The nation’s news media were hardly phased by MTV’s bisexual Tila Tequila dating series. Now London’s Daily Mail reports that America’s celebrity "reality" show sweepstakes may include a new out-and-proud gay series – starring Cher and her lesbian daughter, Chastity Bono. The show, currently pitched as "Coming Out with Cher and Chas," would feature the former TV stars helping gays "come out" to their parents on television.
It does not have the ring of a sure-fire ratings hit, but the couple have said the series could be as big as The Osbournes (which might explain Cher's apparent metamorphosis into the Black Sabbath frontman).
Last night a U.S. source said: "Cher and Chas believe they are on to a winner and have been setting up meetings with the major networks."
"They'd like a bidding war between the stations. It's no secret they have had problems in their relationship and they think that makes them ideal to offer advice to those who are going through the same thing. They are looking to give their careers a lift and are promising producers there will be on-air fireworks between them."
...One Hollywood source said about the reality TV show: "They see themselves as a bit like Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne who won't be afraid to have a rant at each other on camera."
Will this be a bidding war between the pro-gay promoters of Viacom's MTV properties or NBC Universal's Bravo network?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gays are Boring, Right?
January 3, 2008 - 08:55 ET by HeikiIf the GLBT(ad-nauseum) community is so driven to convince the heterosexual community that homosexual life is generally just like hetero life and thus no big deal, then why the promotion of a reality-style show based on ''outing''? Obviously gay-dom is still a controversial, titillating (heh) topic, or there wouldn't be buzz over this proposed show, right?
absolutely, it's "nobody's
January 3, 2008 - 12:21 ET by TruthMongerabsolutely, it's "nobody's business what they do in the bedroom"
so let's put it on TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm think I'm going to put up a web site exclusively for libs with definitions to some key English words and concepts like HYPOCRACY, INCONSISTENCY, CONFUSION, CRITICAL THINKING, etc...
And this should help quite a bit...
so let's put it on TV!
January 3, 2008 - 16:38 ET by UndercoverConservativeOr forcefully cram it right up or down various ends of the alimentary canal. day in and f**king day out. Gay this, lez that, AIDS something else. But that's not "propaganda". But show one cross or mention the name God or Jesus in prime time... and that's "shoving your religion down my throat, man!"
maybe they should do a reality show promoting something really shocking, like working for a living, being self reliant, going to church, being a decent, honest person, having moral convictions. Wacky stuff like that, guaranteed to scare the hell outtal liberals everywhere.
Well to be quite honest,
January 3, 2008 - 14:07 ET by BinxlyWell to be quite honest, that is something that is probably up there with one of the scariest things to deal with in a homosexual's life. The 'coming out' so to speak. I think a show that handles the situation with grace, honesty, and focuses on the love of family and its ability to deal with such things, then the show could not only be a hit, but also a very positive thing.
Instead it would seem they are going to rather pass it off to a family who wishes only to use its homosexual element in the family as a way to generate an income with set-up fights, most likely at least a few raunchy 'bar scenes' where more of pre-mentioned fights are sure to occur, and who knows, perhaps even a situation where the two women argue over which is the superior love choice, hetero or homosexual. (which there is none, its all subjective)
One can only hope that the driving force of the gay agenda is seen for what it really is, just a mouthpiece for the very small minority within the culture and that most homosexuals will see this and the damage they are causing to the homosexual community and instead in the future will opt for a more common sensical agenda that focuses on our similarities and ways to co-exist rather than shoving their lifestyle down other's throats at the same time screaming about the 'pros' of homosexuality. If homosexuality is inborn, which I believe it is, then it *isnt* about which is 'better' because it wouldnt matter if one was better anyways. If you are born gay or straight, then the choice to live as gay or straight isnt really a choice.
Perverse!
January 3, 2008 - 09:01 ET by rimskyPerverse!
Will be a flop...
January 3, 2008 - 09:20 ET by WildBillJust another step by those who can't win at the election box, to try and influence others to accept the imagined normalcy of a minority perversion. And if you don't watch it, agree with it, love it, promote it, or otherwise let it rule your entire being, then you must be a homophobe. My how far this nation's morality has fallen in just a generation.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
I agree, but you probably won't like my reasoning
January 3, 2008 - 09:35 ET by sarcasmoNor will any lefty feminists reading this. :)
The simple fact is, I like watching hot young lesbos no matter what weird mental baggage they feature. I'm not so much into the overweight middle-aged ones -- especially if they've got Hollyweird mental baggage. This seems to be one of those rare areas where I'm in the majority when it comes to entertainment-choices.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
That's Sick
January 3, 2008 - 10:19 ET by thoridflyWatching 2 young women destroy themselves mentally and spiritually GIVES YOU PLEASURE?!!!
You've got SERIOUS ethical, emotional, and psychological issues ... if you came within 10 miles of my daughter you would no longer have functioning testicles.
Yeah.
January 3, 2008 - 10:23 ET by sarcasmoAnd I have no interest whatsoever in your daughter. I just think it's amusing that people like you are so bent out of shape by individuals' choices. Don't like it? Don't watch it. I'd rather watch a bunch of weird, hot lesbos than 4 hour boner-ads directed at heterosexuals, but the market gives me mostly the ads. I'll survive. But I repeat: This show will not.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
hate to spoil your fun sarc
January 3, 2008 - 12:23 ET by TruthMongerhate to spoil your fun sarc but Chastity Bono is probably not going to qualify as "hot" anytime soon
That's why I said
January 3, 2008 - 12:27 ET by sarcasmoThe show will fail. The part that upsets the left as well as the right, apparently, is the fact that physical attractiveness, rather than politics, will be the difference between success and a flop. As I said.
So nothing's spoiling the fun for me, even if the classic BJ Bob Daily Show segment on the other thread's a lot funnier than a show that's likely to fail, IMO.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
good, bad, ugly...
January 3, 2008 - 12:43 ET by TruthMongerwell good...
it's really too bad for ugly people but we just seem to be wired pro-attractiveness...
could it be sin? or is it healthy biology?
my inquiring mind wants to know
Umm, pardon me for butting
January 3, 2008 - 13:17 ET by lotrUmm, pardon me for butting in here, but doesn't "two-hot lesbos in action" constitute porn? Yes, the show might not flop if it were lesbian soft-porn, as opposed to a reality show with an unattractive "star" and a preachy political agenda -- that only seems obvious given that porn sells and a lot of men are addicted to it (independent of their political party affiliation). If the show were about a preachy, but attractive, lesbian "coming out," then I think it would still flop. If I wanna see hot attractive young female flesh sans the political sermon, I will turn to Playboy, or just watch "The Girls Next Door."
Depends on how you define "porn."
January 3, 2008 - 13:28 ET by sarcasmoI see many "Duh, I'll know it when I see it" standards for such definitions around here. For a real-life example, look no further to the CONSTANT whines about Howard Stern's somewhat-ribald jokes when I first arrived here. Then compare that whinefest to the relatively-deafening silence here on NB regarding CONSTANT (and in many cases, much-raunchier than Howard's show EVER WAS IMO!) homosexual double-entendre humor on Fox's "Red Eye" show.
Double-entendre double standards are tiresome, and the people who exhibit the double-standards invariably HATE IT when I point them out like I'm doing right-now. That's why I wanna see no FCC. The almost-pornographic possibility of sending armed government thugs against your political opponents attracts fallible human beings from lefties to NB's own Brent Bozell all the way to misguided Ron Paul supporters. No FCC = No-more-problem with the evil temptations to use it politically while ignoring both the "off" button and Amendment 1.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
definition of porn
January 3, 2008 - 14:10 ET by lotrPorn
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pornography
Howard Stern cracking lewd jokes on the radio may violate public decency standards, but it certainly doesn't constitute porn (i.e., while I may get a guilty laugh, I don't get a hard-on listening to him). The same goes for a so-called reality program pushing a political agenda.
"Hot lesbos-in-action," however, is another story.
The "intended" part
January 3, 2008 - 14:18 ET by sarcasmoGets into mind-reading, which gets us right back to "Duh, I know it when I see it." It's impossible to fairly apply that definition to real life, because "men aren't angels."
You, and Balboa, and I would all tend to apply such a "single standard" in three vastly-different and therefore confusing ways, which eventually would (and should!) undermine respect for the law. That's why obese government needs to stay the hell out of speech issues of all sorts. Therefore, the FCC (or at least its political censorship arm...) needs not to exist as long as "off" buttons exist.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Not sure what you are
January 3, 2008 - 14:44 ET by lotrNot sure what you are insinuating here -- that because we cannot know intent with 100% accuracy (even our own), porn doesn't exist? I would radically disagree with such a deconstruction.
Don't know enough about the FCC to comment. I do know that the federal government is bloated, and some downsizing wouldn't be a bad idea. I also know that there are, in fact, standards of decency. Doesn't necessarily mean that we all agree on the details of what constitutes indecency, but there are, nevertheless, standards. One cannot just put whatever one wants out on the airwaves, whether "off" buttons exist or not. The reason for this is that "off" buttons cannot protect folks from still being subjected to "glimpses" of such material against their will.
As an aside, I was very impressed with Ron Paul in his dialog about abortion with the panel on "The View" on national television. He really engaged what would otherwise be a very hostile group.
the FCC is necessary
January 3, 2008 - 17:03 ET by UndercoverConservativefor as long as there is a need to control and divide airwaves, there will be a FCC. Otherwise, it's the most powerful transmitter that wins and fair use/frequency assignment/public safety and communications go right out the window.
The airwaves belong to the public. The public allowed the creation of the FCC to manage this resource just like any other natural resource. And the public allowed and wanted decency standards in the past. if a government agency has to be responsible for something, and held to task if harm comes from it, then they must be allowed some control over it. Just like the Interstate system with its traffic laws and speed limits, or the airspace over the nation as managed by the FAA. There are rules that must be followed.
This is why government funded universal health care is dangerous. it becomes completely within it's own and the public's best interests to control the risks and behaviors of those covered to minimize wasted expense. Your private life and health becomes just like driving on the freeway-there are many laws you must follow-but universal care won't allow you *not* to drive or to opt out.
Society is the compromise between selfish freedom and rigid slavery. Just like folks wanting to get rid of the electoral college, they spout freedom issues knowing the truth is that eliminating such societal checks and balances means the strong dominate the weak and the situation won't be allowed to ever reverse itself. Society is not about Darwinism, that's why people are allowed to start out poor, ignorant, minority, handicapped, etc. and become greater. To go from "fighting The Man" to being "The Man".
The FCC is one of the few jobs that the Fed should actually be doing according to Constitutional mandate anyways. If you wanna close down government power, that's not where to start. Look to FEMA or something first.
First, what Sarc has
January 3, 2008 - 12:30 ET by JasonCFirst, what Sarc has described is essentially the masculine fantasy of lesbianism. Rewriting the purpose of feminine homosexuality to being edifying for straight men is an ideal way to contain it. Not saying there's anything wrong with that per se, but it seems to get the job done.
Second, per usual, conservatives forget all about the free market when their personal morals become entangled in the issue. This is not about the networks trying to push some pro-gay agenda on you. If the advertising dollars dried up, these shows would never see the light of day. These shows succeed because they show situations (and body parts) that the American viewership wants to see. Now, what you may extrapolate about that viewership based on this may not be pleasant, but the entertainment business, like the service industry, is a consumer's domain. Even a frat boy pop singer got it right: "We only get what we demand, and if we want hell then hell's what we'll have." -Jack Johnson
I also take issue with Wildbill's comment on this message board that sarcastically claims "if you don't watch it, agree with it, love it, promote it, or otherwise
let it rule your entire being, then you must be a homophobe." What paranoid nonsense. I don't watch these shows either. I caught a total of maybe 2 minutes of Tila Tequila -and only because I passed by it and caught a glimpse of what Sarc was talking about - but again, these shows should be as offensive to the GLBT community as you purport they are to conservatives! Do you really think that everyday gay people feel represented by these shows, which tell the world that they are hypersexualized ciphers who will do anything to score with the totemic namesake of the show?! Critiquing the many aspects of these shows that beg for constructive critique doesn't make a person appear homophobic; but condemning them simply for depicting homo/bisexuality does.
Again, these representations of homosexuality should come clearly with the caveat of "for entertainment only." They are representations of the heteronormative fantasy of what homosexuality is and should be.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
it is true that morals do
January 3, 2008 - 12:45 ET by TruthMongerit is true that morals do trump the free market when it comes to maintaining civilization...
that's why enron ken went to jail, and also why libs have no problem invading and occupying darfur in an illegal war for social-conscience...
it works both political ways...
Actually, morals do not
January 3, 2008 - 12:50 ET by JasonCActually, morals do not trump the free market, laws do.
Lay went to jail for breaking many laws and defrauding investors and numerous other SEC violations. Putting bisexuals and/or bisexual behavior on TV falls under none of these legal rubrics. As well, if libs want to invade Darfur for "social-conscience", is that not the exact opposite of a war in the name of the free market?
I don't think you could have come up with two worse examples of your so-called point if you tried.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
newsflash: laws come from
January 3, 2008 - 12:54 ET by TruthMongernewsflash: laws come from morals:)
Ken Lay did NOT ever spend even one night in jail.
January 3, 2008 - 12:53 ET by sarcasmoHe died instead, and the judge then vacated Lay's sentence because there were still a string of endless appeals he might have won.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
your right - Ken did get
January 3, 2008 - 12:55 ET by TruthMongeryour right - Ken did get off easy - sorry:)
Oh that's right. So God
January 3, 2008 - 12:55 ET by JasonCOh that's right. So God sorted it out, eh TM?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
well He sorts EVERYTHING
January 3, 2008 - 13:45 ET by TruthMongerwell He sorts EVERYTHING out yes...
Amen
January 3, 2008 - 16:03 ET by FryeAmen, sarc. It's called letting the marketplace decide if this is something people want to watch (or not). Lord in heaven, where's the remote! ;)
This is HDTV! It's got better resolution than the real world!
The left wing idea of
January 3, 2008 - 10:18 ET by richflanjThe left wing idea of "Must see TV !!!" An old, washed out, has been singer and her morbidly obese lesbian daughter "bonding" over discussions of perverted sexual activities. Now I have to find out which channel that is on, so I can be sure to BLOCK IT OUT !!!
With the number of plastic surgeries Cher has had, you would think that she could give her daughter a referral for a liposuction......
Good Lord
January 3, 2008 - 09:44 ET by V the KYou know what 'coming out' is? It's where victimhood, self-pity, and attention-whoredom merge in one glorious Drama Queen moment.
And, frankly, it's so-twenty-years ago. Nowadays, even in my relatively small town, gay teenagers don't 'come out,' because being gay is just not a big deal. My two straight sons discuss the travails of their gay friends, and how one of them is dating a guy who's no good for him, or another broke up with her girlfriend and now the ex-girlfriend is insanely jealous, the same way they dicuss the lives of their straight friends.
The only ones who want to make it a Big Deal are the young attention-hungry drama queen types, and the aging sixties drama queen types (like Cher) eager to get attention and accolades from their like-minded ultra-lib clique.
Uncle Will and Little Gracie?
January 3, 2008 - 12:26 ET by TruthMongerexactly, ped is the new gay now - that's a show they need to do...
maybe start with "Uncle Will and Little Gracie" - and their whacky nutty but loveable ped antics...
and then next in line - maybe the beasties, then the the necros, then the snuffers, then the cybers...
we're good for another 20 or 30 years of good reality TV at least
F_gs : A Little Info
January 3, 2008 - 10:09 ET by thoridflyRomans 1:24-32
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up [paradidomi autos - by the the law of free will He had to SURRENDER them to their own desires] to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie [only sex between a man and a woman is spiritually protected sex], and worshipped and served the creature [their own bodies] more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) For this cause God gave them up [paradidomi autos - He had to surrender them] unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [of the tongue ... and other body parts] into that which is against nature:
(27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [the consequences] of their error which was meet [degradation, devil spirit possession, and humiliation].
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over [paradidomi autos - He had to surrender them] to a reprobate mind [a mind devoid of sound thought], to do those things which are not convenient;
(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(32) Who knowing the judgment of God [knowing the evil that homosexuality brings into a person's mind, body, and life], that they which commit such things are worthy of death [that's what a homosexual deserves, but redemption is as simple as "Go, and sin no more"], not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Redemption for Gays
January 3, 2008 - 10:10 ET by thoridflyAs grave and serious a sin as homosexuality is, redemption begins here ...
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
And here ...
John 8:10-12
(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"
(11) She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: GO, AND SIN NO MORE."
(12) Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, "I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
I respect your viewpoint on
January 3, 2008 - 15:54 ET by BinxlyI respect your viewpoint on this, but I find it deplorable you would title your initial response as 'fags: start here.' You've every right to view homosexuals as you will, just don't expect any sympathy when they attack back. I just don't see the necessity for you to use such harsh language. And as an aside, omitting one letter doesn't change the fact that the word is still implied. I'm not trying to say you should be snuffed out for using such a word, its your opinion, but because of your use of it, your opinion has lost its validity with at least one reader.
I hope you find a more productive way to show your viewpoint in the future.
thoridfly, to expand on
January 3, 2008 - 15:59 ET by JasonCthoridfly, to expand on Binxly's remarks, I don't respect your "viewpoint" such as it is and is expressed, and the fact that you're hiding behind a bunch of scripture instead of arguing in your own words about real-world issues just demonstrates your rhetorical impotence.
And yes, even with the censored vowel in the word 'fags' (gasp! I spelled the actual word and its meaning ceases to change!) you demonstrate that homophobia is certainly not a paranoid fantasy. Thanks for proving my point.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I've been waiting ...
January 5, 2008 - 00:17 ET by thoridfly... FIFTEEN YEARS for someone to throw that one at me.
Congratulations, you're the first.
Fag-enablers, like yourself, sit in profound judgment. Instead of confronting the sin and highlighting its true nature, you sugar-coat it and sweep it under a rug.
You don't help people by ignoring their sin and letting them repeat it over and over and over again. You do whatever it takes to wake them up and get them to quit.
Leviticus 19:17
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart : thou shalt in any wise [in any way possible] rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer [allow] sin upon him.
Here's what you do ...
Hosea 6:9
And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent : for they commit lewdness [mischief, wickedness ... by not confronting the sin].
thorid, I dont' consider
January 5, 2008 - 01:01 ET by Blazerthorid, I dont' consider myself to be a religous conservative although I believe in the Lord and his scriptures. I'll just have to expand on this in layman's term's.
As father of three youngmen, my children often do thing's that dissapoint me sometimes considerably, it doesn't mean I love them any less.
I feel the Lord feel's the same way concerning those that commit sin, but it's not man's job to judge the sinner, unless those sin's concern the law's of the land.
Christ said:
"Obey the laws of the land you live in"
Last time I checked homosexuality isn't agains't the law.
My main beef is with the pushing of the agenda. I dont' push the heterosexualuaity, but I do practice it. I do not believe in gay marriage either. ? Still I dont' believe the government or the clergy have any business in regulating ones bedroom either.
There are conservatives of all stripes and believe it or not there are gay and lesbian ones too. Conservatism is all inclusive too, fundamental religion a sum of one of it's part's and I'm sure you'll find there is no perfect conservative (not counting Ronaldus Maximus) as well as there are no perfect liberal's.
"first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye"
No matter how much one hates homosexuality and rail's against it, it's not likely that your going to ever wake up in a world where it doesn't exist.
If one outlaw's homosexual's only homosexual's will be outlaw's, and then what ? Prison, death ? There are those who no doubt would be happy to see this happen, unless of course it was a brother, sister, or child.
I believe Christianity is the foundation of what this nation is built on and should be looked upon at times for guidance, but still if it is allowed to run our government then how would we be better than any caliphate?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Luk 6:36 Be ye
January 3, 2008 - 17:17 ET by mvfreemanLuk 6:36
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37
¶
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luk 6:38
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Luk 6:41
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk 6:42
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Thoridfly, the scriptures you quoted are for ALL sinners. Which is pretty much everybody.
And GASP!! some gay people are conservative and christian:
http://gaypatriot.org/
haha simply awesome.
January 3, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Binxlyhaha simply awesome. Couldn't have put it any better, afterall, its all from the book itself.
Glad to see more people who don't view the scenario from such a static viewpoint.
Binxly
January 3, 2008 - 17:45 ET by mvfreemanJust read your bio.
Eerie. Sums up my views almost exactly.
Hosea 6:9, Mr. Homo.
January 5, 2008 - 00:35 ET by thoridflyRead verses 24, 26, and 27 ... this section of Scripture is about HOMOSEXUALS (a.k.a. FAGS) ... men who decide to put their DICKS into another man's RECTUM and women who decide to bury their face and tongue into another woman's hairy crotch.
Read Hosea, numbnuts - it's about YOU ...
Hosea 6:9
And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder in the way by consent : for they commit lewdness.
And so is Romans ...
Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same [even if it's with a heterosexual partner], but have pleasure in them that do them.
typical of the homosexual run MTV and "reality shows"
January 3, 2008 - 10:29 ET by c5thenThey will produce it and broadcast it, but very few will actually watch it. Hopefully it will be on LOGOS network so I don't have to block yet another channel.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Geez, when do these old
January 3, 2008 - 11:00 ET by jdhawkGeez, when do these old geezers just give up?
Over the hill Cher and her lesbian daughter . . . ? What's next another Rambo movie? Oh! Wait a minute. Stallone is reliving his youth, too. The Rambo movie is at theaters at the end of this month.
Like Stallone, Cher will do anything to feel the klig lights shining on her once again - even using her sad sack lesbo daughter to get there.
Pathetic.
Next stop for ex-star "old
January 3, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Chris NormanNext stop for ex-star "old geezers": Surreal House on the TV Guide Channel. It used to be The Love Boat or Murder, She Wrote, which were somewhat more dignified.
Let them have a bidding
January 3, 2008 - 11:39 ET by Right2thePointLet them have a bidding war.
The strange thing is that a media group that is suffering cash issues along with the bleeding of the MSM wishes to continue pandering to get some unknown percentage of a slim slice of the demographic when gays and such compromise less than 4% of the country by most estimates.
Guess they figure they have the money to spend on it or more than sympathetic senior managment that have their own agenda.
2000 year old news
January 3, 2008 - 11:59 ET by mattm"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." - Romans Chapter 1
community access TV
January 3, 2008 - 14:28 ET by wizardjrWith over 200 cable/satellite channels it was inevitable that 'regular' channel programming would begin to look more like community access channels due to a limit on how many show themes there are. This show is exactly what sort of drivel you find on CATV channels.
The drooling mobs will tune in with the same expectations of 'wow' they get from Jerry Springer. No surprise there. Those of us with an IQ bigger than our hat size will just ignore this one too. Once you've seen Ellen Degenerate, how is this different actually? So were is the pizzazz? (sound of crickets and someone snoring in the background)
What's next?
January 3, 2008 - 19:05 ET by zoro7957..............New reality show about men revealing they're Michael Bolton fans...............In other words, who in their right mind watches this crap?
Fred Phelps
January 5, 2008 - 00:53 ET by Clear thinkerFred Phelps would love this thread!
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/