be be my nanny.


45 posted on 05/02/2006 4:55:28 PM PDT by Gabz (Smokers are the beta version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
With TIVO and Netflix and computer & video games...do people really watch that much TV anymore? I've lost track.

Monday night 10pm Travel Channel - Anthony Bourdain

I have no clue what is on at any other time on any other channel. My 7 year old, OTOH, could probably recite the weekly lineup for Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel with her eyes closed. But now that the weather has broken - the last thing on earth she wants is to be in the house. I have more important things to do in my life than bother with the TV.

46 posted on 05/02/2006 5:06:27 PM PDT by Gabz (Smokers are the beta version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

I don't watch much in the way of tv-watched one episode of The Sopranos, and swore I'd NEVER view it again. Nothing but "F" every other word-not a virgin here, but my old rule of thumb was always, the more swearing in something, the weaker the script. More 'godfather' crap-why should I care about a bunch of vile scum that live to double-cross and kill each other? Garbage. Watch Animal Planet, Discovery, Lou Dobbs, other than that, pretty much movies -the older, the better, as a rule, and occasionally a talk program. Hard for me to believe I used to watch for hours a day back from the time I was a kid until about the early eighties.


47 posted on 05/02/2006 6:54:50 PM PDT by The Foolkiller (BSXL* The year the NFL became irrelevant..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: The Foolkiller; Gabz

I'm there with both of you. The garabage on tv today just doesn't warrant being tuned into. I like a lot of the old B horror flicks, and I do like a lot of sci-fi. But as for this ghetto-mode stuff, I will not turn it on. I cannot tolerate mtv, of E!, or those crap shows on vh1.
But, I would not want aunt nanny being my advocate, either, and if someone likes that stuff, more power to 'em. I don't think more restrictions will solve the problem. I can't stand a lot of this music today, either. But the P.M.R.C. really cranks me off. We don't need a P.M.R.C. for tv, too.


48 posted on 05/02/2006 7:52:09 PM PDT by 383rr ((those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
And when I have TIME to watch TV...I'm never impressed.

Now you know why there are only 4 shows I never miss: Brit Hume, Monk, Overhaulin' and Packers football.

49 posted on 05/02/2006 8:02:52 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

It is quite possible that "Girls Next Door" is syndicated in some markets...but I doubt it. The mom in question probably didn't have her parental controls on when she went past E!.


50 posted on 05/02/2006 8:10:59 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (TRY JESUS. If you don't like Him, the devil will always take you back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 383rr

I'm there with both of you. The garabage on tv today just doesn't warrant being tuned into. I like a lot of the old B horror flicks, and I do like a lot of sci-fi.




THE ALLIGATOR PEOPLE (and Beverly Garland)forever LOL

Seriously, I should have added that I'm not for guv control, either. I choose not to watch over-rated crap and just plain mindrot. If some idiots do, more power to 'em.


51 posted on 05/02/2006 8:28:45 PM PDT by The Foolkiller (BSXL* The year the NFL became irrelevant..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The Foolkiller

Amen.


52 posted on 05/02/2006 8:33:36 PM PDT by 383rr ((those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

LOL! I don't consider Packer's Football to be "TV." We usually turn down the sound on Madden and tune in to our local announcers. ;)


53 posted on 05/03/2006 6:10:04 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
"I decided that a guy who died in the 18th Century might have given more thought to search and seizure than to the crucial need of slack-jawed yokels to view T&A on the public airwaves."


Then he never would have said what he said, nor left behind the large body of writings defending individual liberties that he did. You know what? People who claim to be conservatives but wish to use governmental authority to abrogate the very succinct statements in the Bill Of Rights, (which don't need to be interpreted - they mean what they say...period.), are not truly conservatives. They've decided that the freedom contained in the sacred Constitution are too broad and must be restricted to fit their own proto-theocratic and narrow moralistic viewpoint. This is the same mindset that wishes to restrict gun ownership, smoking in the corner bar, and even legally coercing the wearing seat-belts on trips to the 7-11. Authoritarian statists cannot be patriots, for they are guilty of sedition against the very bestowed-by-our-Creator rights contained in that sanctified document.

BTW, descending into ad hominems like you just did shows two things....that you have no defensible argument beyond "...because I said so..." and you have contempt for young people who challenge your hidebound way of viewing life. This is a great way to ensure that the many other young Black conservatives like me could easily shy away from what we ALL claim we stand for.

Great job, dawg.
54 posted on 05/04/2006 5:50:35 AM PDT by Crispus Attucks Patriot (The first to give his life for your liberty was a Black man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson