Our cosmopolitan elites have embraced the smutty Fox cartoon "Family Guy." A month ago, oh-so-sophisticated National Public Radio used their parody song "Everybody Poops" to report on Julius Genachowski, the incoming chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Perhaps it was NPR’s way of welcoming in an Obama appointee who everyone expects will "lighten up" at the FCC and let Hollywood go wild with its "poetic license."
Now it’s ABC’s "Nightline" paying homage to "Family Guy," and in the process, telling us a lot more about "Nightline" than about this stupid show. They presented the show’s lame-brained "mastermind" Seth MacFarlane as a man of incredible talent, even a genius. At the top of their April 6 show, anchor Martin Bashir cooed: "Funny Guy. No topic is too taboo, no subject off limits for this critically acclaimed cartoonist."
"Critically acclaimed" – remember that phrase. That may be the DVD-sales lingo that MacFarlane wants, but it’s a stretch. When "Family Guy" first debuted in 1999, Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales called it "utterly excremental." Last fall, a Radar Online critic dismissed the show as "increasingly forced and tired. In short, the show sucks."
But to ABC, this was a heartwarming story of a Connecticut boy who grew rich by never maturing past the seventh grade. Bashir toasted MacFarlane as the story began: "His sense of humor may not appeal to everyone. It's often base, insulting and blasphemous, but to many, it's also the stuff of comedic genius and at just 35, it's made him the highest paid TV writer in history."
MacFarlane reportedly signed a $100 million contract with Fox and is now working on a third cesspool of a cartoon series.
The reporter for this segment, titled "Seriously Funny," was ABC’s Bill Weir, last seen goofily hailing Barack Obama’s inauguration as a day when "even the seagulls must have been awed." Weir didn’t come to this interview like it was time for a "60 Minutes" interrogation of an oil company CEO. Apparently, the more MacFarlane pollutes the airwaves, the more reporters like Weir will merely bow and scrape.
"In a town full of talent, Seth MacFarlane is a rare quadruple threat," Weir exclaimed. "A guy who can write comedy, score music, animate characters and provide their voices." He then repeated "at age 35, he is reportedly the highest paid writer/producer in television history." Weir listed the show’s protesters, but "his shows raise the most ire with religious and parental watchdog groups. If there is a taboo line, chances are MacFarlane has leaped over it."
This is where ABC tossed aside any semblance of fairness in favor of a one-sided puff piece. Weir chose not to interview a single religious spokesman or parental watchdog. The only man given a voice was MacFarlane. Weir also went too easy when it came to chronicling how low "Family Guy" can go.
He smiled as he said, "I just started jotting some of the topics covered and some of the jokes made at the expense of paraplegics, the deaf, pedophilia, bestiality, AIDS. You've got an opera version of the Nicole Simpson murders. The JFK Pez dispenser, where candy comes out of his wounds. Where is the line for you? Is there a line, or is that the point?"
MacFarlane said he regretted the JFK Pez dispenser. Apparently, there is a line, at least when you’re interviewed by ABC News: Don’t insult the Kennedys.
As for anything else, in ABC’s eyes, it’s "comedic genius." Take the March 8 episode that featured the baby eating horse semen; that suggested Ronald Reagan had sex with Mikhail Gorbachev; that showed the 11-way gay orgy scene; and played it for laughs when a horse trampled a class of deaf second-graders at the race track. Weir left those trampled "taboos" out of the discussion.
Fed these softballs, MacFarlane swung for the bleachers. "It's not like television is a God-given right. You hear the Parents Television Council raving about ‘Family Guy’ did this. Nobody is forcing you to watch this show. They say ‘Is this taste?’ No, it's not. It's terrible taste. That's what's funny."
Weir laughed and replied: "They make the argument...with an animated show, a kid’s going to stop the remote." MacFarlane insisted "you can’t hold a whole medium hostage" because animation appeals to children.
Instead, ABC allowed MacFarlane to make an unrebutted argument that the censors are arbitrary and ridiculous. Weir wrapped up the interview by warmly noting how "Family Guy" was a show Coca-Cola used to avoid with its advertising, but now "Baby Stewie stars in Coke ads alongside Charlie Brown and Underdog." Just like Coke, ABC is defining MacFarlane’s deviancy down, welcoming his radioactive TV waste into the "mainstream."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe it's time for a boycott.
April 11, 2009 - 15:44 ET by bubbasterBrent,
Maybe now is the time to disallow anyone associated with the Media Research Center from contributing to the Fox News Network. Brit Hume enjoyed the daily briefings and talking points which made his newsday hum along smoothly. You have the necessary power to boycott Rupert Murdoch's Network until something is done about Family Guy's Seth McFarlane. Is it too much to ask Rupert for an audience? The moral decay of this society is represented in programs like Family Guy, South Park & The Simpsons. Enough is enough. It's time to conjure up the strength and forces to battle against this evil decay.
BOYCOTT FOX!!!
BUBBA
Liberal Comedians
April 11, 2009 - 15:59 ET by Hack CaffertyAt least Seth McFarlen knows his job is to make people laugh. Ya he writes in cheap shots about conservatives, Christians, and the state of Texas but the liberal charecter on the show is the dog. the freaking talking Dog.
McFarlen is better than Stewart of Colbert or Seth Meyers is because he realizes his job is to make people laugh. If he was preaching no one would watch.
Actually, he does preach.
April 11, 2009 - 16:15 ET by SlyrrActually, he does preach. And I stopped watching the moment he started. Speaking personally through the dog character, Seth frequently preaches anti-religious sermons and intones that anyone who belives in God is foolish and stupid.
It's no accident why he hates religion - since religion preaches self-restraint and repentance while his characters are frequently alcoholic, drug-addicted, foul-mouthed, pro-pregnancy, pro-gay, anti-marriage liberal douchebags.
If any of those descriptions do NOT apply to things which the characters on his show have promulgated, let me know. And BTW: 'it's just for humor' will be rejected as an excuse forthwith because none of those things are funny.
Hmmm, some topics for
April 11, 2009 - 15:48 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsHmmm, some topics for McFarlane that he will find too, too taboo:
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
It Seems . . .
April 11, 2009 - 19:15 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . MacFarlane would never do those topics because, at heart, he is a coward. It's easy to take cheap shots at people and organizations that cannot physically harm someone. It takes true courage to make fun of totally evil people. (Yes, Hussein and his beeyotch are some of those.)
Wrong
April 12, 2009 - 20:43 ET by ImAllRightApparently Muslims have plenty to take exception with as well.
http://ashadu.blogspot.com/2008/06/saying-goodbye-to-family-guy-asalaam.html
"In a recent episode, they showed Jesus - Isa in Arabic and a beloved Muslim prophet - arguing with Joseph (Yusuf). When Joseph says no to one of Jesus's request, the latter says, "Fine, you're not my real dad anyway," and promptly picks up the phone (an interesting anachronism) and calls his "real father" aka Allah (SWT). This is where it becomes absolutely loathsome. Not only do the creators of Family Guy depict Allah (SWT) as a man, but they show Him in bed with a woman and having an argument over wearing a condom."
Don't post unless you have a clue as to what you're posting about.
and
Brent, please, kindly remove the stick lodged up your butt. Its sucking all of the fun from the room.
Its a stupid cartoon, no need to get all huffy and puffy once a month with these silly rants you go on (Brent).
Obviously your self pity party against South Park failed so now you aim for another goofy cartoon?
This is what you choose to spend your time on? Seriously?
Pointless. With all the junk coming from ABC, NBC, and CBS, and this is what we get.
Pointless.
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." - Ronald Reagan
Apparently, Family Guy is to
April 11, 2009 - 15:53 ET by balboaApparently, Family Guy is to Brent Bozell as Rush is to the MSM. It's good that Brent's here to be our moral arbiter...
I don't think it is a
April 11, 2009 - 16:44 ET by mostlymoderateI don't think it is a question of morals. I think it is a question of decency which is set by a national standard. We can't show Janet Jackson's lil nipple but we allow Family Guy episodes that show butt-raping, oral sex, etc.? That doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think Bozell is trying to be our moral compass, he is simply trying to open the topic up for debate. We can't just allow Hollywood to show anything they want on television; otherwise, look forward to 24/7 pornographic thrillers.
I don't honestly believe
April 12, 2009 - 13:57 ET by balboaI don't honestly believe Bozell wants to debate this issue. He'd like this show to disappear.
Wow, you just caught on?
April 12, 2009 - 17:16 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltHe'd like to debate the issue of the show disappearing, with the ultimate goal of it disappearing.
After all, isn't that the point of a debate? To win the other side over to your point of view?
Unless you're a lib, in which case you wouldn't want to impose your hegemonic influence on anyone, whereas a mutual understanding and appreciation of the other person's point of view in a supportive atmosphere free of any undue influence or taking advantage of the other person's inherent weakness of poor debating skills or as an oppressed minority while simultaneously advancing your own greedy self interests would be the ultimate goal, so long as anyone involved is not offended by anything you say, keeping in mind the latest list of approved offenses and oppressed individuals or groups that have been wronged or feel that they have been wronged, or if someone else feels that they have been wronged, whether the wronged party knows it or not, notwithstanding previous generations of wronged persons who can no longer speak to their own oppresions.
Have I got that about right?
His don't stink
April 11, 2009 - 16:13 ET by WesenThe Press describes Obama in the same way and gives him the same pass as he is "a genius, critically acclaimed and a guy who can write".
Though Republicans would call him "utterly excremental, insulting and blasphemous" Bashir proclaims "His don't stink".
MacFarlane needs a manatee.
April 11, 2009 - 16:22 ET by ApacheMy beef with this show is that it really is dumb and hacky. Sure there is enough far left spew to guarantee a DailyShow audience that will faux laugh at anything you can insert "Bush" into. So they have that audience to rely on even when they otherwise bomb. But even putting ideology aside, it just sucks. I watched it when it first aired on Fox. I noticed the only funny parts were related to flashbacks to things I remember in the 70's and 80's. It wasn't that the show was entertaining. It was just the gags related to nostalgia. Often these had nothing to do with the plot and yet were the only parts of the show anyone remembered. The Simpsons and South Park have taken shots at this show due to that fact. There is a South Park episode that hits them right between the eyes for using that gimmick while also mocking the over sensitivity toward the Mohamed cartoons.
Family Guy rips off material from the Simpsons and South Park. The Stewie character is even said to be ripped off of "Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth". Family Guy hardly gives any credit to things it takes from other shows. In one scene they had the "headmaster of the New York School for the Hard-of-Hearing" yelling stuff at one of the characters. I thought that was original and laughed at it. Then I watch the first season of SNL on DVD and realized it was a running gag from SNL. Family Guy did use the same actor as a hat tip but otherwise it felt like a complete rip off. I've seen them do that several times. So a show who's audience is probably under 25 years of age is considered brilliant yet simply recycles material from before it's audience was born.
My beef with this show is
April 11, 2009 - 16:33 ET by balboaMy beef with this show is that it really is dumb and hacky.
Exactly.
Agreed but (and this is a BIG butt)
April 11, 2009 - 22:32 ET by MightyMouth..the "fat guys" episode was hilarious!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes, his show is full of rip-offs
April 12, 2009 - 09:03 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltThat "JFK Pez dispenser" is a perfect example. The original (and more fitting) joke was a Nicole Simpson Pez dispenser. I forget the joke in it's entirety...but there are a lot of comedians who HATE this rip-off artist.
MacFarlane is an intolerant scumball. I watched him a few months back interviewing some people who objected to his show. I didn't see the whole thing, so I don't know the full premise of the show or what network it was on, but it went like this: MacFarlane was interviewing average people. The false premise of the one-on-one interviews was that Seth was a pollster interviewing these people on comments that they had recorded while watching one of his FG episodes. These were all decent people who objected to the type of humor and pure filth of the show. Essentially, MacFarlane slyly made fun of them and mocked them. In typical MacFarlane type of approach, the interviewees were not in on the joke, and didn't know who he was, so he took what opportunity he could to take real people's honest opinions and laugh at them with the audience, poke holes in their religious beliefs and so on. All while he sat there and smirked. I'd like to kick him in the jimmies.
But...although he IS a scumball, at least when questioned about kids seeing his trash, he DIDN'T recite the typical liberal line, which goes something like, "Kids already see this stuff and hear about it at school..we should open a dialogue with them about previously taboo subjects.."
This whole flap reminds me
April 11, 2009 - 17:32 ET by fitzfongThis whole flap reminds me of the "Last Temptation of Christ" controversy. A lousy movie that would have been an even bigger failure had it not been given free publicity by uptight protesters, was made somewhat relevant because the media saw an opportunity to use the picketers to promote the film. Family Guy is a poorly written, derivative unfunny cartoon that manages to remain relevant because it gets a truckload of free promotion from media types trying to capitalize on the fact that social conservatives suddenly become big government nannies because it takes lame shots at religion. If the likes of Brent Bozell just changed the channel and stopped inadvertantly promoting a self-important douche like Seth MacFarlane by writing about "tastelessness", that show would go off the air based on the fact that it sucks.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Off....Switch....
April 11, 2009 - 17:53 ET by ColdsnapI respect that you folks don't like this show. My mother can't stand it, being an upright Catholic woman. But for Pete's sake, just turn the bloody show off and be done with it. I don't see you folks blasting shows like Reaper or Supernatural for their anti-religious themes. Why is that?
Honestly, religion does not equal conservative. Once I realised that the gold in the decor at my church was real gold, but that they wanted me to help the poor with my monthly tithe, I started a 3 year slide into the agnostic that I am today. I love that others follow an organised religion, because it keeps them from killing me and stealing my stuff. But I don't go around forcing church-goers to watch Family Guy, so why would you take up arms against something I enjoy?
Turn the other cheek and ignore the show. It obviously doesn't need your viewership to survive. Simply discussing it here week after week does nothing but increase the show's SEO hit rating...unless that's what you're secretly wanting. =)
We MUST stop this man before he does this again!
2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcP9pXj-0Ao
Great post coldsnap
April 11, 2009 - 18:04 ET by shawn228The people that are all up in arms about Family guy are the ones that want to take away your rights to see what is on tv.
They are doing this by threatening adverstisers. I'm not saying that they do not have a right to do so, but hopefully because of people like you, they are nothing more than tiny thorn in the advertisers side.
He had my vote
shawn ~ your first statement was false.
April 12, 2009 - 12:43 ET by pahuber"The people that are all up in arms about Family guy are the ones that want to take away your rights to see what is on tv. They are doing this by threatening adverstisers."
So standing up and telling advertisers you will not buy their products for sponsoring anti-Christian BS is the equivalent of wanting to "take away your rights to see what is on tv."
Wow. I've never seen something like this put in such a negative light. Maybe you could get a job at MSNBC.
pahuber
To me it is pahuber
April 12, 2009 - 13:08 ET by shawn228Its like the libs that want to bring in the fairness doctrine. Hey Rush is too successful, lets force the radio stations to put liberal pov or let the radio stations fold.
If someone wants to boycott something let them, but to trying to bring together a bunch of people to threaten advertisers to not support something you don't have to watch is silly.
He had my vote
and shawn
April 12, 2009 - 13:16 ET by botgyour continued complaining about US citizens exercising their first ammendment rights is downright scary
for you see the one issue is using goobermint minions to enforce a doctrine while the second is a movement of private citizens exercising their Constitutional rights
we get it you want your porn
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
This has nothing to do with porn
April 12, 2009 - 13:27 ET by shawn228I told you before, nowhere have I said they do not have a right to do so. I am pointing out how dangerous people like that are. The Klan has their rights too, but I believe I have a right to point out how ridiculous their caus is
"for you see the one issue is using goobermint minions to enforce a
doctrine while the second is a movement of private citizens exercising
their Constitutional rights "
Not true, after the Janet Jackson fiasco, the Government with lots of push from the PTC raised the fine from like 30, 000 to 300, 000.
Not sure the exact amount, but it was very significant. I don't even watch Family guy on a regular basis, I might have seen about 3 episodes, but it is hardy porn.
He had my vote
Shawn ;^ )
April 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by botgyou know i'll have my say on this issue every time i see it. Just as i know you will do the same. We disagree on it, are you going to Noel's Masters chat?
http://www.chatzy.com/143483796137
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Hi Bruce
April 12, 2009 - 13:42 ET by shawn228The wife says I have to vacuum the house, be back in a half hr to check out Noels chat.
He had my vote
Hi Shawn
April 12, 2009 - 13:55 ET by RukusI just finished cooking breakfast (for lunch) for my lovely wife and mom-in-law. Yummy eggs, REAL grits, sausage and whole wheat toast! THAT gets me out of doing the rug sucky-machinge thingy. Cookin' is way more fun than vacuuming (whatever that is). : ) Took an hour (real grits take a while) but it is always worth it. I hope you are having a Blessed Easter my friend.
Gary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
Shawn ~ are you comparing the Klan to people like the AFA?
April 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by pahuber"I am pointing out how dangerous people like that are. The Klan has
their rights too, but I believe I have a right to point out how
ridiculous their caus is."
I just do not see how you can even make this comparison.
I normally don't make such outrageous comparions pahuber
April 12, 2009 - 14:40 ET by shawn228......but since many have no problem comparing Obama to Hitler, comparing the PTC to the Klan is very tame in comparision.
He had my vote
if Johnny jumped off a bridge
April 12, 2009 - 14:44 ET by botgwould you?
geeesh
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
If Johnny jumped off a bridge
April 12, 2009 - 16:05 ET by shawn228I probably would not, because I cannot swim very well and I am afraid of heights.
If Johnny bashed the GOP for 8 straight years because they were the ones in charge, I'm sure you would not want to emulate him eh Bruce?
He had my vote
ooooh Shawn
April 12, 2009 - 16:15 ET by botgnice try at the dodge, you almost had me. You are the one who said it's okay for you to use the Klan comparison because someone used a Hitler comparison.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Bruce
April 12, 2009 - 16:20 ET by shawn228Umm what dodge?, you asked me if I would jump off the bridge if Johnny did?
I clearly said "probably not" I answered your question, now if Johnny slammed the GOP because they were in office for 8 yrs straight, would you do the same thing as Johnny to the Democrats? Yes or no will do just fine Bruce.
He had my vote
Shawn
April 12, 2009 - 16:25 ET by botgi will express my opinion, if Obama doubles the debt and screws the economy up i'll note it.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Well thx Bruce
April 12, 2009 - 16:29 ET by shawn228For answering the question "sort of" :-)
He had my vote
well Shawn
April 12, 2009 - 16:44 ET by botgi won't lie and say B-HO lied when he didn't if thats what you mean
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Shawn,
April 12, 2009 - 20:50 ET by UpNorthI think you got your comparisons mixed. It was the left that compared Bush to Hitler, time after time, for 8 years. I've never heard the Obama-Hitler comparison, other than to compare the tactics employed. If comparing the "Civilian Defense Force" to the SS is comparing Obama to Hitler, I think it's a fair comparison.
Hi Upnorth
April 12, 2009 - 22:00 ET by shawn228I am on this site a little bit too much, so maybe I see a few more threads than you
Obama/Hitler1
Obama/Hitler2
Obama Hitler3
I found these in less than 5 minutes, maybe I can come up with some stronger examples, but I'm pretty tired. Must be getting old.
He had my vote
Shawn ~ these are two different matters though. One is the left
April 12, 2009 - 13:21 ET by pahuberusing Gov't to try to achieve their means by regulation. The other deals with private citizens (not involved in Gov't) trying to influence sponsors. The two methods are very different.
Using Gov't to influence and people trying to make a difference... not using the Gov't.
"but to trying to bring together a bunch of people to threaten advertisers to not support something you don't have to watch is silly."
First, define threatening... if you mean anything other than not buying their products I will agree with you. If you mean that writing a tactful letter to the sponsor telling them that you will not purchase a product based on something they knowingly sponsor as a threat I will have to disagree.
I guess we disagree that boycotts are silly... IMHO it is one of the few tools that law abiding people have in trying to influence sponsors... unless you sit on the sponsors board of directors.
Boycotts have been very successful: Ford, McDonalds, K-Mart, etc.
Government does get involved pahuber
April 12, 2009 - 13:34 ET by shawn228In 2006 when everyone was up in arms about 1 aerola which was almost competely covered.
Congress.... Democrats and Republicans alike raised the fine for indecency from $32,000 to $325, 000
This is the reason, why my favorite radio personality Howard Stern is no longer on terrestrial radio. He is frightend of the fines
Mr. Bozell and the PTC are still trying to convince congress to go back 6 yrs to fine a channel for Bono saying the F word at some awards show.
Ann Coutler offends me, pahuber. I am not a big fan. However I will crawl on broken glass for her right to be on the air.
He had my vote
I am merely supporting writing letters to sponsors we may
April 12, 2009 - 13:42 ET by pahuberdisagree with to make our point. I am not advocating raising fines on anyone or bringing in the FCC, Feds or anyone else. I do not see groups like the AFA or others advocating much of anything else... and I would not put them in the same group of dangerous people like the Klan.
anything that threatens our rights to watch what we want
April 12, 2009 - 14:31 ET by shawn228...to me is a threat to free speech, it does not matter if it is Rush, Keith Olbermann, or South Park.
No where am I saying the PTC should not excercise their free speech, I am just pointing out how silly and dangerous and slippery slope it may be.
He had my vote
When did this right come into being?
April 12, 2009 - 15:39 ET by UnsaneSo, you think you have a right to watch what you want now?
Hmm. I'll pass that on to disgruntled fans of Life on Mars. Maybe they can tell ABC about this right, and thus force them to put the show back into production.
...to me is a threat to free speech, it does not matter if it is Rush, Keith Olbermann, or South Park. Again, I fail to see where anyone here is advocating government censorship here. And no one has an absolute right to free speech, anyways, as you define it. If Limbaugh can't bring in the audience and ratings that he does, he won't be on the air. Ditto Olberdork, and South Park, and countless other shows and programs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Hi Unsane
April 12, 2009 - 16:02 ET by shawn228I believe I said that I am going to keep our converations on chatzy and not on the boards.
but, since you are not accusing me of whining or something else I have not done as long as you are civil I will debate this with you.
Nowhere have I said we deserve an absolute right to free speech,
" If Limbaugh can't bring in the audience and ratings that he does, he won't be on the air. Ditto Olberdork, and South Park, and countless other shows and programs."
I agree with you, ratings are the most important thing, obviously the show is popular and turning a profit, that is why it is on the air. The PTC is trying to get people together to take away something millions of people enjoy. That is totally different that complaining about the quality of a show.
He had my vote
Hello shawn
April 12, 2009 - 17:35 ET by UnsaneI believe I said that I am going to keep our converations on chatzy and not on the boards. (scratches head) So why are you responding to me? And does that mean I am not allowed to post responses to your posts, by way of some edict from On High?
The PTC is trying to get people together to take away something millions of people enjoy. That is totally different that complaining about the quality of a show. Is it? To me, as long as they don't go crying to the government...what's the problem?
Sounds to me like you cannot handle a negative reaction to what you like. Not everyone is going to like what you like, and television shows will elicit different forms of reactions, as it IS a form of art/entertainment. You simply have to accept that.
Perfect example: around 1987 or so, a pop band from the UK called Simply Red put out a song called "Money's Too Tight to Mention". It was a complete slam on Reagan and was released as a single in the United States aroud that time. They had other radio hits at the time and I could argue that at least at that time, they had millions who enjoyed their work, at minimum playing on the radio. Yet, that particular song had a very short shelf life. Why? Because it angered a lot of people, who called a lot of radio stations across the country, who eventually pulled the song from rotation.
I see this PTC as the exact some thing. And so long as they aren't using the force of law...then, what is the problem? Besides, YOU are voting against them and for your favorite programs by coming on here and talking about them, and watching them to begin with.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
April 12, 2009 - 19:35 ET by shawn228I love debates, I don't like accusations. Which is something that you have not done today, so therefore I am game.
I admit that it scares me to that PTC might one day get enough power to acheive there goal, that is why I am speaking against it.
I would be saying the same thing if advertisers were trying to threaten Rush's advertisers.
He had my vote
Shawn...
April 13, 2009 - 18:11 ET by UnsaneI love debates, I don't like accusations. Which is something that you have not done today, so therefore I am game. This I don't get, so I wil leave this alone.
I admit that it scares me to that PTC might one day get enough power to acheive there goal, that is why I am speaking against it. As long as they do not aim for government censorship, I am not losing a minute of sleep at night. In fact I kinda like this. If groups of private citizens are debating this topic...isn't that the essence of freedom of speech?
Watch all you want! That goes for everybody. Just don't be all shocked, horrified, and outraged that not everyone feels the same as you do.
Another example. You know I am a headbanger. When Slayer recorded Reign In Blood in 1986, their original label (I believe CBS) refused to distribute it. This primarily due to the opening track, "Angel of Death": three guesses about what that song is about. That label had every right to say no. Slayer just looked elsewhere and eventually the album - perhaps the most bloodthirsty in all of heavy metal - was distributed by Def Jam Records. Did the government get involved at all? No. No need.
I would be saying the same thing if advertisers were trying to threaten Rush's advertisers. Short memory, perhaps? Back around 1994 Rush did advertisements for Pizza Hut and on behalf of Florida Orange Juice. And people have every right to whine and complain about Rush to advertisers all they want. (Of course, I have defended him on these boards, just as you have defended Family Guy. But then, as Rex Murphy said in a rant about a different episode of censorship in Canada: "That's freedom of speech. That's democracy. That's the messy business we call 'the exchange of ideas and opinions'".)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I would tend to agree if it had something to do with having the
April 12, 2009 - 18:03 ET by pahuberGov't involved. You may not like it, but it is totally first amendment involvement... so slippery slope would be hard to result in anything. Anyhow... we will have to disagree.
omgosh
April 12, 2009 - 13:37 ET by katainkentboycotting is nothing like fairness doctrine.
If I had a complete list of every company that sponsored the MSM I'd do my darnedest to make sure I never bought any of their products or used any of their services.
GE is at the top of my list.
This show is an annoyance. I exercise the off button. In fact my whole CATV is unplugged.
Its called voting with your dollars. Its a right that should be exercised at every opportunity.
What's the problem?
April 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by UnsaneSorry, Shawn. It is amazing to me you demand that everyone and anyone who objects to a work of art, music, or television programs, or whatever, completely SHUT UP about it. Apparently you believe the only people entitled to a voice about such things are the people who like (fill in the blank).
I am of a different view. If people wish to write advertisers or so on, or take things through private means, what's the problem? As long as it isn't the government stepping in and doing the censoring, what's the problem?
The example you use, for instance, of the fairness doctrine, is quite poor. The fairness doctrine is an idea that is rooted in law - not in, say, groups of citizens writing to advertisers.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~Shawn
April 12, 2009 - 13:34 ET by choselife3xTV watching isn't a 'right'. Broadcast stations have the 'right' to air material that they think will make them money, just as book publishers have the 'right' to select what material they choose to print. Complaining that you didn't get to see a particular show because the network didn't air it is like complaining that you didn't get to read a book that a publisher chose not to print/distribute.
Chose
April 12, 2009 - 13:38 ET by shawn228Nowhere on this thread have I complained about someone not airing something I wanted to watch. I might have on some other thread, but not once have I ever said they did not have the right.
All I am saying is I do not believe in the PTC and their caus.
He had my vote
~shawn
April 12, 2009 - 15:12 ET by choselife3xMy post was in response to yours that is now waaay up the thread.
The people that are all up in arms about Family guy are the ones that want to take away your rights to see what is on tv.
Well chose
April 12, 2009 - 16:35 ET by shawn228Nowhere did I complain on this thread about a television station not showing a certain television show, waaaay up the thread, or waaaay down the thread.
He had my vote
~Never mind
April 13, 2009 - 08:49 ET by choselife3xYou're still misconstruing my point, but I'm not interested enough in the subject to explain my analogy in detail. *shrug*
Get a grip
April 11, 2009 - 18:07 ET by Kelly72"Ignoring" works more than one way. If you do not like people discussing the matter, you are free to ignore it all and move on...
Good point Kelly
April 12, 2009 - 10:52 ET by Rukus: )
Gary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
Oh, by all means, discuss
April 12, 2009 - 12:03 ET by ColdsnapOh, by all means, discuss ways to block your own family from seeing content you don't approve of. VChips, Cable boxes with content locks, etc.
But when you start talking about 'burning books' you don't approve of, I'm going to stand before you and say 'No Sir'.
We MUST stop this man before he does this again!
2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcP9pXj-0Ao
Relax. :)
April 12, 2009 - 15:31 ET by Kelly72Burning books? Talk about a cliche. :)
It would be nice if everyone would try to deal with the matter at hand. Anyway, you can certainly say "No Sir" if you feel the need, but a better approach would be to engage in reasonable discussion, rather than try to demonize people who see the matter of rights and responsibilities just a bit differently and want to discuss it.
Brent...I love you big guy.
April 11, 2009 - 18:14 ET by superconI hope you know that but I have to say that I watch Family Guy all the time.It's freakin' funny.They insult everybody.It's hilarious.Just for the record.The baby character Stewie is more of a forty year old man than a baby.He is like Niles Crane from Frasier.
I understand that you don't like the show but no one is forced to watch it.It primarily appears on cable t.v. which people pay for.It may be a cartoon but it is an adult comedy.There are many t.v. shows I think are ridiculous and I choose not to watch them.
That's how I see it.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
My objection is that
April 11, 2009 - 18:34 ET by ChaitealoverFamily Guy reruns are shown on over-the-air TV here in San Diego at 6:00 in the evening, when Mom may be so busy fixing dinner that she doesn't realize what the kids are watching.
If you think Mom should watch the kids all the time, and at the same time cook, clean, and hold down a full-time job, you've never raised more than one kid at a time. They move fast.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
My kids cannot access this
April 11, 2009 - 21:42 ET by Interested and concerned CDNMy kids cannot access this show on our TV. They cannot access 95% of the internet and I log where they've been. Your excuses make liberals GLAD, it shows them they are winning. It's a long term strategy, decades long and all you have to do is "hold the fort" for 14-17 years.
Perhaps MY kids will be fighting the good fight AGAINST YOURS ya big whiner.
CDN...Oh you are cute by
April 11, 2009 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerCDN...
Oh you are cute by half...
Your excuses make liberals GLAD, it shows them they are winning.
What the heck is this suppose to mean...just exactly what do you think you are winning?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
hehe BT, pointed
April 11, 2009 - 22:21 ET by Interested and concerned CDNhehe BT, pointed conditionally accepted. I am winning, albeit in my very small corner of influence. No "breach" here.
CDN... Once again...just
April 11, 2009 - 22:26 ET by bigtimerCDN...
Once again...just exactly what are you winning?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
ummm...the culture
April 11, 2009 - 22:30 ET by Interested and concerned CDNummm...the culture war...lol.
CDN... Doubling down on
April 11, 2009 - 22:44 ET by bigtimerCDN...
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
BT ~ easy question. We are winning our own children's minds.
April 12, 2009 - 12:48 ET by pahuberThat is exactly what the liberals want to gain.
bt ~ so fighting the culture war is "doubling down on stupid"?
April 12, 2009 - 12:52 ET by pahuberI really think you need to re-address this issue and see what others are trying to say.
I made no excuses
April 13, 2009 - 00:43 ET by ChaitealoverI don't care if Family Guy is on late in the evening, I do care if it is on over-the-air tv at dinner time. It's not an excuse to say that not everyone can spend every waking hour monitoring what's on the tv [some people have the tv somewhere other than the kitchen or laundry room], and not everyone has the kind of equipment that can block certain programs. Once in a while, the station programmers should use their alleged brains, exercise some restraint, and put adult shows on later in the evening.
BTW, my "kids" are 46 and 52 years old, and their kids are 19 & 20, and all are actively engaged in 'fighting the good fight' against our countries enemies, foreign and domestic. None of them count a tv show as anything that important. As adults, any of them can watch Family Guy any time they want [but they all think it's trash so they don't]. I just don't think any kid should turn on what they think is a kid's show and be exposed to this kind of programming without warning.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
it's a TV show...
April 11, 2009 - 22:24 ET by Ron_servativeFamily Guy IS funny, they make fun of everything. It's crude comedy for teens (which most guys are until the day they die).
It's got it all, fart jokes included. Yeah it has some things that are offensive OOoooOOooOoo, grow a pair.
We need to make up our minds... we do want government controlling our lives...what we see, hear and do.
OR WE DON'T
Unless I missed something, I don't recall
April 12, 2009 - 09:24 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltanyone asking for the FCC to intervene other than to treat all equally. If Joe Camel was too much like a cartoon that children would identify with to their detriment, why is Family Guy "just a cartoon", and "you can’t hold a whole medium hostage"?
The objections are for the crappy content of the show, and from my point of view at least; the way in which "Nightline" portrays this filth as "avante garde" and "comic genious" without hearing from any who object to it and why.
It's this pattern from the MSM that marginalizes and trivializes the moral objections and firm beliefs that a great majority of Americans hold. Theirs is the truth, the light and the way, and if you don't agree, you are to be ignored. We see it time and again, how these "newsie" shows and short inserts into "news" broadcasts are nothing more than pushing their agenda. If it were truly handled professionally, they would show the other side FAIRLY. Think of how the MSM is handling tax revolt day coming up and contrast that with how they handled one busload of ACORN protesters showing up at an AIG execs house. Tell me they are not willfully pushing an agenda.
One more thing...isn't it curious how MacFarlane says, "It's not like television is a God-given right." Hmm...what exactly are you inferring Seth?
Family Guy
April 11, 2009 - 20:57 ET by jcheneyMonte Kuligowski wrote a piece similar to yours...
http://www.duelingna...
Family Guy
April 11, 2009 - 20:58 ET by jcheneyMonte Kuligowski wrote a piece similar to yours...
http://www.duelingna...
Geeez!
April 11, 2009 - 21:34 ET by Interested and concerned CDNIt's a cartoon for adults people! Don't like? Don't watch. As Homer Simpson says: "I'm between 25 and 54 and white, everyone listens to me."
If your child is watching this, or Southpark you are a very bad poor parent!
End. Of. Story.
Mmmm...
April 11, 2009 - 22:24 ET by Kelly72"Don't like? Don't watch."
Okay, well, that seems to be repeated ad nauseum by various people for some reason... yet it really has nothing to do with the point. The article is about bias... that is, ABC and Nightline promoting the show, as well as ridiculing those who don't like it, without allowing anyone with any differing viewpoint to have a few moments of time. That's bias... and exposing that is what this site is all about.
That does not permit the FCC to decide not to enforce
April 12, 2009 - 09:38 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltcommunity standards. It's on an over-the-air broadcast channel, not cable. Tell me that if these subjects were discussed on, say, Friends, that the FCC wouldn't just shut it right down:
bestiality
a baby eating horse sperm
anal sex
an adult man seducing a child
graphic depictions of sex
overt alcohol abuse as humor
constant jokes about a crippled person
glory holes
Suggesting that it's tolerable broadcast on an entity under the jurisdiction of the FCC because it's a cartoon for adults is another way of saying that you have to either "get it" or your opinion is not worth listening to.
Is that your point?
Your Points Are Rendered Mute By The Actual Episode...
April 13, 2009 - 22:03 ET by The7SticksFor example:
bestiality : It was a brain-damaged horse licking Peter's bare ass the way a dog affectionately licks their master's elbow or face.
a baby eating horse sperm : Stewie may or may not have eaten a bowl of cereal filled with horse semen. The humor involved the breeding of that horse, which meant filling dozens of milk bottles with the horse semen and mixing them in the refrigerator with the bottles of milk. It's up to your imagination whether Stewie ate horse semen in his cereal or not; the humor is seeing Stewie's aghast face having realized he may or may not have eaten horse sperm.
anal sex : It always happens off-screen, so it's usually implied rather than depicted
an adult man seducing a child : You mean an old man seducing a teenage boy, which is one of the funnier plot lines in the series. My late mother loved the humor in that plotline.
graphic depictions of sex : None whatsoever. Lot's of naked fat guys though their genitalia can never be seen, because that would violate obscenity standards. Ah, what am I thinking, I just saw Watchmen over the weekend, and when you've seen one blue penis, you've seen them all.)
overt alcohol abuse as humor : And Andy Capp isn't?
constant jokes about a crippled person : You mean the tough guy in the wheelchair who is paraplegic yet seems to overpower even the most able-bodied opponents?
glory holes : I don't even know what a glory hole is and I'm twenty-two.
So in conclusion, those points are rendered mute based off of actually seeing the episode. What I'm surprised about is that not one has mentioned the graphic violence in the episode, most notably the dead bloodied-up horse that's thrown through a window? Don't you think that's something worth worrying about, the overt violence?
Sorry, not shutting up: if it's crap, I think I will say so
April 12, 2009 - 15:45 ET by UnsaneDon't like? Don't watch. And, you don't add: if you have any negative to say about it, SHUT UP.
Sorry, but instead of reverently allowing crap to exist, or reverently watching crap, sure, I don't watch, but I let it be known that I think it IS crap.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So Complaining About Family Guy is a Weekly Event Now?
April 12, 2009 - 00:02 ET by someloudthunderI swear, another week complaining about Family Guy? Beating a horse to death are we? It's TV-14 and sometimes TV-MA. Not meant for kids. Don't let your children under 14 watch it. If you don't want your kids over 14 watching it tell them and punish them.
Seth is obviously a liberal and it's been apparent since the series first began. To complain about it now is worthless.
Always for free speech except when someone trashes the Bible or does something you disagree with.
I agree
April 12, 2009 - 00:10 ET by Scout FinchThere's nothing like a clicker to change the channel. They can keep "Family Guy" on TV. Fine. But I'll just warn you it's pretty stupid. My remote rules!
Free speech
April 12, 2009 - 02:40 ET by Kelly72Certainly part of free speech is being able to discuss bias in the media, such as that displayed by ABC and Nightline.
Always for free speech? I don't know anyone who is "always" for free speech. Pretty much everyone will cite certain limitations that they believe are appropriate. Just saying.
Not meant for kids at 5:30 and 6:30 with Simpsons in between?
April 12, 2009 - 12:55 ET by pahuberMust of missed something here.
Yes, you did miss something,
April 12, 2009 - 13:25 ET by Interested and concerned CDNYes, you did miss something, it's called YOUR due diligence.
No, I have that going for me, but I believe that something
April 12, 2009 - 18:09 ET by pahuberlike this should be on at night like on CN's adult swim. You will do good to note that "change the channel" & "do not watch it then" arguments are the lame chestnuts that I will never accept & seem to be repeated by the left w/o any thought to the foolishness of the statement.
"...lame chestnuts that I
April 12, 2009 - 21:54 ET by Interested and concerned CDN"...lame chestnuts that I will never accept & seem to be repeated by the left w/o any thought to the foolishness of the statement"
hehe...so let me get this straight...you want more gov rules, regs and intervention...yeah...keep that up...
I guess free market principals have been dropped but some on the right...
CDN ~ you must have missed the discussion by me and shawn
April 13, 2009 - 10:28 ET by pahuberearlier. This has NOTHING to do with Gov't control. It has everything to do with citizens exercising their free rights by not supporting purveyors of this crap. YOU may think the later FG episodes are funny, great... then support the sponsor.
The only ones that are trying to infer Gov't control are those who have no other way of disagreeing unless introducing something that is not accurate.
I believe the responses in this thread prove my earlier point that boycotts terrify the left so much that they start engaging in these types of chestnuts (change channel & do not watch) and inaccuracies (more Gov't control).
It has also been VERY obvious in this thread that instead of speaking about boycotts that some have brought in slippery slope, FCC or Gov't intervention in trying to tie the two together.
pahuber
Honestly, some people are absolutely clueless about what
April 12, 2009 - 13:55 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"free speech" means. Free speech protection afforded Americans under the Constitution does not allow you to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Nor does it allow you to lie under oath under the guise of "free speech". Nor does it allow anyone free reign to flaunt FCC community broadcast standards because it's a cartoon. Nor is it any guarantee of an audience or to be more specific, the right to have someone listen to you.
The fact that he and Fox currently get away with it is what ABC should be blaring about, not what a genius this arrested adolescent is when he makes a fart joke. ABC is acting like the guy invented farts and base humor. Retelling such jokes in machine gun format is original genius? Please...
OK. When it comes to humor,
April 12, 2009 - 00:09 ET by Scout FinchI'm open minded. If I laugh because it's funny, it's OK. If I watch and don't laugh, it's stupid.
I've given Family Guy several tries, and it's bad. It's gross, perverted, immature, banal, and worst of all....IT'S NOT FUNNY!
I've watched several episodes, and have never laughed.
I like "The Simpsons". I like "King of the Hill". I used to watch and like "Daria". Those are funny shows.
Family Guy is just stuck on stupid.
I have to say that I am also
April 12, 2009 - 03:42 ET by eaglescout1998I have to say that I am also a fan of "Family Guy" and I make no apologies for it. In my house, my remote rules. Just because some supposed "family values" group can't find redeeming value in a program does not grant them license to remove said program from the airwaves. That's something a liberal would do.
Just because some supposed
April 12, 2009 - 09:44 ET by ApacheJust because some supposed "family values" group can't find redeeming value in a program does not grant them license to remove said program from the airwaves. That's something a liberal would do.
That seems to be a reoccurring theme among those defending Family Guy. Again, my biggest beef with the show is that it is unoriginal, steals most of it's "clever" material, and if told he couldn't use an 'homage' to other shows then he couldn't even fill an episode.
But free speech works both ways and where you spend a dollar is a form of speech. The liberal way would be to have government involved. A "fairness" doctrine that would, in this case, require that fox also air a show that wasn't lame and hacky to balance out family guy. A "family values" group trying to raise concern for what kids might be watching and raising a red flag for parents that think all cartoons are kid safe is not a bad idea. They have no license to remove the program. If raising awareness removes the program due to lack of viewers than so be it. I love SouthPark but, short of government involvement, I think it is fair to criticize it and boycott it. I doubt Family Guy will feel any heat from the "family values" types. McFarland would probably use such complaints in their advertising. Married with Children had pathetic rating until "family values" groups started protesting it. Then it was one of the longest running series ever. So don't cry about criticism. "All publicity is good publicity". They need people like social conservatives to raise moral concerns. Shows that rely only on "shock" value need people to "shock" or they die a quick death. Family Guy was taken off the air once due to poor ratings. It was brought back because of DVD sales. Actually they almost brought back Futurama instead but Family Guy was much cheaper to produce. Family Guy only needs to worry about a lack of attention or being sued by one of the comedians or shows they rip off.
For Apache
April 12, 2009 - 17:58 ET by UnsaneApache, you said it much better than I could have. I think the guys and gals here that are screaming "if you don't like it, don't watch!" miss the point that every form of art and entertainment, good or bad, will elicit reactions either positive or negative. It also seems to me that this same crowd is absolutely horrified that there might, just might be, negative reactions to whatever art/entertainment there is out there.
Personally, I like the few episodes I have seen of Family Guy. Some have left me in stitches. (This is not to say that I think it is a classic show of immense greatness - it's not, and those that would try to make it some "avant-garde" program are utterly absurd.) But I'd have to watch it in moderation if I had a TV viewing habit. (Years ago, the same rule applied when I saw Beavis and Butt-head. It was hilarious, but I could only see so many episodes in a sitting.) That being said, that some people out there are horrified by the show and write advertisers and so on blasting the show is fine by me. ALL reaction - ALL - should be allowed, and encouraged.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Anyone know...?
April 12, 2009 - 07:29 ET by De_Oppresso_LiberAnyone know if there's a new Family Guy on tonight (4/12)?
(next year at CPAC I'll ask Mr. Bozell to autograph my Family Guy poster)
I doubt it. After all,
April 12, 2009 - 10:26 ET by fitzfongI doubt it. After all, there's no such thing as a "new" Family Guy.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
No, um maybe you should check with NAMBLA for that info...
April 12, 2009 - 22:47 ET by pahuberthey are into perverted things to... you may feel comfortable with them.
ewwwwwwww He had my
April 12, 2009 - 22:50 ET by shawn228ewwwwwwww
He had my vote
LOL... yeah, but they do have a pedophile on the show...the old
April 13, 2009 - 10:33 ET by pahuberguy who is always adoring the fat son & making those semi sick comments. Actually, I always found that to be the most disturbing thing on that show.
Insight into the Mentality of the Left
April 13, 2009 - 08:51 ET by V the KThe character of Brian the Dog on 'Family Guy' is not only supposed to be the proxy for the show's writers and viewers, he is also the archtypal leftist douchebag. Consider the facts...
- Unemployed, he sponges off the family of a gainfully-employed, working class father figure... yet considers himself superior to him.
- His biggest ambition is to bang the wife of his best friend... the same fellow who feeds, clothes, and shelters him.
- A pseudo-intellectual atheist college drop-out, he considers himself intellectually superior to those around him solely on his ability to mouth the proper set of left-wing pieties.
- He has a substance abuse problem, he "self-medicates" with alcohol and cocaine. In a DVD commentary, the show's creators explain that his substance abuse stems from his need to cope with the intellectual inferiority of those around him.
- While protesting that he "votes Democrat," he is in fact a closet racist who reflexively hates blacks.
- Though he ostensibly supports gay marriage, insinuating the homosexuality of others, especially Stewie, is his favorite put-down; this indicating the low esteem in which he holds homosexuals.
Well here is a great way to
April 13, 2009 - 09:15 ET by TheConservativeChemistWell here is a great way to shine a light (yet again) on the hypocrisy of the left...they always tell us to "just turn it off" if we don't like it...which is all well and good...
Well can't they do the same to FoxNews, talk radio, or anything else they don't like, rather than trying to censor it and crush it? Hmmm?
If you don't like what is on the tube, then change the channel.
April 13, 2009 - 22:21 ET by R D HelmIf it weren't for "conservative Christians" actually watching this mindless drivel, much of it would probably go away.
And stop trying to use the federal government as a nanny for your children.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Boycotts Work Both Ways, Though...
April 13, 2009 - 22:23 ET by The7SticksTalk about beating a brain-damaged horse, if you know what I mean. All I'd have to do is contact, by e-mail, the proprietors of www.planet-familyguy.com, www.damnyouall.net, www.seth-macfarlane.com, www.freakinsweetnews.com, www.family-guy-world.com, http://kid-fears.org/seth, I can go on... And we'd diluge you with thousands of angry letters to the editor, angry tweets, threats to boycott the proprietors of MRC, Townhall.com, the Amercan Family Association, World Net Daily, Human Events, and all of their web-advertisers and financial backers, like Richard Melon Schaife or the foundation founded by the late John Templeton.
It's because we're way up here... and you're waaayyy dooowwwnn theeeeeerrree!!
Then shut up and do it, troll.
April 13, 2009 - 22:25 ET by R D Helm-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.