In answer to the original questions, no, neither Family Guy nor American Dad represent "real" Statespeople, nor are they meant to. They are both meant to be comedic caricatures of "the American way of life" and American family dynamics. Think of them as an animated sit-com.
(Though some Statespeople I know would KILL to have such dramatic, adventurous lives as the Griffins and the Smiths do.)

I doubt British TV represents the U.S. any better than the U.S. represents any other country. Keep in mind that the goal of most of television is to entertain, not to educate. If you want to get a more factual representation of life in other countries, there are channels like the National Geographic Channel (NatGeo) or the History Channel.

The little I've seen of Statespeople represented in English television comes from Doctor Who, when the Doctor and the gang visited the American Southwest for a couple episodes.
No, not everybody in the Southwest wears Stetson hats (but they are cool!).
No, not everybody eats at 1950s-themed diners every night. (Only for special occasions!)
No, NOT everybody carries around a six-shooter pistol and has insane accuracy (only the Texans).

P.S. Please note that the comments made above are for entertainment purposes only, and are not intended to provide a factual representation of life in the United States of America, either in the Southwest region or any other region of the country.
Because apparently it needs to be said.

Doot-doo-doo... Skipping six pages... Wait, did I already post on this thread? Eh, who knows...

I'm only attracted to the smart ones, in the long run. Hell, the only two women I asked out in college were the smarter ones in class. (Which is to say, two of the only other people in my entire college career who bothered to speak up in class.)
I'm gonna need help with all those crossword puzzles and memory games when I'm old and gray, after all.

And isn't the walking woman on the left Amy Poehler?

If we combine Estelle and redmist, do you think we could get a sustainable fission reaction going?

The same thing every other survivor of the zombie apocalypse does? Run out during the day or the night (whichever time the zombies are at a disadvantage) and raid for foodz. That's kinda the default plan for the zombie apocalypse.

If you mean "Since the zombies are already assaulting your difficult-to-exit base", then that battle is pretty much already lost (unless I get some of those helpful people with frag grenades and lots of ammunition).
Optimally, the ladder should be the only easy entrance - but I bet you could rig it up so you could have somewhere safe to leap out a second- or third-story window (into water, if it's on the docks, for example), or have some sort of trapdoor that lets you out where the zombies aren't.

Wait, wait, wait - you were being sarcastic??

Because this is how a lot of kids look on the situation. The self-entitled ones who think that being treated nicely means the world revolves around them. The ones who expect to be rewarded for showing basic human decency and courtesy. The ones who don't see the need to apply themselves or work (much less work hard) unless they get something out of it.

You'd be very popular among some kids who show up to the Renaissance Faire, dreamerana. And I'm not just saying that because that's what I'm dealing with on the weekends.

I have been looking into The Originals because the blurb said it had Claudia Black in it. Is this true?
Unfortunately, it's not on Amazon Prime (yet), and that's all the TV I watch.

The point about ammunition is a good one, but as far as edged weapons go, I'd prefer to invest in a good axe. It has a longer reach (no zombies grappling you to chew on your brains), you can bring force to bear more effectively (swinging instead of stabbing), and it can be used as a different tool (gathering firewood).

I live in California, so we're all used to having an emergency supply of food, clothing, batteries, etc, in case there's an earthquake. I have four gallons of water, a shelf full of dry goods, and an emergency bag all packed for the zombie apocalypse. I'm hoping, though, that some other generous survivor has some spare weapons. I don't want to end up like Bruce Campbell's character in Evil Dead 2...

For a base, I'd like to set up somewhere high, maybe the second or third story of a warehouse, that's accessible only by ladder. Not only do most zombies not climb ladders, even if they did I'd only be facing them one at a time. Though that would be kind of a problem if I had more than one or two other survivors bunking in the same base.
"CLIMB, BOBBY-JOE, CLIMB!"
"BUT WHAT ABOUT SUSIE-CUE AND STEVENS??"
"THEY'LL COVER YOUR BACK! JUST CLIMB!"
*sounds of screaming, flesh rending, and munching of bones*
"NOOOOOOOOO!"

Did someone never learn how to get along with other children?

I have to give +1 to each of you for the wit and amusement factor of making these spoofs.

Aww... I thought it was going to be a thread about Disneyland itself, not a pickup thread.
And if a woman interested in women worked at Disneyland, would she be able to admit to it? I understand employees of the parks have to agree to a LOT of rules about their personal appearance and conduct.

If there's no expectation of dinner, I'm not interested.

Geriatric herpes, more like.

The actions of the doctor are permissible, even with laws governing patient confidentiality. He told the husband in good faith, thinking that he must have already known about his wife being HIV positive. In the U.S., if this were a crime, and the doctor a policeman, then that would be called "probable cause".

Of course, the husband can hold some blame for being so uninterested in his wife that he didn't bother to find out about her condition in the first place. Assuming she was, in fact, TREATING her condition with these expensive drugs. If she couldn't/wouldn't afford these drugs, then how could he have known about her condition? If the doctor needed to give her these kinds of treatments in post-natal care, that seems to me that she probably wasn't treating herself prior to the birth (otherwise the HIV condition would've been under control, and the post-natal care unnecessary).

The wife... legally and morally, I'd have to put most of the blame on her. Being HIV positive is a condition which can affect anyone around you with whom you have intimate contact, from sex to giving birth to sharing blood. Even if she was not LEGALLY required to share this information, if she had any concern for her husband's or children's health, she should've told them.

Even if the version of HIV she has is dormant, it's still something that she should have told the people closest to her, because of the possible consequences down the road, or because of how it might react with different body chemistry. What if the husband had another condition which would've been made worse with HIV? Does she even know anything about her husband's health?

If you loved your partner or children even slightly, you should know more about them than either of these people demonstrated.

I have a vague conception of how Indians might feel about that image (but at least it's not as bad as depicting The Prophet Mohammed, right?). However, I don't see what that has to do with the treatment of women in Indian/Indian or Indian/other relationships.

If I wish you "Happy Birthday!", may I have a piece of chocolate?

I think that's a very appropriate analogy. For those of us still looking for stable jobs, we're told to "sell ourselves", to make ourselves "look more attractive" to prospective employers. Our resumes are our advertisements, and our ("voluntary") self-identification is our profile picture.

On the point of actual prostitution as a business, however... Frankly, no matter how much you want to dress it up and make it more legitimate, it's still going to be a blue-collar job. You are being paid for performing manual labor. Anybody who meets the physical requirements could do the job. (Sure, if you add in an emotional or psychological aspect, you could do the job better, but we're talking minimum requirements for the position, not preferred.)
I think - my guess - is that's the part where the pro-prostitution feminists get good and irked. They want to transform prostitution into a white-collar or culturally-respected job. I just can't see that happening, honestly, in any culture.

I don't think I've ever personally used the term "hater" on someone - but then, my grasp of modern American lingo is lacking (and I'd like to keep it that way).
However, I think that the term gets thrown around too much, to an inappropriate level. It's one thing to dislike a person, concept, thing, etc, etc for actual reasons, especially in the speaker's personal experience. It's another thing to just dislike or hate something because of a gut reaction or because of things people told you (probably behind another person's back). If you "hate" something for good reason, I wouldn't call you a "hater" for that. But if you "hate" something "just 'cause", then I would be tempted to call you a hater, especially if that's your default reaction to something new.

Profit and Loss. Rabindranath Tagore, trans. by William Radice.

Most recently I got hit up by an account that started off well enough.
First email said "Hello".
Second email said "What are your hobbies?"
Third email said, "I realize we just met, but I feel like I know you and can trust you. My mother is sick, dying of cancer, and I just need $3,000 for her surgery. I hate to ask, but you seem like a nice person, so could I have just $950 from you? This is totally true and legit and my life is so hard because of it!"

And all of this done with sub-par spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. It may just be really snobby of me, but these kinds of errors are the first things that set off warning bells in my head.

On the point of using terms of endearment like "honey", "love", or "dear", I would consider it flirting of the woman was NOT your average diner waitress, was relatively young (35 or younger, it does seem to be an age- and region-based trait), and whether or not she was using those terms with people around me.
For example, if a 20-something musician started calling me "love" or "baby", and looked me straight in the eye when she did so, I'd definitely consider that flirting.
However, if my local 40-something waitress called me "hun" or "dear" when she was busy jotting down my order, I would not consider that flirting.
Some people just throw out terms of endearment like that just 'cause. My Southern-raised grandmother regularly called people "dear" (but by the time I knew her, she was already in her mid-60s). She was a VERY polite lady, and I think that was the total extent of her using terms of endearment (politeness). I wouldn't regard that kind of term of endearment any more seriously than I do when I get called "boss", "chief", or "dude" by a male waiter.

It once took me fifteen minutes to order a taco meal in Goettingen, Germany. Does that count?
The lady behind the counter didn't speak any English, either, just German and I think Italian. It helps if there's a translator or mediator, but otherwise you just have to hope that they're reeeeeeeeally patient people.