Posted on 11/17/2004 3:54:17 PM PST by churchillbuff
Think first, comment second.
Actually, my wife and I have four children ranging in ages from four to sixteen. While raising each child we have found that controlling what they watch and do not watch on TV is rather easy. In fact each of the kids would rather read a book or in the case of the four year old be read to by a parent or sibling than watch TV.
The sixteen year old in on tract to to graduate at the top of his class and has made straight A's all his life. The other three are well ahead of their peers while attending a private school that is far superior to any public school.
The kids are creative, they are intelligent but best of all they are all curious about learning. We take then to the bookstore once a week and each picks out a book to read in addition to their school work.
Keeping these kids focused has been very difficult and my wife and I have sacrificed vacations and new cars for our children. Not having them watch TV has been easy, very easy.
We have done all of this without one bit of input from the Federal Government, we do not need their help.
I feel sorry for anyone who is incapable of raising their kids without government intervention.
For some reason I can't bring myself to get too upset over this. Maybe it's because I hardly ever watch pro football anymore -- since it is clear to me that the NFL has crossed that fine line that separates a "competitive sport" from a "staged event." This incident is simply one of the signature attributes of the latter.
Fox deserved that fine. Blurring certain body parts didn't hide what was going on during that show. And that activity has no place on a broadcast network. Thank heaven that three people had the guts to make a written complaint. And shame on those that did nothing.
It is refreshing to so another parent that does not need the NANNY STATE to help them raise their children. Good for you and your children, I am really proud of you. NFL and smut are not something that should be seen by children but in a free society it is our responsibility to control what our kids are exposed to, not the responsibity of the Nanny State.
I bet some of these people would want the Nanny State to not only control what is on TV but also educate their kids and change their baby's diapers.
Then do you think that it would be ok for networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox to broadcast hardcore pornography at all hours of the day and night? Your reasoning seems to be that the networks should be able to broadcast whatever they want and it's solely the parents' responsibility to make sure that their children don't watch it.
Not to seem like a heathen blue stater, but I honestly thought it was kind of funny. And my 4 and 9 year old step daughters saw it too. They asked if she was naked , I said "No, it`s just t.v. you know stuff on t.v. isn`t real. They are just trying to be funny." they said "oh, yeah" and that was it. The bigger deal that`s made of it, the bigger deal it becomes. What is the root of the problem, a woman's bare back or a parent's inability to deal with their children's questions?
"ABC quickly apologized for the locker room intro. And the NFL called it "inappropriate and unsuitable for our 'Monday Night Football' audience."
They knew what this was and when it would air....I hope Powell levies a fine like no media has seen before. This is the same scum network that refused to run Saving Private Ryan....Instead they run that crap. A parent can't even let their children watch any television that hasn't been previewed for fear of what these liberal slim will do.
It seems there's no shortage of low lifes here on FR, either.
Here's an alternative you might want to consider: free enterprise.
"Exactly, what was so wrong with that intro? (I saw the replay on ESPN) "
If you have to ask, then there is no reason to explain...
You've either got a sense of moral values or you don't....
Here's a better idea. Why don't you subscribe to a sports channel instead asking the the government to censor what everyone else watches?
Sorry, remotes are not enough. We have to draw the line somewhere or else we wind up like old sick Europe with nudity and sex all over television, decaying marriage, and collapsing moral values as Muslim immigrants run wild.
Here's an alternative you might want to consider: free enterprise.
Here's an alternative you might want to consider: go watch your smut on cable, which IS inherently private.
You want to use airwaves for smut, you make your signal unintelligible to the non-paying.
A record fine... for a woman's back?
Should she have been wearing a Burka?
I've seen the clip, the viewer sees nothing but the actresses back and the woman jumping into T.O.'s arms.
Such a non-issue.
great post. When I heard about the clip I expected full frontal nudity. When I saw it (twice) on a sports show discussing the issue it was less racy than many beer commercials.
"It seems there's no shortage of low lifes here on FR, either"
I noticed that too. I love it when someone posts a link for a picture or video that is being discussed on a thread and when you click on it, it is a Porn site...Makes you wonder what they do in their spare time...
So people who disagree with you are low lifes, is that it? Hmm...
FGS
Once again people like you just don't get it. When we tune into M.N.F. and the Super Bowl Half Time show we are using our remotes to watch SPORTS!. Not Garbage such as Sex in the City. Hope it isn't too confusing for you!
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.