A Tale of Two Santas Broadcast

IMHO, the last X-mas episode was more violent than this.

It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness. Hundsfurtz wrote in :

Maybe the fact that Bender helped Santabot with his killing spree was the real problem for the censors.

<< It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness. >>

That's from Futurama?

It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness. "Robert J. Muldoon" wrote in :

No.

<< No. >>

Well, what's it from? And why did you put the quote _before_ the message instead of after your signature?

It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness. "Flexo [don't let the beard fool you]" wrote in :

I just wanted a sort epic film type of introduction to proceed my posts. So I mixed and matched some lines that I had heard in movies and read n books and what not. The strong preyed on the weak part is a paraphrase of a line from White Fang (the book, not the movie) and the dogs and cats living together part comes from Ghostbusters.

This is correct. It's just a little introduction that I enjoy putting in because I'm an attention hogging bastard.

<< I just wanted a sort epic film type of introduction to proceed my posts. So I mixed and matched some lines that I had heard in movies and read n books and what not. >>

That's pretty cool! Wish I'd thought of it.

<< The strong preyed on the weak part is a paraphrase of a line from White Fang (the book, not the movie) >>

I THOUGHT it was Kipling.

<< and the dogs and cats living together part comes from Ghostbusters. >>

Hmm...

It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness. "Flexo [don't let the beard fool you]" wrote in :

Actually he also threw a bike at a girl -- the same girl who complained that Santabot killed her family with a bike.

<< Actually, I'd rather have my kids watch a movie with nudity than a movie with scary bloody slaughtering of people in it. >>

I agree totally with this statement! Nudity and profanity do not bother me at all, but America acts as if this is destroying our moral fiber. They're just words and anatomy. As for violence, America has no problem whatsoever. They showed "Saving Private Ryan" on ABC during primetime. Loot at the violence in our TV shows and movies. Gee, I wonder why we have over 25% of the world's prison population yet only 10% of its people [if that many]?

<< Isn't that a pretty bloody movie? >>

Christ, is that an understatement. It is probably the most accurate depiction of war ever made. Unless they made some severe cutting into the film (i.e. the first half hour and last hour) there would have been just as much violence and gore as in most "bloody horror films", only more realistic.

<<That would be about 5% (about 300 million of 6000 million in total). >>

That's what I thought, only it didn't sound right.

<< But that's probably also because of the USA's repressing policy on personal freedoms. Just this week, The Netherlands will extradite a suspect in an XTC smuggling case. Here, he'd risk a couple years in jail, while I've read numbers like 160 and 320 years in jail in the USA. That's like totally ridiculous. And don't get me started about the treatment of Dmitri Sklyarov, who did nothing wrong at all, yet was detained for months without a process.

That's the USA, alright. You get almost as much time for drugs as you do for rape, armed robbery, or murder. In big cases anyway. The idiots should legalize and regulate them, then they could earn tax money rather than throwing away money with that moronic drug war.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 04:18:39 GMT, "Flexo [don't let the beard fool you]" wrote:

People aren't detained for doing something wrong, they are detained for doing, or being suspected of doing, things that are illegal. These are not necessarily related.

There are countless people in prison who did nothing "wrong", in the sense that they did no harm to anyone.

--Larry

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 02:07:46 GMT, "Robert J. Muldoon" wrote:

Warning, my reply does contain some sarcastic humor, used to make a point and be funny at the same time. If you are planning to take everything I'm saying literally, please skip to the next post.

I am not only "not bothered" I openly support them.

I think there should be some limits on TV nudity. Julia Roberts can read the news naked while jumping on a trampoline, whereas Rosanne Barr should be in a burqa, whether she's on TV or not.

I am not as concerned about Private Ryan as I am about fictional violence. There is a value to understanding history as it really happened. I don't see a similar value in "Rambo VII". Although, I wouldn't show either one in primetime.

This is obviously a typo. You must have meant "Loot after the violence in . . ." Which is a good idea, cause I need a new TV.

As other people pointed out, it's only 5%, which makes your point even more.

There are two primary reasons for this.

1. Overly oppressive laws and mandatory minimum sentences passed by politicians who want to be re-elected. And the fact that puritanical people just love to vote.

2. America does have an extreme mix of cultures. Many of the people who have come to America were running away from legal troubles or poverty. Like the Statute of Librium says, "Send me your fired, your bored, your idle assholes waiting to breath freon . . ."

The first one is probably the bigger factor, but you can't complete ignore the social mix we start with.

--Larry

<< Julia Roberts can read the news naked while jumping on a trampoline, >>

Now THAT'S Infotainment!

Really, what even merited the warning before the show? I'd be hard pressed to think of an episode of Family Guy that was tamer than this ep of Futurama, and it's only had a warning once (I think for the Porno ep, but I could be wrong).

Matt

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Hundsfurtz wrote: