Howard Stern

[Mattey]

Wow, I want that shirt.

[THE ENFORCER]

You're missing some major points here.

The FCC has discretion to fine people for indecency... They don't, however, have any guidelines for what is indecent, so essentially, they can just make it up. According to the consititution, the only things not allowed to be broadcast on the radio are the seven dirty words (the really bad ones, you can figure it out).

I know that, that what im saying they have to have a framework so presenters know what they can and can not talk about and it must be agreed by the public!

Howard stern has been a supporter of Bush and his war efforts ever since 9/11. a little while ago, howard decided that he didn't like anything else about bush, so he was going to support kerry in this election. a few days later Clear Channel removed howard from all of their stations (6 cities, 3 of which were major areas in swing states). Clear channel also fired another of their DJ's who was also anti-bush (keep in mind that no fines were imposed against howard at this time, clear channel just said that they wanted to clean up their act). They've got a guy named elliott in the morning who HAS fines pending from the FCC, but he hasn't been fired. elliott apparently isn't anti-bush.

Although Bush has alot of power i dont think he made this desicion completely based on the fact that howard stern a lone voter has decided to vote against him, i think this has become along time comming!And as with the firings there are probably surrounding circumstances which you probably failed to mention i mean probably all the anti-bush djs were a coincidence but they all put up a fight or something that would be my guess or elliot is too important and the ratings are too high for his show and they will lose alot of money from this guy if he is fired where as hte other guys probably has little ratings so they didnt care. I dont think the based it completely of who supports bush cause they would be bad business.

Bush signed a law earlier in his term allowing large corporations to buy more radio stations. Clear channel gives a lot of money to bush's campaign.

Its good to have friends in high places

Now they're working on a law where they can fine the artists directly, where previously they could only fine the stations for things that they let out onto their airwaves. so picture this... a broadcaster says the words "anal sex" in a context that the FCC finds offensive.. this broadcaster is on 50 stations nation-wide.. they want to be able to fine him PER STATION that it went out on, with a cap of 3 million dollars per day.

Now the radio presenters have to be more weary on what they say! And not the radio owners.

imagine that.. they can decide at any moment that something you said was indecent, and fine you 3 million dollars... and the president appoints the head of the FCC... (Bush appointed Colin Powell's son). There's something wrong here.

If they make a framework then no that cant happen.

Also, they plan on going after cable tv and satelite radio next.
Cable and satelite should have less restrictions than public

This isn't a howard stern issue... a lot of people just don't like howard so they say "who cares?"... if you live in the US, and you're not part of the fundamental religious right wing, you should care.

If they make a framework banning certain types of conversations that will enable kids to listen to radio freely then i would agree to that. However as i said before i think it would be more suitable instead of banning these stations at all instead moving them to a adult time like in the evening or during school hours.

[THE ENFORCER]

Sigh.. Personal Responsibility has just gone completely f'in out the window. There are only about 17 billion ways to edit what it is children can see or hear. The responsibility lies with the parents, not my government to decide. My government is supposed to represent the citizenry, not decide what we can see or hear, and when we can see or hear it. It is that simple. I have one Mom already that I had to grow up with, I don't need a governmental parent with the rights to arrest me and hold me for god knows how long without even telling anyone they have me.
And in response to your porn radio: Yes I would. If that radio station can play "porno noises" and make money doing it from advertisers, rock on. If parents don't want their children to listen to it, lock out that station, or punish them for listening to it. Tadaa. Government Censorship is evil, and among the reasons my country even exists. But you're not American, enforcer, so I know that it might not rate as important to you, even though it should.

Its good to see you have good parents but not everyone does, one of the role of the government is to have a parternal side. And ofcourse it rates important to me why would i discuss then? Secondly Australia and America have close ties and i think America is politically and socially the most influential country so i care alot what happens to America any Australian would be a fool not to!

[THE ENFORCER]

It's crazy.. Our freedoms are slowly being taken away from us under the guise of safety, and morality. Don't get me wrong, I concider myself a moral person, any I really don't want to see and hear some of the things that are out there. But just because I may not like it, doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to be free to say what they want. This is America, we are supposed to be free. Sadly though, more and more this is not the case. I hear some blaming it on republicans, and in other areas I hear democrats being blamed.

The truth of the matter is, they are both on the same side! Both sides are striving for control, not just in polotics, but over you and me, and unless there is a BIG outcry from the people, they will eventually have complete control. Which means, you won't be able to do, see, or hear anything that the government doesn't want you to. (hmm.. sounds like communism?)
The unfortunate thing is, I believe most people don't even realize this is happening, either that, are to apathetic to do anything about it.

Not sure how true this is (as he likes to exagerate), but was listening to Mancow the other day, and he had said that, they are planning on eventually fineing the everyday person as well, say if you speak out against the Government, talk about Jesus in a public place, or other such things that they concider to be hate crimes. (btw, I first became aware of this type of thinking when Clinton was in office, so again, it's NOT just republicans, but democrats too.) Our current government has become just as bad, if not worse, than the gov. that our founding fathers fought to get away from.

That simply wont happen you expecting this rule to turn into "1984"(?) with the tought police, the thing is there must be a framework for the public to pass i reckon! Also if people dont want this rule one of the parties would change their policy to grab the free votes. However doesnt it say something when both parties agree?

[THE ENFORCER]

On a side note for you Kerry supporters what are Kerry's view on terrorism how does he plan to confront it?

[bloodzombie]

enforcer.. stop being blind... one, no dj brings in more money than howard, hands down. so to say elliott's ratings are too high is just nuts.

the radio owners should be responsible for what goes out on their own airwaves, they have a thing called a delay, and they've got a guy whose job is just to sit on the dump button, so if someone says "shit" during their broadcast, he presses the button and the public doesn't hear it. it also fucks up the show where you lose about 7 seconds of dialog, so the show host doesn't like it to happen. This is a really important point for so many reasons, but mainly because the power to fine an individual for every station where he's broadcast gives the FCC the power to muzzle people. what broadcaster in his right mind would speak out against the government if the FCC could drop a 3 million dollar fine on them?

You're right about them needing a framework, but they don't have one, and seriously, how can you have one? the english language is changing, things that were offensive 50 years ago are no longer offensive to most and new slang gets created all the time, how do you decide what's offensive? There's always room for interpretation. did you read the oprah artical? Howard tried to play a clip from Oprah's show and his producers and lawyers WOULDN'T LET HIM! but who's fining oprah? fucking nobody, that's who.


As for your "but what about terrorism?" rap... the republicans are trying to paint a picture of george bush as the only guy who can deal with this whole thing, don't let them fool you, kerry voted yes on the iraq war because bush told congress that he was going to prove that sadaam had weapons of mass destruction, then we were going to form a UN coalition and we would have an exit plan (which we had, but bush threw it out). he lied about all of it, and then tries to say that kerry flip flops on the issues.

what about viet nam? bush's daddy got him into the national guard so that he didn't have to go fight. Kerry also came from a priveledged family, and could've taken the same steps, but he VOLUNTEERED to go fight for his country, saved some lives, got a purple heart among other medals, then came back and started his political carreer because he wanted to STOP the war. the republicans call that flip-flopping.. I call that making an educated decision, he saw the war and decided nobody else needed to see it.. he came back and took action protesting while bush was doing coke and crashing his car.

[bloodzombie]

Now you got me all pissed... wanna talk about the environment? Kerry's all about alternative fuel sources, while bush and his oil buddies drill up alaska.

How about the bill that bush signed saying that diabetics can't get their medicine from canada where it costs 1/3 what it does here in the states. oh yeah, pharmaceutical companies give an awful lot of money to bush.

[Mattey]

Let's talk about No Child Left Behind next. Perhaps the most ironic title to any bill ever proposed.

EDIT: Close second goes to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act also a Bush solution through labelling. He can get away with this because most of his core constinuency can't get past the word Restoration.

Yeah, I just stereotyped Republicans, what are they going to do, shoot me with the guns that every single one of them totes?

Edit #2:

Its good to see you have good parents but not everyone does, one of the role of a fascist government is to have a parternal side.

Fixed it for you.

[bloodzombie]

It must be funt o pass bills that make everyone go "what a cool guy he is" even though they're just names that don't do anything.

[Sarien]

Hehe The Pallies, laying some smack down.

Seriously though, Mattey, I'm a registered Democrat, and I own a gun.
Gun owners aren't necessarily Republicans, and yeah I know you didn't
say that they were. But I happen to feel very strongly about the
second amendment, and it troubles me to see people dicking with it,
or hinting that gun owners are all "gun-nuts" Michael Moore should
be ashamed of himself for that fake "documentary" he got an oscar for.
That said, I'm still very very Anti-Bush, because the man is an idiot.
Bush pushed hard to start a war and invade a sovereign nation, without
so much as a bit of recognition from the U.N., which is a mistake,
and when his reasons proved false, he SHOULD have found his ass facing
being impeached and a tribunal. People died for him and this county,
and people died while being attacked by our soldiers, and it was all done
under false pretenses. I remember the night the we started this fucking
war, all I'd say to anyone that asked me was:

"I sure fucking hope they find these illegal weapons, because if they
don't, we're going to be in the shit with the world."

There needs to be stiffer penalties for invading countries against the
will of the world, with little to no proof, that turns out false, than just
maybe not getting re-elected. The fucker should be in prison somewhere.

And lastly: Remember all the people that made fun of Hans Blix, the
weapons inspector. Called him Magoo, and blind, etc. Turns out
in the end he wasn't so much blind, as right. And I think that too damn
many people owe him an apology, a shame they don't have the balls
to give him one.

[bloodzombie]

I thought bowling for columbine was very interesting and entertaining. It was obviously extremely biased and looked at every point from only one side. I support the right for people to have their guns, but I also believe that there should not only be waiting periods, but classes that people have to take in gun safety. Stores that sell guns should be under strict scrutiny and be forced to follow procedures, the same way a restaraunt has to follow a health code, and a brokerage firm has to follow SEC guidelines. There's no way that any asshole should be able to walk into a pawn shop and walk out with a gun, and there's also no reason for anyone to have automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets.


you're right about Hans Blix.

[Sarien]

My main problem with Bowling for Columbine, is taking people out of context, and blatantly using people to further his own agenda with his film. It's pretty disgusting. Remember the two guys in the Kmart bit where they got the ammunition removed from shelves?

"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

I have no problem with waiting periods, because there is no argument against it. The best someone could come up with is:
"But.. I won't be MAD in three days!"
I have no problem with registering handguns, as long as the registration lists aren't used for anything illegal by my government. Safety Classes? Absolutely. I wholeheartedly believe that Gun Safety should be a class in school.. not necessarily firing a gun but simply learning how to unload and make a weapon safe. Guns are in our world and they cannot be unmade, so quite simply; every person should know how not to kill themselves with one.
The thing about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is the place where I think we'll have to disagree though. I see and understand the rationale for both sides, but my faith in mankind and my government is small enough to side with allowing them for legal users.

[bloodzombie]

The thing about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is the place where I think we'll have to disagree though. I see and understand the rationale for both sides, but my faith in mankind and my government is small enough to side with allowing them for legal users.

I just don't buy into the whole "I'm protecting my family with my machine gun" bit.

[Mattey]

The thing about automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is the place where I think we'll have to disagree though. I see and understand the rationale for both sides, but my faith in mankind and my government is small enough to side with allowing them for legal users.

Why stop at automatic weapons? Why not allow chemical/biological/nuclear?

[Sarien]

Well the reason is because there's a restriction on those worldwide. It's a little more convoluted than the "protect my family" argument. I know that on the surface that this seems like a load of crap, but please be patient.

Essentially the Right to bear arms isn't just about protecting you and others from danger, burglars or what have you. In effect, it is the last line of defense against your county's government becoming something we the citizenry don't wish it to be. You see, it's not that you need to protect yourself from a roaming bear by being able to shoot it with a three round burst. It's a check held by the entire citizenry to keep our politicians on the up and up, and ensuring our government is the government we -want- to have. If there comes a better way, believe me, I will pay attention, and if a better solution were found, I'd be all for it. But to me that's part of what makes America so damn great. The founding fathers were wise enough to know they couldn't see all ends. They couldn't know for sure what path this government would take, and so they did their best to provide and ensure that our government does not become a tyranny to its citizens. I don't want people to be hurt, especially not police officers doing their legal and important duty. But if you will ask most police officers, they encourage responsible and legal gun ownership. Justified shootings in defense of self or others makes up something like 3/4 of reported shootings in one year.

I don't want to have nuclear or biological or chemical weapons, Mattey.
I just want to be free, and make sure that this country stays as the country I love.