Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The new 'low' reality show...

Comments Filter:
  • by mekkab (133181)
    I'm not logging in.
  • All I can think is:

    Those poor poor people. That's simply awful.

    (I am assuming you are talking about the 20 childless couples, 1 kid for adoption shit she's planning right?)
  • They were talking about this on local talk radio yesterday. On one hand I am not a bit surprised. On another, WTF are they thinking? This is not something to toy around with.
  • by tuxette (731067) * <`tuxette' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday April 29, 2004 @11:57AM (#9007958) Homepage Journal
    ...but I know what this is about.

    Nice. "Auctioning off" a nice healthy Hitler's Youth wet dream white baby on national TV. Viewers, ring in now! And nobody loses on this show nooooooo! The consolation prize - a crack baby fresh out of between the legs of a ghetto teen mom. Woohoo! Applause, appluase!

    And what will be next? Gang-bang reality? Ring in and choose the next victim? Ring in and choose the guy on death row you most want to see executed live on prime time TV?

    • I'd actually watch and participate in the deathrow selection. We have too many dead-beats living on deathrow as it is. I thought Running Man had it right all the way back in '82. If they're going to be a burden on society, at least make them provide some entertainment back. (No allusions to Roman gladiators, please.)

      -Ab
  • by JMZero (449047)
    As a joke, I was telling my co-worker about a new show where the winner got his dire medical condition treated.

    Sounds like they're about 2 layers of the bottom-of-the-barrel away from actually doing my show.
    • There was a MAD TV skit where (I think it was jepordy) and the show was called "Who Wants to Eat" supposedly from a starving section of India.

      The questions had to do with eating disorders and one contestant was confused by one where "What is the name of an eating disorder where a person vomist ups food after eating."

      jason
      • by arb (452787)
        There was actually a Russian variant of Big Brother where they bundled all the contestants up and sent them to a house in Germany (IIRC), given a big feast on the first night but no food at all after that. They even came in during the night a took away all the leftovers from the feast. A dozen or so people ina house with no food whatsoever. After a few days, a couple of people were allowed to leave the house to try to get some money and/or food however they could. Not speaking the language was a bit of a d
  • ... Barbra Streisand makes me ill. She's just another rich, greedy, "goverment must control everything in you life", RIAA loving, pseudo liberal. If she wasn't so lucky she'd be working someplace that requires name tags and hair nets. Of course I guess I'm not a real liberal since I think gun control is 2" groups with a 1911 at 50'. I also think the US Govt should just leave people alone.

    FK, you should start a weekly political discussion in you journal. Might I suggest the failure of attempted gun prohibi

    • what in the hell are you talking about?

      s/Barbara Streisand/Barbara Walters??? If so, that'd make more sense ;-)

      And I have political opinions, but they are too mainstream for most people. I think the 2nd amendment is pretty damn clear. I gots the right to get myself a 30-30 rifle or an AK47.
      • I think the 2nd amendment is pretty damn clear.

        If liberals treated the 2nd Amendment like the 1st everyone would own one. Why can't people understand that gun prohibition (what a lot on left and too many on the right want, not gun "control") just doesn't work. IMO gun prohibition will put more people in danger. The vast majority of weapons owner's treat their firearms with respect and safety. Banning firearms for hurting someone is like banning cars to stop OUIs, it doesn't make sense. Punish the viole

    • I guess I should've RTFA and shouldn't post with such little sleep. I was discussing pseudo liberals with someone today and didn't think. Sorry guys.
    • What you are describing is a Libertarian, not a Liberal. Just an FYI. Liberatarians believe in small government, leave the people alone. Just do what you must. Everything is "OK" as long as it doesn't diredtly affect others. Little/no "sin" taxes or Gov't support. Little/no welfares or social programs. Let the people decide what to do with their money. The gov't just steps in when there is a gross abuse of the system then quickly steps back out.

      Liberals, on the other hand, tend to believe in bigger
      • Libertarians [lp.org] have some great ideas that are years ahead of others and some that concern me. Are my concerns warranted or not?

        IMO what the LP has right:

        The War on Drugs is failure. Time to give it up and regulate. Their position [lp.org] on it is right on the money.

        Gun control. See my previous posting here. =)

        Free Speech.

        Privacy.

        Zoning Laws. They have be so abused to protect property "values" it's not funny. Time to change'em.

        Smaller is better when it comes to the Feds. Amen to that. Let states regulate thems

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.

Working...