One of the strengths of Linux is also its biggest weakness. If someone has a computer and for some strange reason needs to install an OS, which Linux distro do they choose? I've run Linux for years and I still can't name all the available distros. I doubt ANYONE can.
Another problem is the MS dominance over the OS market. It's hard to buy a computer without Windows and even harder to purchase one with Linux preinstalled. Your average computer user is not going to purchase a computer that won't run (because of no OS) and even if they did, when they go to the store pick up an OS, all they see is Windows.
Linux users need to stick to a Distro that works, is easy, is well known, and comes as an option to be preinstalled on computers from the majority of manufacturers, even if it is along side Windows or as a bootable DVD thrown into the box.
They published it on their own website. It is genuine.
Sure the document is genuine, but so is the Declaration of Independence. Strangely enough, it contains the exact same amount of information about Bush's Dastardly Plans for World Domination as the PNAC document does and was signed by the exact same number of Bushes (Zero). Just because the document exists, doesn't mean that what was said about it is true.
So umm, when did Bush|Cheney|Snow|Whomever try to tell us that establishing a democracy in Iraq was the reason when invaded, and not just name it as a primary goal?
First, there is no difference between reason and primary goal. There were several reasons, each a primary goal.
From President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 2002
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. From President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly, September 2003
First, we must stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build free and stable countries. The terrorists and their allies fear and fight this progress above all, because free people embrace hope over resentment, and choose peace over violence.
HERE is the link (pdf warning). Where's the part about faking a terrorist attack to invade Iraq? You spew bullshit this deep and accuse this guy of being dishonest? You are projecting yourself onto him.
You accuse him of using a strawman fallacy, when all he did was call you out on what you said. Then you deny saying it. Let's see what you are denying:
How about we actually pay attention instead of your course of ignore all the facts to try and excuse the administration for their premeditated malicious actions? Go read the 2000 paper by the Project For a New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Bush Senior This one is my favorite. You lied when you said the Bushes signed it. No Bushes signed it at all. And you sat there and accused this guy of lying? Like I said, you are projecting. You accuse the other person of being guilty of the crime you are committing. It cheapens their argument when they say, "I'm lying, YOUR the liar!" It looks like they are simply echoing your accusation back at them. While I can't find it linked, we'll call it the Fallacy of Projecting (Trademark, ArcherB). Now lets' get back to what you said:
Pay attention to the parts where they talk about their plan to invade Iraq Not in there
to "ensure future US economic world domination in the coming century", their understanding that the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit, so they would need to hope for an attack on the US on the level of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq. Sounds like a truther's argument to me, except at least truther's are honest, although misguided. You're just making stuff up. I'd call it lying, but this doesn't quite make it to that level. It's almost like a six year old making up a story as she goes along.
See, and then you end it with something like this:
How about you stop talking about the subject when you obviously don't know a damn thing about it since you couldn't even be bothered to read the position papers published by the very people you're attempting to defend. Think about how stupid that makes you to do something so completely ridiculous. First of all, the guy was on your side, but don't let the facts get in your way. Next, everything you tell him not to do is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Let's see what we have here:
stop talking about the subject when you obviously don't know a damn thing about CHECK
couldn't even be bothered to read the position papers published by the very people you're attempting to defend. and CHECK You obviously didn't read the 90 page document you alluded to. Hell, I had to look it up myself because you couldn't even be bothered to link to it. Then again, if I were making stuff up about a document, I wouldn't provide a link either. That would be like telling the cops where you hid the body. Now I will agree with you when you say "Think about how stupid that makes you to do something so completely ridiculous.", but as I've just shown, it is actually YOU that are doing it.
Forgive me for being off topic, but when I see something like this, I have to respond.
Go read the 2000 paper by the Project For a New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Bush Senior and many other members of Bush's original administration and hangers on. Pay attention to the parts where they talk about their plan to invade Iraq to "ensure future US economic world domination in the coming century", their understanding that the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit, so they would need to hope for an attack on the US on the level of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Oh! My! Fucking! God! You have got to be kidding me! Wait, first I have to confirm this. A former president (Bush Sr.), a man running for president (W), the governor of Florida (Jeb), a man running for Vice President (Cheney), the former defense secretary from 1975 (Rumsfeld), and the dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (Wolfowitz) and other unknown members of this super secret society all got together, wrote out their plans for world domination, and... hang on, let me get a straight face... OK, I'm better... then they all SIGNED IT and gave it to Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard.
(Since we are speaking of The Weekly Standard, do you read that magazine? Do you hold the words written their as absolute fact? Why is this modern day Mein Kampf any different? I mean, you can't cherry pick stuff from Bill Kristol and say "this is truth, the rest is bullshit". It's either a valid source, or it's not. Sorry, got distracted. I needed a break before I started cracking up again anyway.)
Anyway, so where were we? Oh yes. The Evil Republican Playbook of 2000. Funny how this supposed manifesto has been published since 2000 and has survived two presidential elections, four congressional elections, one gubernatorial election, the largest terrorist attack in history, a war, and seven years of the press and political opponents trying to dig up whatever dirt they can to bring down Bush and/or all Republicans.... and no one saw it? No one? Really? Not John Kerry, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Dan Rather, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Stabenow, John Murtha, Howard Dean, Michale Moore..... and the list goes on... none of these people found this and decided hang the President with it? (I see MoveOn.org has it, but they're batshit-crazier than you are, or so I thought)
You really believe this? You really typed up that statement, with the 100% confidence that what you were saying was the absolute truth. This is not a joke or anything, right? Well, there is the distinct possibility that you are just dishonest, but I wouldn't suggest such a thing of one with your integrity.
BTW, I found the article titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC site. Jeb Bush did not sign it. For that matter, none of the Bushes signed it. The only mention of the Bushes concerns the Bush41 presidency. The only mention of Iraq was the first gulf war. So, yeah, the article exists. Still, it's not the "My Plan to Conquer the World by Dr Evil+minions" you claim it to be.
I tried to look up a logical fallacy like red herring or something for this, but there wasn't one listed for "batshit-crazy bullshit".. Really, you should read this stuff before you post it. You just make yourself look ridiculous. And whoever up-modded it looks even worse. Moderators should know better. I mean, you don't have to be from Texas to know what Bullshit smells like.
Don't bother trying to speak with this guy. He can't defend his position so he'll hurl insults at whoever he thinks his foe is. Trust me, you will have better luck with a "I know you are but what am I" preschooler.
There's this new thing out. It's called the New Testament. It means that the punishment for sin is no longer death. It means we don't have to be perfect.
I know the feeling. Look at it this way, you're at least not arguing with someone completely delusional. Let's face it, you can defend your religion all you like, but the simple fact of the matter is your religion is responsible for the German holocaust, Jonestown, Waco, Salem, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc, etc. Defend as you like with what YOU think your religion is, but the fact is it's been responsible for more bloodshed, horror and evil in the world. The fact that it can be twisted to such ends, while all the while decrying its "message of peace and love" just proves how delusional you really are. You call it delusion. I call it faith. You are correct in that I can not prove anything. Then again, there is so much accepted in science that can not be proved either, but it's widely accepted as fact. Mankind is responsible for those atrocities and so much more. Are you saying that I should abandon mankind? Besides, MY religion was responsible for none of those. However, I will agree that religion has been misused for some pretty horrific atrocities, but atrocities happen with or without religion. It has just become an excuse, or enabler, for some. But blaming religion as a whole for the misdeeds of a few is like blaming black people for OJ murdering his wife.
Of course not, for the simple reason that I have truth and rationality on my side. Funny. I was thinking the same thing, minus the rationality part.
You have delusion and fairy tales that tell you to kill your children. Uh, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill my children.
As for "facts", where are the "facts"? The facts that our Founding Fathers had religion. I listed a site with their affiliations. Those were the facts. The Constitutions states Freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM it for a reason (another fact). I find those truths to be self evident.
Thanks, I'll rub my lucky rabbit's foot for you. 'Course, I don't know how lucky he was since he lost a foot and all...:)
Thanx! I appreciate the gesture. As to the luck of the rabbit, my fajita dinner was pretty unfortunate for the cow, but lucky for me if my wife doesn't burn it!
And sorry if I flamed a bit earlier. That was counter to what I'm trying to "preach" here and I apologize.
You're entire post consists of the following:
Again, no fallacy. You are a fucking liar. That's what you call somebody who lies all the time. I called you on a mass of them throughout this discussion. Examples aplenty abound. All I asked for was an example, and this is all you come up with...everything? That doesn't exactly qualify. I'm surprised you never came back with "pants on fire".
We're done here. I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with someone who is completely unarmed. I asked for facts, I receive curse words and insults. I'm sorry, but you are neither mature nor intelligent enough to continue this "discussion".
It's perfectly clear that one of us is a bigot. Let's look up the definition:
Bigot:
- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I have no problem with stations that show whatever they want. If I don't want to watch it, I won't turn to it, but I certainly won't forbid anyone else from watching. That is their choice. So, I'm not the bigot.
You, on the other hand, don't want me to have an option to watch what I want to. You want all station to have your standards, or lack thereof. You are utterly intolerant of my creed, belief, and opinion.
I guess I only bring that up because I'm willing to meet halfway. Like I've said several times, I have no problems with station that are completely uncensored. You, on the other hand are not willing to leave some stations censored (as they are now). Even though you would lose nothing at all, you are not happy until you take something away from me. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.
I mean Orwellian as in you continually engage in doublethink just like the above moronic lies. Examples? Or are you just making it up because you can't counter an argument? It's called a Fallacy of Personal Attack.
There are like what, HBO, Showtime, and very rarely Comedy central that allow fuck to be said and only at night? So that's 3 stations. Maybe a few more? But exactly opposite to the delusions you're spouting, the vast majority of stations do not use language like that at any time. This bill only applies to broadcast stations. The rest are unchanged. Hell for that matter, the broadcast channels have been left unchanged. Also, if all those other stations started saying "fuck" all day, every day, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, you have a problem with CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the local independents NOT saying "fuck"? Why do you thin I'm the one with the problem?
Now obviously, you couldn't be sane and actually believe the nonsense you wrote given that it directly contradicts reality in every particular, yet it's hard to believe that it's possible to be stupid enough to think anybody would believe your deeply delusional lies, so you probably weren't lying on purpose. The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that you're managing to hold 2 directly contradictory positions in your head at the same time which is doublethink. Again with the Personal Attack Fallacy. Do you have any examples of these lies that I've told? Of course not. You claim that I'm lying because you can't dispute the facts so you claim that they are lies. Yet, you give no examples. You just throw the word around. That kinda makes you liar, doesn't it? You accuse me of doublethink? Yeah. I want you to have your stations (one-think) and me to have mine (the other think). Is there anything more liberal than choice?
Weak willed spineless shitbags like yourself are what allows big brother bullshit to exist because you can't be bothered to try and make your brain actually work properly. Again with the Personal Attack with some Red Herring thrown in. Red Herring is when you bring up a whole new argument and try to relate it the one being discussed. In this case, Big Brother. Keeping stations that can not say "fuck" from being able to say "fuck" is not Big Brother. Big Brother tells you where to work, when to work, what to eat, what to eat and so on. This is not Big Brother, yet you throw it out there because it portrays a negative image. Classic Red Herring. Still, I like how you bring up Orwell again. Have you even read any Orwell. Here, I'll quote some for you. You are against the War On Terror, right? Here's what Orwell has to say about people like you:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside su
A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior. Really? Love thy neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass. Honor thy mother and father. Turn the other cheek. All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed. My church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and gives aid to those that need it. We do not force religion down their throats in exchange either. Sure, the offer is there, but no one is forced to do anything. It's not a trade. It's a gift. And the Bible says it's our duty to do that sort of thing. We don't give something and expect something else in return. If all this is what you call evil, you really need to look up the definition.
Also, I think your view of history is a bit off. This page lists all of the founding father's religions. Strange. They are all listed and none of them are labeled "Atheist". 100% are listed as some flavor of Christianity.
It doesn't matter. You are either completely misguided or a troll. You are no different that the Creationist who believes that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and nothing will change their minds. No matter how many facts I present or how many times I disprove your assumptions, you already made up your mind as to what you believe and nothing can sway you from that. Your hatred for religion has become a religion in itself. You are like a "9-11 Truther" only mixed in with hate and bigotry.
Please, keep your stupidity to yourself. We passed legislation keeping YOUR god from trampling on the rights of the brainwashed followers of other gods as well as those who don't believe in any of your fairy tales or voodoo. As for his "protecting" it, thanks, but I can do without his "protection". His protection means people fly planes into our buildings, millions of people are killed in concentration camps, blacks are strung up by the neck, children are told to drink the Kool-aid, Palestinians are killed and forced from their homes or people are set on fire in Texas. And, yes, I'm aware I'm lumping in the atrocities of all religions that have occurred in the last hundred years together. You morons need to wake the fuck up and see that YOU are responsible for all of the "evil" in the world. In fact, without you there would BE no "evil".
I'm impressed. You, my friend, are a master of logic. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, so let's ban religion. What an awesome idea. Let's translate that to other tools that have caused harm. Cars. Cars have killed millions, possibly BILLIONS. They are ruining our environment with their exhaust and roads. Of course, let's go further. The car would not run without wheels. And wheels were used on carriages before there were cars. We must ban the wheel! MAN! Man invented the wheel, religion, cars, exhaust, murder, the works! MAN MUST BE BANNED!
Your logic sir, lead the way!
Yes, I realize that this example is ridiculous, but no more so than claiming that because some bad people have done bad things in the name of religion, then ALL religion must be bad. Need I remind Spoonman that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were fine examples of states with no religion. Does Spoonman not think that Hitler and Stalin were evil? That kinds throws out his No religion, No evil theory.
Our founding fathers HATED religion, so if you don't like it you can get out. Really?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Why then, is Creator capitalized as if to mean God? Why are men created equal, and not just born that way? (CREATEd... CREATionist... get it?) The founding fathers claim that Rights come from God, but they hated religion? They opened every Congressional session with a prayer, but they really meant for religion to banned in public? By guaranteeing "FREEDOM OF RELIGION", they really meant to ban it? Granted, not all were devoutly religious, but as a group, they really were.
Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religious freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy.
Does a cross on a Christian Soldier's grave at a memorial cemetery force anyone to participate in state-sponsored prayer and become subject to state-sponsored religious education. How about a Cross in a building at a Public University? What about muslim foot washing stalls at the entrance to a public area at a state sponsored university? Oh, yeah, that one was allowed because there was no Cross involved.
We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still need to be managed so give the logistical planning functions to computers while a human sets the goals it evolves against. Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.
Wow! You are saying that capitalism has worked so well, we should ditch it for a system that doesn't. You do know that once you dump capitalism, all the benefits go away with it, right?
Any ban on this treatment is not due to any research ban. There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US. While we don't get the very latest in treatments, we're not exposed to treatments in the beta stage either.
You're right. I give up. The vast majority of the American public should not be able to watch TV because you want to hear "fuck" on the broadcast stations. I guess 1490 channels isn't enough for you, all 1500 of the must say FUCK or you are not happy. It doesn't matter what the VAST majority of the Ameican public wants. All that matters is that you get ALL the stations and make damn sure that FUCK is said on all of them.
You are right. What is the will of the people vs the will of the all-mighty Darby anyway.
I'm curious. When you call me Orwellian, are you saying that I am like George Orwell or like a character from his novel?
Don't bring them up and then hide behind them when it's suggested you might actually take some responsibility for them instead of forcing me to pay for your utter failure as a parent. You just proved that you talk out of your ass. You have never met my kids. For all you know, I may not even have any. But here you are, telling me what a bad parent I am. You really shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. It just proves what a stupid ass you are, trying to look smart by acting arrogant.
No, you can watch anything you damn well please. Nobody is stopping you from choosing not to watch shows you do not want to. You are unwilling to take any responsibility for yourself so instead of choosing not to watch shows you find offensive you seek to grow the nanny state even more for no good purpose. You have complete control over what comes into your house. Be a man for once instead of a bitch and avail yourself of it. No, I can't watch what I damn well please if you get your way. Will I be able to watch the Football with my family? Nope, I'll see Janet Jackson's Tits. Can I watch a music award show? Nope, Bono will say "Fucking". So, No, I will not be able to watch whatever I want because you want to take it away. See how I'm not supporting taking away ANYTHING from you. I want there to be uncensored stations. I want you to have a choice. I wouldn't dare tell you what you can and can't watch. And yet, you have no problem telling me that I should not watch the Superbowl if I'm offended by nudity. If I don't want my family seeing a guy rip the top off a lady, then I should turn the TV off because you never know when someone is going to drop the f-bomb or take off their top. I should expect to see tits, I mean, it is the Superbowl! So yeah, you are taking channels away from me. You want to change what I have and tell me that if I don't like it, turn it off.
Because there is no legal basis for allowing a government agency to dictate morals?
Really? Go to the mall food court without pants lately? Try it and see what happens. Why is it illegal for you to show your balls to a bunch of Tweens in the food court? BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL! You don't think that spanking your monkey in front of the Orange Julius is a moral issue? Why is it illegal? While we are at the mall. Let's take your reasoning and apply it here. We take your argument about "No one MADE me turn on the TV" and "It's the parent's responsibility as to what a child sees or doesn't see" and change it to "no one MADE them go to the mall" and "the parents should have known you'd be there boxing with the bishop in the food court." (same argument, same logic, different settings) Hey, I might want to see that. Why should they ban you from doing the nuckle shuffle in front of the arcade when everyone that it offends can simply go to another store or not go to the mall at all. Sure I could go to the peep show, but that will cost me a quarter! Seeing someone sling their manly-mayonnaise should be free! Why can't those damn puritans pay for a public masturbation-free mall? Why do I have to pay when THEY are the ones with the problem! Besides, there are PLENTY of malls around town where no one is slapping the fat for all to see. Sure, there will be no guarantee that there won't be some fat guy playing pocket pool with no pockets,
But insisting that it's OK to censor broadcast media across the board simply because you can order cable to get uncensored TV is very different. Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to censored information simply because they're too poor to "switch off the filter".
On the flipside of that is Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to offensive material simply because they're too poor to "switch the filter on".
The converter, or filter as you call it, could be made available as an external module for free from the station since they will be ad revenue supported anyhow. If that's too expensive, I wouldn't mind pitching in a few bucks to subsidize it so the poor could enjoy porn as much as us "rich folk".
Isn't there someplace a little less batshit, bugfuck insane than freep that might have a copy of that testimony? I wouldn't trust those brain dead poo flinging monkey fucks to wipe their own asses, let alone quote Dee Snider correctly.
I don't know if you'd consider VH1 to be any less batshit, but HERE it is.
Trying to force everything to be kid friendly is limiting choice.
I never said that. I just want the channels that transmit openly over the air to have some standards. I don't give a shit about the rest of it.
It's not, but wanting all channels free of indecency is.
You're putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said anything about all channels.
Sort of. I think they should be free from government mandated standards; however, they should at least be honest about what their content is (which could be mandated, TV ratings are a good idea).
I mostly agree. Out of the 1500 channels that come into my home, it's nice to know that I can turn the the 5-10 that also broadcast over the air and not hear the word "fuck". As to the other 1495 channels, I don't care. I actually like the option. But if you remove these standards, you are taking away the option from me and all I'm left with is the option to turn it off. (and No, Hannah Montana is not a valid option!)
Additionally, channels will self-censor. Disney Channel is not going to show Princesses Gone Wild, just because the government is no longer breathing down their necks. They know what their customer base is, and will continue to pander to it.
And CBS won't show a topless woman during the SuperBowl Half Time Show. Bono won't say "fucking" during the Golden Globes. Nichole Richie won't say "fuck" on the Billboard Music Awards. The list goes on. Again, I don't have a problem with HBO, Showtime, or even Comedy Central, SciFi or the Cartoon Network showing whatever they want. I just want a couple of stations that are not made for "tweens" that I can watch with my family and not have to explain what a threesome is to my 5-yr old.
Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls? Might be a funny parody, but not really my thing, thanks.
Yeah, that would be hilarious if done right, but I don't want to see it on Fox during "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader". There are channels for that and it's great that there are, but just leave a few to us.
First, how I raise my kids is my business and mine alone. Surely you can agree to that. So leave them out of it. I don't agree with how you raise yours, but notice how I haven't brought it up. It's none of my business and how I raise mine is none of yours. If you can't debate the issues without trying to attack mer personally, please don't post at all.
you're left trying to prove that hearing dirty words on TV is in any way a bad thing. I'm not claiming it's *good*, but you're response just proves again how unfit you are to be deciding anything for anybody
I've said time and time again that I'm not trying to limit what you or anyone else can watch. However, if you release all decency rules from all TV stations, then YOU are limiting what I can watch. I'm not trying to take away unregulated stations. Why are you trying to take away my regulated ones?
All I want is for the networks that receive licenses to transmit over the airwaves unencrypted have some standards. We're talking about 5-6 channels. You keep saying that I want to censor everyone and keep anything not church-approved out of your house. I guess you say that because you can't refute my request for 5-6 channels out of the 1500 that are available. I don't care what you watch, just keep the "public" airwaves clean. That's all. Stop saying this bill censors everything, because it does not. Stop arguing against the words YOU put into my mouth and start responding to what I'm actually saying or STFU.
The market for such programming exists and therefore you will be provided with channels that are free from the things you don't want, you don't need yet another law to bring that to you. Are things really that bad now?
Right now, about all the FCC can legally do is suspend the broadcasting license of a network. All that would do is prevent these networks from broadcasting over the air, on frequencies owned by the Feds (UHF and VHF). It would not keep them from broadcasting through cable or satellite. Still, suspending the license is an extremely harsh punishment for a nipple of slip of the tongue. This bill allows for fining stations for what is essentially a breach of their license.
As for the market deciding, well, it does. That's why we have HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and so on. As for stations that broadcast over public airwaves... well those are public airwaves and CAN be controlled by the FCC, which is a public entity. Market forces affect private entities. The airwaves are public, not private.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with ANYTHING that is on cable. I pay for cable for that matter and I want the Gov't out of it!
You call for censorship in the same post you blame people for censorship. I just thought that was funny. You are basically saying "ooh! those censors really make me mad! Let's have more censorship!" Are you blaming or praising, or does that depend on party affiliation? My post was neither, really. The GGP was titled "Fucking Republicans". Well, it's not the Republicans this time. Here is what I said in the post you responded to:
I was just pointing out that a Democrat led committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due. For that matter, I was agreeing with these Democrats... sorta, so you can't call it a partisan thing. I have no problem with the channels that broadcast over the airwaves having to go through government censors. We're talking about...what... five stations here? I don't give a shit about the rest. They can be all porn, all the time for all I care. For that matter, I'd probably order it! But leave just a few stations clean. Is that too much to ask?
Put your strawman away. Just because I don't want to hear "Fuck" while watching the Grammys or see a nipple during the half-time Superbowl show does not mean that I don't watch my kids. As a matter of fact, I would like to watch TV with my kids on occasion. However, I would like to watch something a bit more mature than Hannah Montana or Sponge Bob.
And just as I'll support YOUR right to watch whatever you want to watch on TV, I would hope that you would support MY right to watch what I want to watch. It's not like there is a shortage of channels out there. Why can't we keep the five or so stations that are on the public airwaves "fuck" free? You can have all the rest. Really, is that too much to ask?
What makes it more fair for everyone else to have to pay extra or opt in and you get a free ride on the free airwaves....rather than YOU paying extra and learning to program a V chip on your tv to protect your kids when you aren't going to be there to watch over their viewing content?
Because not everyone can afford a new TV equipped with a V-chip. Are you saying that only the rich can watch TV with their kids? Besides, what good is a V-chip when it blocks every show that comes on after 6:00 PM? I don't have a problem with the V-chip telling me what is family friendly. But I want there to be something left for it to select.
Why should the onus be on those to opt-in rather than you opting-out? Who said freedom was free? You have to opt-in now, is that a problem for you? Sorry if you want to change the way the TV world works so you don't have to get up off your ass and call the cable company to order your porn. I did, why can't you?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the strengths of Linux is also its biggest weakness. If someone has a computer and for some strange reason needs to install an OS, which Linux distro do they choose? I've run Linux for years and I still can't name all the available distros. I doubt ANYONE can.
Another problem is the MS dominance over the OS market. It's hard to buy a computer without Windows and even harder to purchase one with Linux preinstalled. Your average computer user is not going to purchase a computer that won't run (because of no OS) and even if they did, when they go to the store pick up an OS, all they see is Windows.
Linux users need to stick to a Distro that works, is easy, is well known, and comes as an option to be preinstalled on computers from the majority of manufacturers, even if it is along side Windows or as a bootable DVD thrown into the box.
They published it on their own website. It is genuine.
Sure the document is genuine, but so is the Declaration of Independence. Strangely enough, it contains the exact same amount of information about Bush's Dastardly Plans for World Domination as the PNAC document does and was signed by the exact same number of Bushes (Zero). Just because the document exists, doesn't mean that what was said about it is true.
First, there is no difference between reason and primary goal. There were several reasons, each a primary goal.
From President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 2002 If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. From President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly, September 2003 First, we must stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq as they build free and stable countries. The terrorists and their allies fear and fight this progress above all, because free people embrace hope over resentment, and choose peace over violence.
You accuse him of using a strawman fallacy, when all he did was call you out on what you said. Then you deny saying it. Let's see what you are denying: How about we actually pay attention instead of your course of ignore all the facts to try and excuse the administration for their premeditated malicious actions?
Go read the 2000 paper by the Project For a New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Bush Senior This one is my favorite. You lied when you said the Bushes signed it. No Bushes signed it at all. And you sat there and accused this guy of lying? Like I said, you are projecting. You accuse the other person of being guilty of the crime you are committing. It cheapens their argument when they say, "I'm lying, YOUR the liar!" It looks like they are simply echoing your accusation back at them. While I can't find it linked, we'll call it the Fallacy of Projecting (Trademark, ArcherB).
Now lets' get back to what you said: Pay attention to the parts where they talk about their plan to invade Iraq Not in there to "ensure future US economic world domination in the coming century", their understanding that the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit, so they would need to hope for an attack on the US on the level of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq. Sounds like a truther's argument to me, except at least truther's are honest, although misguided. You're just making stuff up. I'd call it lying, but this doesn't quite make it to that level. It's almost like a six year old making up a story as she goes along.
See, and then you end it with something like this: How about you stop talking about the subject when you obviously don't know a damn thing about it since you couldn't even be bothered to read the position papers published by the very people you're attempting to defend.
Think about how stupid that makes you to do something so completely ridiculous. First of all, the guy was on your side, but don't let the facts get in your way. Next, everything you tell him not to do is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Let's see what we have here: stop talking about the subject when you obviously don't know a damn thing about CHECK couldn't even be bothered to read the position papers published by the very people you're attempting to defend. and CHECK
You obviously didn't read the 90 page document you alluded to. Hell, I had to look it up myself because you couldn't even be bothered to link to it. Then again, if I were making stuff up about a document, I wouldn't provide a link either. That would be like telling the cops where you hid the body.
Now I will agree with you when you say "Think about how stupid that makes you to do something so completely ridiculous.", but as I've just shown, it is actually YOU that are doing it.
Forgive me for being off topic, but when I see something like this, I have to respond.
Go read the 2000 paper by the Project For a New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Bush Senior and many other members of Bush's original administration and hangers on. Pay attention to the parts where they talk about their plan to invade Iraq to "ensure future US economic world domination in the coming century", their understanding that the American people wouldn't buy their bullshit, so they would need to hope for an attack on the US on the level of Pearl Harbor which they could then misuse as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Oh! My! Fucking! God! You have got to be kidding me! Wait, first I have to confirm this. A former president (Bush Sr.), a man running for president (W), the governor of Florida (Jeb), a man running for Vice President (Cheney), the former defense secretary from 1975 (Rumsfeld), and the dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (Wolfowitz) and other unknown members of this super secret society all got together, wrote out their plans for world domination, and... hang on, let me get a straight face... OK, I'm better... then they all SIGNED IT and gave it to Bill Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard.
(Since we are speaking of The Weekly Standard, do you read that magazine? Do you hold the words written their as absolute fact? Why is this modern day Mein Kampf any different? I mean, you can't cherry pick stuff from Bill Kristol and say "this is truth, the rest is bullshit". It's either a valid source, or it's not. Sorry, got distracted. I needed a break before I started cracking up again anyway.)
Anyway, so where were we? Oh yes. The Evil Republican Playbook of 2000. Funny how this supposed manifesto has been published since 2000 and has survived two presidential elections, four congressional elections, one gubernatorial election, the largest terrorist attack in history, a war, and seven years of the press and political opponents trying to dig up whatever dirt they can to bring down Bush and/or all Republicans.... and no one saw it? No one? Really? Not John Kerry, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Dan Rather, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Stabenow, John Murtha, Howard Dean, Michale Moore..... and the list goes on... none of these people found this and decided hang the President with it? (I see MoveOn.org has it, but they're batshit-crazier than you are, or so I thought)
You really believe this? You really typed up that statement, with the 100% confidence that what you were saying was the absolute truth. This is not a joke or anything, right? Well, there is the distinct possibility that you are just dishonest, but I wouldn't suggest such a thing of one with your integrity.
BTW, I found the article titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" on the PNAC site. Jeb Bush did not sign it. For that matter, none of the Bushes signed it. The only mention of the Bushes concerns the Bush41 presidency. The only mention of Iraq was the first gulf war. So, yeah, the article exists. Still, it's not the "My Plan to Conquer the World by Dr Evil+minions" you claim it to be.
I tried to look up a logical fallacy like red herring or something for this, but there wasn't one listed for "batshit-crazy bullshit".. Really, you should read this stuff before you post it. You just make yourself look ridiculous. And whoever up-modded it looks even worse. Moderators should know better. I mean, you don't have to be from Texas to know what Bullshit smells like.
Don't bother trying to speak with this guy. He can't defend his position so he'll hurl insults at whoever he thinks his foe is. Trust me, you will have better luck with a "I know you are but what am I" preschooler.
There's this new thing out. It's called the New Testament. It means that the punishment for sin is no longer death. It means we don't have to be perfect.
:)
I know the feeling. Look at it this way, you're at least not arguing with someone completely delusional. Let's face it, you can defend your religion all you like, but the simple fact of the matter is your religion is responsible for the German holocaust, Jonestown, Waco, Salem, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc, etc. Defend as you like with what YOU think your religion is, but the fact is it's been responsible for more bloodshed, horror and evil in the world. The fact that it can be twisted to such ends, while all the while decrying its "message of peace and love" just proves how delusional you really are.
You call it delusion. I call it faith. You are correct in that I can not prove anything. Then again, there is so much accepted in science that can not be proved either, but it's widely accepted as fact.
Mankind is responsible for those atrocities and so much more. Are you saying that I should abandon mankind? Besides, MY religion was responsible for none of those. However, I will agree that religion has been misused for some pretty horrific atrocities, but atrocities happen with or without religion. It has just become an excuse, or enabler, for some. But blaming religion as a whole for the misdeeds of a few is like blaming black people for OJ murdering his wife.
Of course not, for the simple reason that I have truth and rationality on my side.
Funny. I was thinking the same thing, minus the rationality part.
You have delusion and fairy tales that tell you to kill your children.
Uh, nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill my children.
As for "facts", where are the "facts"?
The facts that our Founding Fathers had religion. I listed a site with their affiliations. Those were the facts. The Constitutions states Freedom OF Religion, not freedom FROM it for a reason (another fact). I find those truths to be self evident.
Thanks, I'll rub my lucky rabbit's foot for you. 'Course, I don't know how lucky he was since he lost a foot and all...
Thanx! I appreciate the gesture. As to the luck of the rabbit, my fajita dinner was pretty unfortunate for the cow, but lucky for me if my wife doesn't burn it!
And sorry if I flamed a bit earlier. That was counter to what I'm trying to "preach" here and I apologize.
I called you on a mass of them throughout this discussion. Examples aplenty abound. All I asked for was an example, and this is all you come up with...everything? That doesn't exactly qualify. I'm surprised you never came back with "pants on fire".
We're done here. I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with someone who is completely unarmed. I asked for facts, I receive curse words and insults. I'm sorry, but you are neither mature nor intelligent enough to continue this "discussion".
Bigot:
- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I have no problem with stations that show whatever they want. If I don't want to watch it, I won't turn to it, but I certainly won't forbid anyone else from watching. That is their choice. So, I'm not the bigot.
You, on the other hand, don't want me to have an option to watch what I want to. You want all station to have your standards, or lack thereof. You are utterly intolerant of my creed, belief, and opinion.
I guess I only bring that up because I'm willing to meet halfway. Like I've said several times, I have no problems with station that are completely uncensored. You, on the other hand are not willing to leave some stations censored (as they are now). Even though you would lose nothing at all, you are not happy until you take something away from me. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.
I mean Orwellian as in you continually engage in doublethink just like the above moronic lies.
Examples? Or are you just making it up because you can't counter an argument? It's called a Fallacy of Personal Attack.
There are like what, HBO, Showtime, and very rarely Comedy central that allow fuck to be said and only at night? So that's 3 stations. Maybe a few more? But exactly opposite to the delusions you're spouting, the vast majority of stations do not use language like that at any time.
This bill only applies to broadcast stations. The rest are unchanged. Hell for that matter, the broadcast channels have been left unchanged. Also, if all those other stations started saying "fuck" all day, every day, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, you have a problem with CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the local independents NOT saying "fuck"? Why do you thin I'm the one with the problem?
Now obviously, you couldn't be sane and actually believe the nonsense you wrote given that it directly contradicts reality in every particular, yet it's hard to believe that it's possible to be stupid enough to think anybody would believe your deeply delusional lies, so you probably weren't lying on purpose. The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that you're managing to hold 2 directly contradictory positions in your head at the same time which is doublethink.
Again with the Personal Attack Fallacy. Do you have any examples of these lies that I've told? Of course not. You claim that I'm lying because you can't dispute the facts so you claim that they are lies. Yet, you give no examples. You just throw the word around. That kinda makes you liar, doesn't it? You accuse me of doublethink? Yeah. I want you to have your stations (one-think) and me to have mine (the other think). Is there anything more liberal than choice?
Weak willed spineless shitbags like yourself are what allows big brother bullshit to exist because you can't be bothered to try and make your brain actually work properly.
Again with the Personal Attack with some Red Herring thrown in. Red Herring is when you bring up a whole new argument and try to relate it the one being discussed. In this case, Big Brother. Keeping stations that can not say "fuck" from being able to say "fuck" is not Big Brother. Big Brother tells you where to work, when to work, what to eat, what to eat and so on. This is not Big Brother, yet you throw it out there because it portrays a negative image. Classic Red Herring. Still, I like how you bring up Orwell again. Have you even read any Orwell. Here, I'll quote some for you. You are against the War On Terror, right? Here's what Orwell has to say about people like you:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside su
A car is an inanimate object, religion is a set of codes designed to promote evil behavior.
Really? Love thy neighbor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not covet thy neighbor's wife, neighbor's ass, neighbor's wife's ass. Honor thy mother and father. Turn the other cheek. All that is Evil? I think your definitions are a bit skewed. My church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and gives aid to those that need it. We do not force religion down their throats in exchange either. Sure, the offer is there, but no one is forced to do anything. It's not a trade. It's a gift. And the Bible says it's our duty to do that sort of thing. We don't give something and expect something else in return. If all this is what you call evil, you really need to look up the definition.
Also, I think your view of history is a bit off. This page lists all of the founding father's religions. Strange. They are all listed and none of them are labeled "Atheist". 100% are listed as some flavor of Christianity.
It doesn't matter. You are either completely misguided or a troll. You are no different that the Creationist who believes that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and nothing will change their minds. No matter how many facts I present or how many times I disprove your assumptions, you already made up your mind as to what you believe and nothing can sway you from that. Your hatred for religion has become a religion in itself. You are like a "9-11 Truther" only mixed in with hate and bigotry.
Either way, I'll pray for you.
I'm impressed. You, my friend, are a master of logic. Bad things have been done in the name of religion, so let's ban religion. What an awesome idea. Let's translate that to other tools that have caused harm. Cars. Cars have killed millions, possibly BILLIONS. They are ruining our environment with their exhaust and roads. Of course, let's go further. The car would not run without wheels. And wheels were used on carriages before there were cars. We must ban the wheel! MAN! Man invented the wheel, religion, cars, exhaust, murder, the works! MAN MUST BE BANNED!
Your logic sir, lead the way!
Yes, I realize that this example is ridiculous, but no more so than claiming that because some bad people have done bad things in the name of religion, then ALL religion must be bad. Need I remind Spoonman that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were fine examples of states with no religion. Does Spoonman not think that Hitler and Stalin were evil? That kinds throws out his No religion, No evil theory.
Our founding fathers HATED religion, so if you don't like it you can get out.
Really? We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Why then, is Creator capitalized as if to mean God? Why are men created equal, and not just born that way? (CREATEd... CREATionist... get it?) The founding fathers claim that Rights come from God, but they hated religion? They opened every Congressional session with a prayer, but they really meant for religion to banned in public? By guaranteeing "FREEDOM OF RELIGION", they really meant to ban it? Granted, not all were devoutly religious, but as a group, they really were.
So I guess you'll be leaving now?
Uh, no. What was chased out was the vestiges of a state-sponsored God. People may still pray and worship or not pray and worship as they please, and this is as it should be. Before, children had to participate in state-sponsored prayer and were subject to state-sponsored religious education. I don't understand why Christians thought that it was good idea. Indoctrination in the name of God is still indoctrination. State sponsored prostelyzation for any belief doesn't really make sense in view of the religious freedoms that we are supposed to be able to enjoy.
Does a cross on a Christian Soldier's grave at a memorial cemetery force anyone to participate in state-sponsored prayer and become subject to state-sponsored religious education. How about a Cross in a building at a Public University? What about muslim foot washing stalls at the entrance to a public area at a state sponsored university? Oh, yeah, that one was allowed because there was no Cross involved.
We need to ditch money soon. Money just represents unused energy or resources and capitalism is a method for allocating the surplus under conditions of scarcity dependent on goal(s). We not developing countries anymore in the West. We live in the land of plenty and our primary activities are trending into knowledge applications. Abolish copyrights in favor of a cooperative creative commons let everyone use everything and be amazed at what the stone-soup parable has to teach. Spare resources would still need to be managed so give the logistical planning functions to computers while a human sets the goals it evolves against. Capitalism has served its purpose here so stop treating it like religious dogma and envision a better way.
Wow! You are saying that capitalism has worked so well, we should ditch it for a system that doesn't. You do know that once you dump capitalism, all the benefits go away with it, right?
Didn't think so.
Any ban on this treatment is not due to any research ban. There is a 7-15 year lag time for new drugs and treatments to get approved by the FDA in the US. While we don't get the very latest in treatments, we're not exposed to treatments in the beta stage either.
You're right. I give up. The vast majority of the American public should not be able to watch TV because you want to hear "fuck" on the broadcast stations. I guess 1490 channels isn't enough for you, all 1500 of the must say FUCK or you are not happy. It doesn't matter what the VAST majority of the Ameican public wants. All that matters is that you get ALL the stations and make damn sure that FUCK is said on all of them.
You are right. What is the will of the people vs the will of the all-mighty Darby anyway.
I'm curious. When you call me Orwellian, are you saying that I am like George Orwell or like a character from his novel?
Don't bring them up and then hide behind them when it's suggested you might actually take some responsibility for them instead of forcing me to pay for your utter failure as a parent.
You just proved that you talk out of your ass. You have never met my kids. For all you know, I may not even have any. But here you are, telling me what a bad parent I am. You really shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. It just proves what a stupid ass you are, trying to look smart by acting arrogant.
No, you can watch anything you damn well please. Nobody is stopping you from choosing not to watch shows you do not want to. You are unwilling to take any responsibility for yourself so instead of choosing not to watch shows you find offensive you seek to grow the nanny state even more for no good purpose. You have complete control over what comes into your house. Be a man for once instead of a bitch and avail yourself of it.
No, I can't watch what I damn well please if you get your way. Will I be able to watch the Football with my family? Nope, I'll see Janet Jackson's Tits. Can I watch a music award show? Nope, Bono will say "Fucking". So, No, I will not be able to watch whatever I want because you want to take it away. See how I'm not supporting taking away ANYTHING from you. I want there to be uncensored stations. I want you to have a choice. I wouldn't dare tell you what you can and can't watch. And yet, you have no problem telling me that I should not watch the Superbowl if I'm offended by nudity. If I don't want my family seeing a guy rip the top off a lady, then I should turn the TV off because you never know when someone is going to drop the f-bomb or take off their top. I should expect to see tits, I mean, it is the Superbowl!
So yeah, you are taking channels away from me. You want to change what I have and tell me that if I don't like it, turn it off.
Because there is no legal basis for allowing a government agency to dictate morals?
Really? Go to the mall food court without pants lately? Try it and see what happens. Why is it illegal for you to show your balls to a bunch of Tweens in the food court? BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL! You don't think that spanking your monkey in front of the Orange Julius is a moral issue? Why is it illegal? While we are at the mall. Let's take your reasoning and apply it here. We take your argument about "No one MADE me turn on the TV" and "It's the parent's responsibility as to what a child sees or doesn't see" and change it to "no one MADE them go to the mall" and "the parents should have known you'd be there boxing with the bishop in the food court." (same argument, same logic, different settings) Hey, I might want to see that. Why should they ban you from doing the nuckle shuffle in front of the arcade when everyone that it offends can simply go to another store or not go to the mall at all. Sure I could go to the peep show, but that will cost me a quarter! Seeing someone sling their manly-mayonnaise should be free! Why can't those damn puritans pay for a public masturbation-free mall? Why do I have to pay when THEY are the ones with the problem! Besides, there are PLENTY of malls around town where no one is slapping the fat for all to see. Sure, there will be no guarantee that there won't be some fat guy playing pocket pool with no pockets,
But insisting that it's OK to censor broadcast media across the board simply because you can order cable to get uncensored TV is very different. Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to censored information simply because they're too poor to "switch off the filter".
On the flipside of that is Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to offensive material simply because they're too poor to "switch the filter on".
The converter, or filter as you call it, could be made available as an external module for free from the station since they will be ad revenue supported anyhow. If that's too expensive, I wouldn't mind pitching in a few bucks to subsidize it so the poor could enjoy porn as much as us "rich folk".
Isn't there someplace a little less batshit, bugfuck insane than freep that might have a copy of that testimony? I wouldn't trust those brain dead poo flinging monkey fucks to wipe their own asses, let alone quote Dee Snider correctly.
I don't know if you'd consider VH1 to be any less batshit, but HERE it is.
Trying to force everything to be kid friendly is limiting choice.
I never said that. I just want the channels that transmit openly over the air to have some standards. I don't give a shit about the rest of it.
It's not, but wanting all channels free of indecency is.
You're putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said anything about all channels.
Sort of. I think they should be free from government mandated standards; however, they should at least be honest about what their content is (which could be mandated, TV ratings are a good idea).
I mostly agree. Out of the 1500 channels that come into my home, it's nice to know that I can turn the the 5-10 that also broadcast over the air and not hear the word "fuck". As to the other 1495 channels, I don't care. I actually like the option. But if you remove these standards, you are taking away the option from me and all I'm left with is the option to turn it off. (and No, Hannah Montana is not a valid option!)
Additionally, channels will self-censor. Disney Channel is not going to show Princesses Gone Wild, just because the government is no longer breathing down their necks. They know what their customer base is, and will continue to pander to it.
And CBS won't show a topless woman during the SuperBowl Half Time Show. Bono won't say "fucking" during the Golden Globes. Nichole Richie won't say "fuck" on the Billboard Music Awards. The list goes on. Again, I don't have a problem with HBO, Showtime, or even Comedy Central, SciFi or the Cartoon Network showing whatever they want. I just want a couple of stations that are not made for "tweens" that I can watch with my family and not have to explain what a threesome is to my 5-yr old.
Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Might be a funny parody, but not really my thing, thanks.
Yeah, that would be hilarious if done right, but I don't want to see it on Fox during "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader". There are channels for that and it's great that there are, but just leave a few to us.
First, how I raise my kids is my business and mine alone. Surely you can agree to that. So leave them out of it. I don't agree with how you raise yours, but notice how I haven't brought it up. It's none of my business and how I raise mine is none of yours. If you can't debate the issues without trying to attack mer personally, please don't post at all.
you're left trying to prove that hearing dirty words on TV is in any way a bad thing. I'm not claiming it's *good*, but you're response just proves again how unfit you are to be deciding anything for anybody
I've said time and time again that I'm not trying to limit what you or anyone else can watch. However, if you release all decency rules from all TV stations, then YOU are limiting what I can watch. I'm not trying to take away unregulated stations. Why are you trying to take away my regulated ones?
All I want is for the networks that receive licenses to transmit over the airwaves unencrypted have some standards. We're talking about 5-6 channels. You keep saying that I want to censor everyone and keep anything not church-approved out of your house. I guess you say that because you can't refute my request for 5-6 channels out of the 1500 that are available. I don't care what you watch, just keep the "public" airwaves clean. That's all. Stop saying this bill censors everything, because it does not. Stop arguing against the words YOU put into my mouth and start responding to what I'm actually saying or STFU.
Not everyone can afford cable...
Then they can't afford to hear "fuck" on TV. Seeing nipples and hearing profanity is a premium service.
Not everyone can afford a new V-chip equipped TV.
No, not just cable. Usually, you have to buy premium channels to get your profanity fix.
Southpark
Of course, for anything beyond cartoon porn, you need premium channels. I would love a free porn channel, btw, just not over the public airwaves.
The market for such programming exists and therefore you will be provided with channels that are free from the things you don't want, you don't need yet another law to bring that to you. Are things really that bad now?
Right now, about all the FCC can legally do is suspend the broadcasting license of a network. All that would do is prevent these networks from broadcasting over the air, on frequencies owned by the Feds (UHF and VHF). It would not keep them from broadcasting through cable or satellite. Still, suspending the license is an extremely harsh punishment for a nipple of slip of the tongue. This bill allows for fining stations for what is essentially a breach of their license.
As for the market deciding, well, it does. That's why we have HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and so on. As for stations that broadcast over public airwaves... well those are public airwaves and CAN be controlled by the FCC, which is a public entity. Market forces affect private entities. The airwaves are public, not private.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with ANYTHING that is on cable. I pay for cable for that matter and I want the Gov't out of it!
My post was neither, really. The GGP was titled "Fucking Republicans". Well, it's not the Republicans this time. Here is what I said in the post you responded to: I was just pointing out that a Democrat led committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due. For that matter, I was agreeing with these Democrats... sorta, so you can't call it a partisan thing. I have no problem with the channels that broadcast over the airwaves having to go through government censors. We're talking about...what... five stations here? I don't give a shit about the rest. They can be all porn, all the time for all I care. For that matter, I'd probably order it! But leave just a few stations clean. Is that too much to ask?
Put your strawman away. Just because I don't want to hear "Fuck" while watching the Grammys or see a nipple during the half-time Superbowl show does not mean that I don't watch my kids. As a matter of fact, I would like to watch TV with my kids on occasion. However, I would like to watch something a bit more mature than Hannah Montana or Sponge Bob.
And just as I'll support YOUR right to watch whatever you want to watch on TV, I would hope that you would support MY right to watch what I want to watch. It's not like there is a shortage of channels out there. Why can't we keep the five or so stations that are on the public airwaves "fuck" free? You can have all the rest. Really, is that too much to ask?
What makes it more fair for everyone else to have to pay extra or opt in and you get a free ride on the free airwaves....rather than YOU paying extra and learning to program a V chip on your tv to protect your kids when you aren't going to be there to watch over their viewing content?
Because not everyone can afford a new TV equipped with a V-chip. Are you saying that only the rich can watch TV with their kids? Besides, what good is a V-chip when it blocks every show that comes on after 6:00 PM? I don't have a problem with the V-chip telling me what is family friendly. But I want there to be something left for it to select.
Why should the onus be on those to opt-in rather than you opting-out?
Who said freedom was free? You have to opt-in now, is that a problem for you? Sorry if you want to change the way the TV world works so you don't have to get up off your ass and call the cable company to order your porn. I did, why can't you?