Howard Stern Dropped After FCC Threat

[butterfly]

This is why a hate debating politics.

I think I'm right and you think your right and NOTHING either of us says is going to sway the other.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Originally posted by butterfly
This is why a hate debating politics.

I think I'm right and you think your right and NOTHING either of us says is going to sway the other.

Amen Sister!!

 

[butterfly]

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
Amen Sister!!

OMG, did we just agree???

 

[Dale Mabry]

I believe so, but don't tell anyone.

 

[Stickboy]

Originally posted by Flex
These "immoral" things you speak of....the internet??? First of all, the internet is not a U.S. made/run/controlled entity. It's worldwide, and ANYONE is free to use it as they please.

Actually, there are a few errors in this statement.

1. While the internet is not controlled or run by the US, it was developed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Obviously much bigger now, than it was in the late 60's. However, the fact is that the the US, did in fact, build the internet. It's merely bigger now.

2. Numerous countries DO control what is legal to view via the internet. Think of Germany and Nazi based websites.

3. Anyone can use it as they please, but that doesn't mean you won't get busted for doing so. Think of child pornography.

 

[DFINEST]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
I'm all about ESPN radio, 1410 on the AM!

Clear Channel sucks. The FCC sucks. I wish they'd blow each other up.

My brother from another mother...
I really miss Tony Kornheiser on at 10 A.M.

 

[DFINEST]

Originally posted by Pepper



also, LOL at Bush being a liar...no, that was Clinton.

Nobody died when Clinton lied....
Bush lied as well

 

[ALBOB]

Originally posted by Flex And Bush is infringing on people's rights with that Patriot act. We are slowly losing freedom every day Bush is in the office.

I REALLY don't want to get too deep into this argument because it will accomplish nothing, but I do need to find something out. As most of you know, I'm an avid Bush supporter but I, like Pepper, think he's made some pretty big mistakes. One of the areas I'm not sure about is the Patriot Act. I can see the opposition's point, that it gives the government too much lattitude in it's "search" for terrorists. What I'm NOT clear on is exactly when, where, why and how it has ever been abused. Can you give me ANY examples of how the Patriot Act has infringed on anyone's rights? I know that question sounds partisan but it's not meant to be. I honestly don't know.

 

[DFINEST]

Originally posted by butterfly
This is why a hate debating politics.

I think I'm right and you think your right and NOTHING either of us says is going to sway the other.

Butterfly, you ROCK with this statement sister

 

[mrguy]

I voted for Bush but this time I will not.

He is turning back the morality clock in this country and it will take a long time to get all our rights back.

First the ephedra ban and then nipple gate, what is next.

Sorry, as much as I don't like Kerry he in my opinion will not be so quick to take our rights away.

 

[Pepper]

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
A)Prove it.

B)Even if this is true, at least Clinton kept it.

Actually, I agree with B)

 

[DFINEST]

Originally posted by Pepper
Reagan gave the country a surplus.

And Bush #1 dwindled it to a deficit

 

[craig777]

I will not get involved in this discussion

 

[pu239]

I'm just curious. For those of you who claim our rights are being stripped away by Bush. How do you feel about the "assault weapons" ban?

 

[Flex]

Originally posted by Stickboy
Actually, there are a few errors in this statement.

1. While the internet is not controlled or run by the US, it was developed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). Obviously much bigger now, than it was in the late 60's. However, the fact is that the the US, did in fact, build the internet. It's merely bigger now.

2. Numerous countries DO control what is legal to view via the internet. Think of Germany and Nazi based websites.

3. Anyone can use it as they please, but that doesn't mean you won't get busted for doing so. Think of child pornography.

1. big deal, the U.S. invented the internet, so i was wrong there. where else was i wrong?

2. Numerous countries? that still leaves 280 or so more countries that don't

3. I'm not talking about child pornography. i'm talking about everything else. the internet is a worldwide entity, accessable from anywhere in the world. and you think the U.S. Gov't can control that? dont think so

i dont feel like argueing about this. i just think its ridiculous that the U.S. Gov't is even thinking they can even somewhat control the internet. it's just not possible.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Originally posted by Pepper
Oh, please...so is CNN next to get taken off the air?

Apples and Oranges, Pepper.

Pepper seriously. Look into Clear Eye.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Originally posted by Pepper: "Reagan gave the country a surplus."

Originally posted by DFINEST
And Bush #1 dwindled it to a deficit

When Reagan came into office the deficit was 200 Billion.

When Reagan left office it was 4 TRILLION.

He borrowed a lot of money to fund his military spending, which came out to be useless, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Bush 41 added another ONE TRILLION to the deficit to make it a combined total of 5 TRILLION.

Also, the government grew under Reagan, it didn't get smaller. Spending increased, bureaucracies were appropriated more money, and the federal payrolls increased.

 

[Stickboy]

Flex,

I wasn't wanting to argue with you about it.

As to the other points you make.....

Are you sure 280 other countries don't limit content? Honest answer is that you don't know.

If the US gov can control what you see on TV, believe me, they can control what you get thru the internet. More than likely, they would fine ISP's for letting it thru. So, if such laws were passed, your ISP would be filtering that kind of stuff so you couldn't get to it.

BTW, I think alot of gov policies are insane. I'll give you an example:

I like rockets. Remember shooting the Estes rockets as a kid? Perfectly safe, right.

Well, I like shooting off bigger ones with much bigger motors.
(local club has an altitude waiver at one of our sites that limits us to 25,000 feet, if that gives you an idea) After 9/11, guess what? I cannot do that unless I get an explosive users permit. I would have to move to qualify for the permit due to distance requirements.

Bigger problem? Once I get the permit, I COULD buy all kinds of explosives, not just the APCP that we use in the motors.

Another problem? A blackpowder gun owner can by up to 50lbs of black powder a year WITHOUT a permit, yet rocketeers can only buy 2lbs WITH a permit. (It's used to eject the parachute).

So, it's not unfeasible that the gov can control what US ISP's can deliever content wise.

 

[JerseyDevil]

A picture is worth a thousand words, and these say it all ...

 

[JerseyDevil]

Another.

 

[JerseyDevil]

...and yet another.

 

[JerseyDevil]

More....

 

[JerseyDevil]

..

 

[Big Smoothy]

try out the www.smirkingchimp.com

 

[Big Smoothy]

Originally posted by ALBOB
....I'm not sure about is the Patriot Act. I can see the opposition's point, that it gives the government too much lattitude in it's "search" for terrorists. What I'm NOT clear on is exactly when, where, why and how it has ever been abused. Can you give me ANY examples of how the Patriot Act has infringed on anyone's rights? I know that question sounds partisan but it's not meant to be. I honestly don't know.

ALBOB,

The questions and concerns about the Patriot Acts I & II are not about NOW, they are about the FUTURE.

Your children. Your grandchildren.

Judicial precedents, statutes, and laws are set.

Then the interpretation begins. Then application of the law begins. Long after they are initially created.

That is what is so dangerous about both of these acts.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Hey, I was watching letterman the other night and he seemed to lambaste the president quite a bit. I just thought that was interesting. One thing I have to say about Howard, although I do like his show, is that he seems overly paranoid at times.

 

[kbm8795]

Originally posted by Pepper
I don't understand why people think that you can do anything or say anything on public airways.

And if you speak out against ANYTHING you are a religious freak who needs to quit trampling on everybody's rights.

Give me a break.

Have you ever watched the 700 Club on television? In a single week, I monitered more misrepresentations of research, more unsubstantiated "facts" that persecuted some group of people...and we can't forget the infamous Pat Robertson remark about how someone should use a small nuclear device on the State Department....

All of that seems pretty indecent to me, especially when it is broadcast under the guise of "news" . . .yet no one insists he should be shut down.

 

[JerseyDevil]

You know guys, I learned a long time ago to never discuss religion and politics with friends, unless you don't mind losing those particular friends.

 

[gr81]

We all know how I feel about this subject, so I will just say two things.... 1) Pepper, I love ya dawg but you are way out of your mind bro, Prince and Flex are absolutely right. Bush is a liar and its costing peoples lives!!!!

2) Why is it that anytime a person trys to point out Bush's faults, all of a sudden Clinton and his extramarrital affairs are being discussed?? that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!!

Bush is a liar, our country is heding down a VERY VERY dangerous road right now, and our freedoms are being taken away one by one! Fucc partisan politics, lets take a look at this objectively for a second.. does that sound good to you, Republican or Democrat??? not to me it doesn't

 

[kbm8795]

I've never quite understood that...I mean, why some members of one political party have such an incredible interest in how people discuss and/or participate in sexuality, both publically and in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I know they hide that interest behind "morality" as if they have some kind of special connection to real and proper behavior; and yet they have had their own share of "immoral" conduct.

I'm not a fan of Howard Stern's. . .but I always found his program much less threatening than the constant ramblings of "televangelists"...as for decency standards, I believe it was the Clinton Administration that focused on reducing exposure to child pornography - the Bush Administration seems to be targetting many different forms. It's almost as if that Tittygate episode was an excuse to let the Christian Coalition start dictating our standards while they reinterpret the Constitution (and rewrite it if necessary) to force what they consider "morality" on the rest of the country.

For all the flagwaving those groups do, it's just a cover for a desire for power and control. Organized religion has never been about democratic principles - it runs against the very nature of conservative interpretation of the Bible. Just like fundamentalist Islamics, the rule of religion does not respect or protect dissent.

It's rather strange that the Bush Administration, for all it's desire to pry into the private lives of American citizens, continues to be the most secretive presidency in modern history....and there's a major inherent danger in watching that unfold. Many Americans are easily duped by official propaganda as long as it sounds good and doesn't tend to affect them personally. As secretive as it is, the Prez still manages to make enough public stumbles to generate doubt among the populace. Those who don't doubt seem to be more content with having minimal information.

Strangely, I stumbled on a remark published by a UFO researcher while preparing for this last conference....he attributes the Dubya as saying, soon after he took office that things would be easier if he were a dictator. While he didn't provide any attribution or references for when that remark was made, I think recent developments indicate an Administration that understands the desire of some Americans to be led as if members of his "flock."