The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Quote:

But, don't produce a publicly broadcast segment in a cartoon, aimed at small children featuring lesbians--and think some people aren't going to likely shut you down.

As the lady (in the WP article) from the Boston PBS station noted, another instance of this show featuring a Muslim family resulted in death threats to the station. That too, in this climate, is a 'likely' consequence.

But what follows from that? That the station ought not to have run the segment because of "some people's" likely response or ideas?

This is about Spelling's (and this administration's) distaste for homosexuality, or at least (thinking of the Cheney family again) their projection/pretense of distaste/disgust for 'perversity'.

0 Replies

I just never can tell exactly who these "some people", these "some folks", are.

I have noticed they're continually referenced by conservatives, usually at the beginning of a back-handed ad hominem.

Those poor "somes" never come around to defend themselves either. Noticed that, too.

0 Replies

PD - what's to defend? Nimh asked a question and I answered it with my opinion. Then blatham brought in the Cheneys (not sure what that's about) and nimh apparently didn't like my answer, and dys thinks it's all some conspiracy because conservatives are ticked at PBS.

If you read the link a few pages back in Blatham's post, you'll see that Spellings' almost mirrored my own.

"The episode is inappropriate for preschoolers. We are funding an education program for preschoolers, and one would be hard-pressed to explain how this serves as educational material for preschoolers. It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers."

So if some of us think that we should be able to decide what's appropriate for PRE-SCHOOLERS, we're homophobes? These are BABIES. No one has said that learning about alternative lifestyles is BAD.

I just don't see what the big deal is, but maybe y'all can explain it. I have to say, though, that some of this "PC" stuff is starting to border on the ridiculous.

0 Replies

yeah really, it's getting to the point where you can't even say queers or fagots anymore without offending some of them shemales/hefems, I hanker for the good old days of calling a spade a spade and separate beds for the adulterers.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

PD - what's to defend?

Why so defensive, then?

Quote:

Nimh asked a question and I answered it with my opinion. Then blatham brought in the Cheneys (not sure what that's about) and nimh apparently didn't like my answer, and dys thinks it's all some conspiracy because conservatives are ticked at PBS.

It appears this thread is about one of the Cheneys.

Quote:

If you read the link a few pages back in Blatham's post, you'll see that Spellings' almost mirrored my own.

Oh, I never read back in threads. What purpose does that serve? To stay on topic? <sniff>

Quote:

"The episode is inappropriate for preschoolers. We are funding an education program for preschoolers, and one would be hard-pressed to explain how this serves as educational material for preschoolers. It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers."

So if some of us think that we should be able to decide what's appropriate for PRE-SCHOOLERS, we're homophobes? These are BABIES. No one has said that learning about alternative lifestyles is BAD.

God forbid the BABIES might accidentally discover something besides what their parents have chosen to indoctrinate them with. Can't have them 'learning' before they're ready.

Quote:

I just don't see what the big deal is, but maybe y'all can explain it.

Don't ask me to explain it...

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

yeah really, it's getting to the point where you can't even say queers or fagots anymore without offending some of them shemales/hefems, I hanker for the good old days of calling a spade a spade and separate beds for the adulterers.

Fagot?

Is that pronounced fah-jzo?

That's French, ain't it? <sneer>

What kinda maggot can't spell faggot?

0 Replies

Note who deteriorated to retardation.

<and who will likely try to make a lame joke about that, too>

Why is it the only ones acting racist and saying faggot are the liberals?

0 Replies

"God forbid the BABIES might accidentally discover something besides what their parents have chosen to indoctrinate them with. Can't have them 'learning' before they're ready."

So you're saying parents aren't equipped to raise their children appropriately and therefore you think the government should be responsible for their "indoctrination"? (Your word).

I'm in big trouble then LOL. I plan to homeschool my future children, meaning I will take full responsibility for every aspect of their education. I guess I'd be hauled off to jail if your way of thinking were to be implemented.

0 Replies

PBS has been self-censoring more than ever, betraying its longtime reputation for independence.

http://www.current.org/prog/prog408g.html

Any subject is privy to censorship by (mostly) the religious right, but in this administration's view, freedom of speech is up for grabs by those in power.

How many 'babies' will understand that two women living together, processing maple syrup, are lesbians or that these women could be of harm??? Good grief!!

If those who think this program should be banned also think that parents are the ones who should teach their children about sex, why are they so worried? Will their worry make their children more interested in alledged perversity? Dirty minds usually see dirt in the most innocent and nonthreatening situations, and their unnatural interest in these subjects is likely to affect their children far more than the program their kids might or might not see.

0 Replies

Kill them in utero--yes, you may.

Raise them as you see fit--verboten!

Decision 2004--George Bush

0 Replies

Diane reminds me that I meant to ask a question waaaaay back there...

Is "maplesugaring" sexual slang for something?

Gotta try to stay hip to the jive (Lord, that sounds ancient)...

0 Replies

jw said

Quote:

No one has said that learning about alternative lifestyles is BAD.

Quote:

Spellings explained in her letter, "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the life-styles portrayed in this episode."

A little honesty would be refreshing here, jw.

Spellings is offended by homosexuality. Spellings doesn't want more of it. Spellings doesn't want kids to think it 'normal', like the folks who called in the death threats don't want kids to think the Muslim faith is 'normal'.

0 Replies

Oh PDiddie, it IS ancient. If you discover the newest terms, please pass them along.

As for maplesugaring, it could be turned into something a little obscene, but it would probably leave you with a nasty burn...

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Note who deteriorated to retardation.

<and who will likely try to make a lame joke about that, too>

There's those damned "some folks" again...

0 Replies

You're trying valiantly to morph Muslim-haters with people who want their right to raise their children as they fit.

It ain't stickin'.

The "lifestyle" certainly can't be expressed without the fact that they are two mommies to little children.

As I said pages back--I'd have to see the segment to know whether or not it is appropriate for small children, in my view. It may not cast them in that way. They may seem like two friends. Have to see it.

As I stated previously--Indigo Girls attire is acceptable.

0 Replies

roses are red
violets are purple
sugar is sweet
and so is maple syruple.
In my next life I plan to come back as a lesbian, I like their choices.

0 Replies

Diane wrote:

As for maplesugaring, it could be turned into something a little obscene, but it would probably leave you with a nasty burn...

The syrup isn't an adequate lube? Neutral

0 Replies

Oh, well. I knew better than to answer nimh's question LOL. For the record, I was one of those vigorously opposed to Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney in that one debate. I guess that makes me "dirty-minded and unnatural" to some here.

Funny thing is most of America sided with my view and just as several of us predicted, it backfired on the candidate with no c-o-m-m-o-n s-e-n-s-e.

So will issues such as this one if the Dems continue to get all hysterical and make it into a huge deal.

0 Replies

Nobody knows the maplesugaring thing?

0 Replies

Quote:

You're trying valiantly to morph Muslim-haters with people who want their right to raise their children as they fit.

Encouraging hatred of muslims is a way some parents will see fit to raise their children.

What is similar in these cases is what 'some people' see fit to hate or exclude in their society. For some, it is the 'wrong' faith. For others, it is the 'wrong' lifestyle (by which they mean, sexual orientation - homos).

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know