Blogs 4 Brownback

July 11, 2007

AFA, Senator Brownback Unite to Fight Smut

The American Family Association have rallied behind the most decent, patriotic, and Christian Presidential candidate, Senator Brownback, to eliminate violence and profanity on television!

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas will soon introduce legislation to curb the excessive use of violence and the use of profanity on TV. He needs your support now!

By a 2-1 vote, a liberal federal court recently struck down the TV decency law. In essence, the court said your children (and you) don’t deserve protection from the filth on TV. Like the ACLU, the court felt that broadcast TV should be allowed to show anything anytime!

I have no idea why liberals want their children to learn to swear, blaspheme, and murder people, but they have no problem with such an education on television. Decent Americans, however, continue to rally behind the candidate who wants our children to grow up to be good Christian patriots- not foul-mouthed atheist loons who’d just as soon shove and old woman into the gutter as help her across the street.

Take action now! Support the AFA and Senator Brownback- contact your Senators today.

23 Comments »

  1. People shouldn’t have to restrict content on TV. If you feel something is inappropriate for you or your children, don’t watch it. It’s easy enough to program channel blocks on any TV made within the last 20 years. Have you ever tried just turning off the TV and spending time with your family?

    I think the problem is that too many people use TV as a babysitter, an easy and cheap way to distract their children’s attention from the parents. Children do not need to watch TV, and parents don’t need to pay $40 per month for the HBO channels. If you disagree with what’s on TV, don’t line the producers’ pockets with your money. Nobody’s forcing you to watch TV.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 11, 2007 @ 9:31 am | Reply

  2. It’s great that there’s at least one candidate that still cares about the American family. I don’t think it’s porn merchant Romney or multiple marriage Rudy. I think his initials are S.B.

    I hope everyone backs Brownback on this issue at least, even the lefties that drop by. This seems like a bipartisan issue, if ever there was one.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 11, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Reply

  3. I have written my Senator (and a few others) 17 times now using different addresses and emails. Praise the Lord we are going to clean up American Television if it’s the last thing we do.

    Praying for our next President to get this Bill through in time for the Fall season.

    Comment by Mrs. T.D. Gaines-Crockett — July 11, 2007 @ 11:01 am | Reply

  4. The only violence I want to see on TV is Pat Robertson threatening to kill the godless Hugo Chavez.

    Comment by Fascinated and Confused — July 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am | Reply

  5. Censorship is God.

    I mean, good.

    Comment by Curious — July 11, 2007 @ 11:44 am | Reply

  6. If you feel it´s innapropriate, don´t watch it. Simply as that and way more effective than any censorship can ever be. Period.

    “I have written my Senator (and a few others) 17 times now using different addresses and emails. Praise the Lord we are going to clean up American Television if it’s the last thing we do.
    Praying for our next President to get this Bill through in time for the Fall season.”

    You know that he could simply trace your IP and then sue you for trying to fraud him?

    [Ed Note: You know we have your ip address and could easily block you if you don’t use blockquote tags to make your often novel length comments more readable?]

    Comment by PG — July 11, 2007 @ 11:49 am | Reply

  7. “People shouldn’t have to restrict content on TV.”

    Why do you hate children?

    “You know that he could simply trace your IP and then sue you for trying to fraud him?”

    It’s not fraud, it’s democracy. Something you Germans have traditionally had trouble understanding.

    Comment by Sisyphus — July 11, 2007 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  8. Using a wrong identity is fraud. And I doubt that Mrs. Crockett has 17 differrent adresses and email accounts. So she´s basically lying to her Senator by imposing as someone she is not. That´s what I call a fraud.

    And what tradition?
    Failed once due to some idiots enforcing a peace contract that was, to qoute Woodrow Wilson “a reason for war” combined with a global recession and civil unrests caused by this.

    And the other time? Well, it´s still existing, it has survived being split mup into two nations and it was frontline during the Cold War without even flinching once.

    I´d say that´s not bad compared to many other countries.

    Comment by PG — July 11, 2007 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  9. PS: He doesn´t hate children. If you don´t want your child to watch it, switch the programme or turn the TV off, it´s just that simple. And it´s even more effective than all that censorship.

    Comment by PG — July 11, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  10. “Why do you hate children?”

    I guess I should have seen that one coming after “why do you hate God” and “why do you hate America”.

    Comment by Skeptic — July 11, 2007 @ 4:45 pm | Reply

  11. If you feel it´s innapropriate, don´t watch it. Simply as that and way more effective than any censorship can ever be. Period.

    If the networks had the sense that God gave geese, then we could rely on that method. However, they show very adult material at a very early hour, with so little warning. My sister had just finished up watching Jeopardy, and ran to the kitchen to put on some tea, leaving my 5-year-old niece with her coloring books. Not 30 seconds later she was summoned back to the living room by the sound of my niece’s terrified shrieking. CSI had started, and an incredibly realistic-looking eviscerated corpse was being depicted on TV. It was 7pm.

    I’m not a fan of censorship, but I do think that networks should not be showing material like that during family viewing hours. It is much too easy to stumble upon something that, with only a few seconds of viewing, can give a child nightmares for weeks.

    Comment by Lyssie — July 11, 2007 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  12. Family viewing hours? That just goes to show how out-of-hand the American public has been enthralled by TV in general. Here’s a tip: wean yourself off the TV. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. Nobody NEEDS HBO or Spike or any of the other more mature channels, so if you disagree with the programming, turn the damn thing off. Go play outside or something. Me, when I get bored I practise my violin. I don’t even have cable, and I don’t miss it one bit.

    Besides, next time you buy a TV, make sure to ask the guy at the shop if the TV has channel filtering/blocking capabilities. Every show on broadcast TV is embedded with a rating (similar to the ones on movies, such as PG13 or R). Nowadays, you can program your TV to automatically block any signal that meets or is higher than the maximum allowable rating. Therefore, if you’re watching Global News and CSI comes roaring on, the TV will actually block the channel automatically. And it’s not just modern TVs; any TV within the last 10 years at LEAST is equipped with this feature.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 11, 2007 @ 5:56 pm | Reply

  13. My American made TV was manufactured in 1986. It doesn’t have any of that fancy nerd technology you’re talking about, mAdam. Not everybody gets big fat welfare checks like you to blow on fancy Chinese made televisions and gay violins (get yourself a fiddle, man).

    Why not protect children by fixing the problem at the source? Your solution makes no sense. It’s like putting a bandaid on a severed limb. The public airwaves must air programming suitable to the public.

    You’re tossing out a useless red herring when you bring up cable. That’s got nothing to do with this. Par for the course with you, I’m afraid.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 11, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply

  14. Lyssie, 100% right as always. I wish you had more time to debate these troublemakers. I get frustrated, but you have the patience of a saint.

    Comment by Psycheout — July 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm | Reply

  15. Psst…Psycheout? A violin and a fiddle are the same instrument. They’re just given different names depending on what type of music they are used to play. (I play fiddle, but have neglected my practice as of late, as the baby has not yet developed an appreciation for a good Scottish lament…)

    I can understand your point, Adam, about filtering shows with a certain rating. However, sometimes the TV that the children are watching is not their own. We cannot automatically assume that every TV to which our children will be exposed will have filters set on. All that I ask is that networks assist us by trying to refrain from showing graphic violence and sex before 9pm. Why is that such an unreasonable thing to ask?

    Comment by Lyssie — July 11, 2007 @ 6:21 pm | Reply

  16. I agree, Lyssie. It used to be that the Networks would only show the programs with adult content after 10pm, after the children were in bed. Now, though… anything goes! The sitcoms are just raunchy– gone are the days of the “clever” double entender, now they just say it all straight out. And apparently “drama” is code for “explicit gore.” Is it really necessary for medical dramas to resort to exploding organs and fountains of blood and other bodily fluids? It never used to be. Not only is this sort of thing detrimental for our little ones, but it’s just plain unentertaining.

    Comment by Patricia — July 11, 2007 @ 6:35 pm | Reply

  17. Lyssie, you made a point that I faled to consider. You’re right in that one can control the TV at home, but a child at a friend’s house or anywhere else is still at risk. I would say that adult programming should be set at suitably adult times (like your suggested 9:00 PM), but I still disagree with the total banning of all adult programming, anytime. Then you get into the whole censorship of art quagmire.

    And Psycheout, I’ll ignore your gay violin quip this time since you’re a provocative idiot. Don’t do it again, though.

    Comment by Adam Nelson — July 11, 2007 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

  18. “Every show on broadcast TV is embedded with a rating (similar to the ones on movies, such as PG13 or R). Nowadays, you can program your TV to automatically block any signal that meets or is higher than the maximum allowable rating.”

    Not everyone has a fancy new TV. And no one with a newer TV knows how to turn that feature on, anyway (a fact that the Hollyweird trash merchants depend on). We need a legislative solution to the problem of smut on TV, not a technological one.

    Comment by Donatello — July 11, 2007 @ 6:57 pm | Reply

  19. “And Psycheout, I’ll ignore your gay violin quip this time since you’re a provocative idiot. Don’t do it again, though.”

    Or what? You’ll play your gay violin at him? Scary!

    Comment by Donatello — July 11, 2007 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

  20. Here now! I will not stand for any insults towards musical instruments. (Except for the glockenspiel, drat its shiny metal hide.)

    Comment by Lyssie — July 11, 2007 @ 7:45 pm | Reply

  21. I very much respect anyone who can play a string instrument. I’m in an orchestra here sorta close to home. (I play the clarinet…go through a ton of reeds.)Strings starting out it sounds like nails on a chalk board because one doesn’t know the bow yet… This is kinda random, but Adam, what do you like to play?

    Lyssie I very much agree…no insult to the musical instruments. Do you play anything?

    Donatello: you’re no better. Actually, someone here (Adam in this case) would probably just show you up as an ignorant fool.

    As far as the TV stuff goes. I think that harsher stuff should be saved for after nine. (no problems there) I also agree with Adam and the settigns on the TV. (and it’s not that hard to figure out…for all you technologically challenged ones…read the owner’s manual.) I don’t think that censoring/cutting anything is the answer considering First Amendment rights. That gives freedom of expression…it does not give you the right to never be offended. Simply turn off what you don’t like. If at a friend’s house ensure that they are with someone that shares some of the same values…or discuss with the parents what the kid is allowed to watch. Most parents will respect that. Also, stats tell me that the average American watches 4-6 hours of TV a day. That is too flippin’ much! Turn the stupid thing off…there are better things to do than sit around and vegitate all day long. Does that cover everything thus far?

    Comment by La Mona — July 11, 2007 @ 9:40 pm | Reply

  22. I agree with Pyche: “Why not protect children by fixing the problem at the source?” Children should just never leave the house. And, just to be sure, never sent to school. Home schooling is the way but I suggest delaying reading skills until the child is 20 or 30. That way he will be science-proof and atheism-proof during his impressionable years. (And when I write “him,” I mean “her” too. So don’t pull that feminist crap on me!)

    Now as much as I love my Bible, I think children should be protected from some of its racier passages. The less your growing 20 or 30-year-old knows about sex the better. So stop the television, stop the newspaper, stop the books from decaying The Family.

    Comment by i_capricorn — July 13, 2007 @ 11:46 pm | Reply

  23. Also, God forgive me, I love a little gay violin now and then myself.

    Comment by i_capricorn — July 13, 2007 @ 11:49 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: