Save Howard Stern!
Milt
by Milt Shook
Again, I want to reiterate that I am not a fan of Howard Stern. I don’t
like his style of "humor," and I’ll never understand his nor his
audience's fascination with belching, farting and listening to
descriptions of naked women. But you know what? I would fight to protect
Rush Limbaugh's right to lie his ass off to play to his audience, and I
will also fight to protect Howard Stern's fans' right to listen to his
show.
This latest assault on our right to free speech comes on the heels of
Janet Jackson's baring of her right breast during the Super Bowl
halftime show. Of course, we all know that children's faces fell off,
that old ladies fell over dead and that men couldn't eat for days after
seeing that bare breast, so the FCC stepped forward to take action.
After all, the Republic would have crumbled at the sight of that bare
breast.
Now, think about the irony for a second. This is the same damned FCC
that has ignored the pleas of the public to protect their airwaves from
their takeover by the corporate media. Plus, they're the idiots who
completely deregulated the content on the broadcast media in the first
place. For years, those of us concerned that the broadcast spectrum was
being used solely as a profit center and no longer as a source of useful
information have been rebuffed in our attempts to bring fairness and
responsibility back to broadcasting by the same FCC that is suddenly so
concerned about "indecency."
But this isn't about indecency, and we know it. This is about the
government trying to drive people off the air whom it doesn't like. They
didn't turn on Howard Stern because he's "indecent." Stern's been doing
the same act for decades; it's not like anyone's surprised by it. And
you want to know something? I'm not offended, because I don't listen to
him. See, that's what censorship should be; I censor what I watch or
listen to, and you censor what you watch or listen to. Now, there
should be a few limits, but I'll go out on a limb and bet that Howard
Stern agrees with me on that. That's why he reserves his most
"offensive" stuff for payper-view.
Is there indecent programming on the radio and television? Possibly, but
I wouldn't know about it, because I don't listen or watch it. I will
say, though, that if it does exist, it exists because people want to
watch or listen to it. Of course, the term itself begs the question;
what is "indecent"? What's indecent to me may not be indecent to someone
else, and vice versa. I actually read an interview with Patricia Heaton,
in which she said she wouldn't allow her youngest kids to watch her own
show, "Everybody Loves Raymond," because it was too "adult." I disagree;
I'd prefer to let a young child watch the program and teach him to deal
with the "adult" elements. In other words, every individual has their
own threshold, and their own way of dealing with it.
But again; this isn't about indecency. It's about falling into line.
It's about politics. It's about the far right kissing the asses of the
guys in the White House, and making sure everyone falls in line. Howard
Stern fell out of line and Clear Channel, because of its massive size
and political clout, is making him pay.
Now, Howard Stern's program was only carried on 6 Clear Channel
stations, so the question is, how can the loss of 6 stations reverberate
so widely as to spell the end of his career? One problem comes with the
fact that Clear Channel owns 1200 stations throughout the United States.
In some major markets, Clear Channel owns most of the stations in the
market; at least most of the stations of the type that would carry
Stern. That means he's virtually locked out of some very lucrative
markets, and in those markets from which he's not locked, his ability to
allow stations to compete for his services is severely hampered.
Personally, I think Howard Stern may have a hell of a lawsuit regarding
"restraint of trade." But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on that.
But you have to see the problem on that end. Of course, if that was the
end of Stern's problems, he could probably survive. The last problem is
the government's doing, and it is one of the greatest examples of
government abuse of power seen since the destruction of the Hayes Code,
which enforced censorship of movies, and created situations whereby
married couples had a baby while sleeping in separate twin beds. (kinky!)
The poorly named Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, HR 3717
would raise the fine for "indecent" broadcasts to $500,000 "for each
violation." (At least one Congressman has proposed an increase to $1
million) Now, to put that figure into perspective, Clear Channel was
recently fined $775,000 for "indecent" broadcasts by someone known as
"Bubba the Love Sponge." That was with a maximum fine of $27,500! They
counted 26 "violations" over seven broadcasts. Under the new rules, the
company would have paid a whopping $13 million. And Clear Channel and
other companies are considering a change in talent contracts so that
the talent pays half the fine. What does that mean, you ask? It means
that the government isn't simply trying to curb "bad behavior;" it's
trying to put people it doesn't like out of business. You think Clear
Channel will ever pay a $13 million fine? Hell no! That's why they've
suddenly become such prigs! The Bushies gave them a heads up that they
had to solidify the base by attacking gays and Howard Stern, so Clear
Channel got rid of Stern and warned all other talent to straighten up,
so as to head off the posse. Meanwhile, Viacom, which owns Infinity and
Stern's program, is being made to set an example because they own such
right-wing reviled channels such as Comedy Central, Showtime and MTV.
If you're asking yourself what this has to do with curbing indecency,
the answer is, nothing. In fact, there is no actual, statutory
definition of "indecency" anywhere. Some voluntary guidelines, such as a
NAB code, have many suggestions, but there is no hard and fast law
defining "indecency."
Apparently, even the FCC has no idea how to define it. Here is a copy of
the FCC press release announcing the fine against Clear Channel. Note
how many times, the FCC violates its own "indecency" rules in this press
release, which is readily available to anyone who visits the FCC web site.
One California Republican Congressman, Doug Ose, is hoping to redefine
"obscenity," to make the FCC's job easier. HERE is his attempt. (Mature
Content Warning: You can't read this bill on the radio...) Now, except
for "piss" and quite possibly "asshole," I'm unaware of anyone who uses
such language on the air, even Stern. So, on the one hand, the first
reaction to a bill such as this is that it's silly on its face. But
then, it does attempt to set ground rules. Unfortunately, those ground
rules are already pretty much set in stone, as it is. I don't think too
many broadcasters would put up with the use of most of those words
without acting on it, anyway. Don and Mike, a radio team in Washington,
DC, were recently suspended for two weeks during sweeps, for allowing
one of those words to be used on the air.
Of course, I've gotten off my main point, which is that this witch hunt
is not about "indecency. "Bubba the Love Sponge" was let go by Clear
Channel because they were given a heads up and they wanted to "clean
things up" before the fine multiplied. In other words, they wanted to
show the right wing how tough they were on "indecency," to make Bush
look good. Howard Stern, however, wasn't "suspended" for "indecency.: In
fact, the incident Clear Channel cited as their reason for canning Stern
happened three years earlier. No, Howard Stern was canned because he
read Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
(available on the main page of this site for just $14.97) and realized
what Bush is all about and told his audience about it. Of course, his
audience is made up of a lot of NASCAR dads, and we can't be telling
them the truth about Bush, can we? Stern is no more indecent now than
when Clear Channel tried to buy him away from Infinity a while back.
He's no more indecent than he was when Clear Channel saw fit to place
his program on 6 of his stations. Did you also know that Clear Channel
books concerts by most of your favorite recording artists? Wonder how
many of them violate "indecency" laws during their concerts.
No, Clear Channel has 1200 stations, and they will not stop until they
have them all. And they know damn well that Bush is their best chance to
increase their stranglehold on the broadcast spectrum. They have been
kissing Bush's ass since they were both in Texas. The Vice Chair of
Clear Channel, Tom Hicks, is a Bush Pioneer, which means he gave a
minimum of $100,000 to the Bushies during the last campaign. Of course,
he's been giving to Bush since his campaigns for governor, when he
donated $90,000 to the cause. Overall, Clear Channel and its executives
have donated more than half a million dollars to the various Bush
campaigns. Of course, Clear Channel and Bush were connected in other
ways, as well. When Hicks was a University of Texas Regent, he granted
endowment management contracts for the UT Investment Management Co., or
UTIMCO, many of which went to firms politically connected to both Hicks
and Bush, including the Carlyle Group, which was one of Bush's daddy's
employers. The Chairman of UTIMCO was also the Chairman of Clear
Channel, L Lowry Mays. The Hicks family also made Dubya a millionaire
many times over when he let George buy into the Texas Rangers for almost
nothing.
So, Clear Channel and Bush go way back. Look at the record since Bush
has been in office. Clear Channel banned the Dixie Chicks from their
stations, and before the beginning of the Iraqi quagmire, they held
rallies to support the war. These people are whores; they're into making
money, and they know that keeping Bush in the White House is more likely
to make them more money.
We should be scared to death. Between Clear Channel's continued
domination of the broadcast spectrum, and the Bush Administration's
kowtowing to right wing neanderthals that don't seem to have a problem
with insults to people who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center,
but are mortally offended by an exposed mammary gland, our rights are
being squeezed. This is not about Howard Stern. Howard Stern is not a
problem; he's a symptom. We need broadcast standards, yes; but not
standards that forbid certain words and ideas. Instead, we need
broadcast standards that encourage more ideas and a diversity of
opinion. It's not that Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern is a problem; it's
that an uncompetitive market and no encouragement of alternative points
of view are presented. We need a return to regulation. No one entity
should own more than one or two radio stations in any one market. All
stations should have to carry news and information, and make their
airwaves available to authorities when an emergency occurs. (This is
another issue which I will get to at another time, but when a major
emergency happens in a city in which a station is automated, who reports
the news?) And we must return to the days of the Fairness Doctrine. We
don't want to kick anyone off the air, but everyone should have the
opportunity to be exposed to all points of view, and that simply is not
happening.
If you want to make the airwaves relevant again, increase competition
and make sure all broadcasters abide by their license, which demands
that they act "in the public interest." Now, one can argue that Howard
Stern's broadcasts do not serve the public interest. But Howard Stern is
not a licensee. Besides; how do people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael
Savage, among others, "serve the public interest" with their constant
lies and slanders?
The public is best served by diversity in the broadcast media, and not
by censorship. The government's attempts at censorship should be
thwarted, and immediately. Save Howard Stern; not for Stern's sake, but
for yours. If they can persecute Howard Stern for having the wrong
political views, they can do it to anyone.
Even you.
The Finger
sure he'll come back after the election. Although I am a liberal, I got
tired of him lusting after every female he had on the show. It was an
R-rated version of the Chevy Chase Late Night show. When Stern comes
back, he needs to completely rework the show. It was lewd and boring.
Sid9
Compared to programs like NCIS, CIS
and Lawa and Order SVI....Stern is innocuous.
Those prime time network shows are most
obscene disgusting things I have ever seen.
Milt
You simply don't get what this is about, do you? It's about a company
owning too much of the broadcast spectrum, and forcing someone out
because of his political views. I couldn't tell you how bad his show is,
because I didn't listen to him. But it bothers me that he can simply be
removed from the air because the government decided to censor him and a
right wing group didn't like his politics...
Milt
Then don't watch them. If enough people agree with you, the shows will
disappear.
Jesus... does anyone understand this issue?
Sid9
I don't watch them.
I don't listen to Howard Stern.
I don't think Howard Stern should censored.
I'm sorry i wasn't clear
Thumper
wrote:
What do you mean when he comes back? He hasn't left. The stations
left him.
Thumper
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Tell us Milt....what government agency took Howard Stern off the air?
JSL
>
Sid9
Thats quite a simplification.
The FCC said it would crack down (as they have) with huge fines
Then the near monopoly radio station owner fired Stern.
Do you see the connection?
Milt
Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
with it, Jeffrey.
You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
Milt
Jeffrey isn't too bright, and he can't see anything in other than
"simplifications."
He's now going to claim that it was Clear Channel's decision, and that
that decision had nothing to do with their ties to Bush. He will also
posit that the possible loss of Stern at all stations will have nothing
to do with the proposed $500,000 per incident fine (which is almost 20
times the current maximum) that is sitting in front of Congress right
now (and which I referred to in the article that Jeffrey obviously did
not read), as well as the boner the FCC has had for Stern throughout his
career.
Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
Milt
The Daily Weasel
http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
Jeffrey Scott Linder
And they will pay for the broken contracts.
>Do you see the connection?
Yes, but only the ones that are there.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Then Mr. Stern will have no trouble being picked up by other radio
stations in those markets will he?
>Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
>raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
>20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
>definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
See what happens when the government is given too much power to
regulate Milt?
>With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
>will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
>supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
>belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
Milt's finally getting it.
Didn't stop you from ranting out "equal time" provisions a while back
did it? That was when YOU wanted the government to interfere in
broadcasting...why the sudden change of heart?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
They did? Maybe you can point out that ruling for us.
>Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
>with it, Jeffrey.
Well, first, I haven't a clue as to when the FCC took howard stern off
the air.
>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
Poor Milt.
JSL
Milt
Yes he will, ya dumbass! That's the point!
Do you even read this shit before you respond? CC owns 1200 stations.
Clear Channel and Infinity own 42% of the broadcast stations in the
country. If Stern getsw canned by both, there are many markets where he
will be unable to find an outlet!
>
>>Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
>>raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
>>20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
>>definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
>
>
> See what happens when the government is given too much power to
> regulate Milt?
There ARE no regulations, you twit! The government is upping the fine
for "indecency" to $500,000 "per incident" when there is NO statute or
regulation defining what that is. The purpose of regulation is to set
the ground rules so that everyone is served equally. The problem, ya
moron is that there is NO regulation, just a dictate and a fine amount.
>
>
>>With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
>>will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
>>supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
>>belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
>
>
> Milt's finally getting it.
>
> Didn't stop you from ranting out "equal time" provisions a while back
> did it? That was when YOU wanted the government to interfere in
> broadcasting...why the sudden change of heart?
>
You have to be the mud dumbest person on Usenet, Jeffrey. I'm all for
equal time, and I also think a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a
necessity. Set the regulations so that broadcasters know what's allowed
and what's not allowed. The problem is a LACK of regulation, not
excessive regulation.
You people simply haven't a clue. The reason I object is the
abitrariness of going after Stern now. The lack of regulation is what's
creating an atmosphere in which one FCC can do whatever it wants to
whomever it wants.
Grow up and get a clue...
The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
anyone with half a brain should expect.
It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
these folks are pissed.
Milt
Why are you here?
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Read the article above and get back when you have a clue...
Milt
HR 3717, you halfwit. It's in the article.
In fact, the entire scenario is laid out for you in the article above.
>
>
>>Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
>>with it, Jeffrey.
>
>
> Well, first, I haven't a clue as to when the FCC took howard stern off
> the air.
Clear Channel owns 1200 stations and it wants a lot more. It's only
chance of increasing its reach is to keep their long-time buddy Dubya in
office. The only way for Bush to appeal to his "base" (was there a more
appropriate word for Bush supporters?) is to go after those who would be
"indecent." So, the GOP proposed raising the fine to $500,000 to appease
the idiots, and CC banned Stern from damned near 1/3 of the radio
stations in the country, including 1/2 the stations in many markets, to
appease the Bushies.
>
>
>>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
>
>
> Poor Milt.
>
I know you didn't. It's obvious every time you write.
Ace
wrote:
>
>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>anyone with half a brain should expect.
The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
are accomplishing their purpose.
>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>these folks are pissed.
The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
good thing.
>Milt
>
>The Daily Weasel
>http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>
--Ace
Milt
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>
>
> The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
> are accomplishing their purpose.
>
What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
ahead of the people he works for?
As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
>
>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>these folks are pissed.
>
>
> The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
> good thing.
>
Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
but the victims' families may or may not be.
And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
9-11 for political gain?
Ace
wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>
>>
>> The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
>> are accomplishing their purpose.
>>
>What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
>ahead of the people he works for?
LOL, for one thing they piss off you lib types, and that means that
you are afraid of them. If you really thought they were a negative
for Bush you wouldn't be throwing a tantrum about them.
>As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
>families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
It's just an opinion. Nobody but a Bush hater would be upset by
seeing him mention 9/11. I think it's a good bet that the ads will
reap rewards for Bush. They seem to think so too. So do you
Democrats are you wouldn't be whining about them.
>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>these folks are pissed.
>>
>>
>> The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
>> good thing.
>>
>Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
>but the victims' families may or may not be.
>
>And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
>9-11 for political gain?
Promise? <LOL> I sure hope he continues to use 9/11. I hope he also
stresses how Kerry voted to cut funding for defense and intelligence
departments.
>Milt
>
>The Daily Weasel
>http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
--Ace
Milt
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:05:44 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ace wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
>>>are accomplishing their purpose.
>>>
>>
>>What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
>>ahead of the people he works for?
>
>
> LOL, for one thing they piss off you lib types, and that means that
> you are afraid of them. If you really thought they were a negative
> for Bush you wouldn't be throwing a tantrum about them.
They piss me off because they exploit people, and I don't think
exploiting victims of a tragedy is a good thing, no matter who's doing
it. If Kerry was taking pictures of the homeless and using them to bash
Bush, I might say the same thing, depending on how it's done...
As far as being "afraid," I'd say the fact that Bush is already pushing
the "I'm a great leader" thing in March, when he faces no one in a
primary, shows a hell of a lot more fear...
>
>
>>As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
>>families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
>
>
> It's just an opinion. Nobody but a Bush hater would be upset by
> seeing him mention 9/11.
Don't bet on that. I'm pretty sure moves like this will do a lot to
create Bush haters...
> I think it's a good bet that the ads will
> reap rewards for Bush. They seem to think so too. So do you
> Democrats are you wouldn't be whining about them.
Not likely to work. The only people impressed were already impressed.
And I am not worried about this election...
>
>
>>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>>these folks are pissed.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
>>>good thing.
>>>
>>
>>Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
>>but the victims' families may or may not be.
>>
>>And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
>>9-11 for political gain?
>
>
>
> Promise? <LOL> I sure hope he continues to use 9/11. I hope he also
> stresses how Kerry voted to cut funding for defense and intelligence
> departments.
>
>
Yeah, put that up against Bush's record of fucking up wars three
countries. That oughta do it...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:05:44 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ace wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
>>>>are accomplishing their purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
>>>ahead of the people he works for?
>>
>>
>> LOL, for one thing they piss off you lib types, and that means that
>> you are afraid of them. If you really thought they were a negative
>> for Bush you wouldn't be throwing a tantrum about them.
>
>They piss me off because they exploit people, and I don't think
>exploiting victims of a tragedy is a good thing, no matter who's doing
>it. If Kerry was taking pictures of the homeless and using them to bash
>Bush, I might say the same thing, depending on how it's done...
and you making all this fuss about what Bush is doing because you
think it's a bad strategy, aren't you?
>As far as being "afraid," I'd say the fact that Bush is already pushing
>the "I'm a great leader" thing in March, when he faces no one in a
>primary, shows a hell of a lot more fear...
You'd rather have him just stand there and take all the mud the
Democrats have been throwing on him, wouldn't you?
Sorry about your luck.
>>
>>
>>>As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
>>>families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
>>
>>
>> It's just an opinion. Nobody but a Bush hater would be upset by
>> seeing him mention 9/11.
>
>Don't bet on that. I'm pretty sure moves like this will do a lot to
>create Bush haters...
>
>> I think it's a good bet that the ads will
>> reap rewards for Bush. They seem to think so too. So do you
>> Democrats are you wouldn't be whining about them.
>
>Not likely to work. The only people impressed were already impressed.
>
>And I am not worried about this election...
ROITFLOL. You and the rest of the weasels were pretty sure in 2000
and 2002 too, weren't you?
>>>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>>>these folks are pissed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
>>>>good thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
>>>but the victims' families may or may not be.
>>>
>>>And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
>>>9-11 for political gain?
>>
>>
>>
>> Promise? <LOL> I sure hope he continues to use 9/11. I hope he also
>> stresses how Kerry voted to cut funding for defense and intelligence
>> departments.
>>
>>
>Yeah, put that up against Bush's record of fucking up wars three
>countries. That oughta do it...
Lets wait until November and see?
>Milt
>
>The Daily Weasel
>http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
Hey everybody, check out Milt's web page. This is the kind of person
that Kerry attracts. <LOL>
--Ace
Milt
It's wrong. Period. And the fact that an apologist like you thinks it's
okay because you think it gives Bush an advantage makes you just as bad.
BTW, I would have said the same thing if Clinton had used OKC footage in
his ads. He didn't, because he didn't HAVE to. That's the logical
problem you idiots make. If Bush was doing a great job, he wouldn't NEED
to invoke images like that.
>
>
>>As far as being "afraid," I'd say the fact that Bush is already pushing
>>the "I'm a great leader" thing in March, when he faces no one in a
>>primary, shows a hell of a lot more fear...
>
>
> You'd rather have him just stand there and take all the mud the
> Democrats have been throwing on him, wouldn't you?
What mud? That he sucks as president? He's fucked up the economy, he
spends money like a drunken Republican, he's alienated damn near every
other country in the world except Britain (and only the British PM,
who's pretty much dead meat because of Iraq, not the people), he lied
for a year or more to get us into a war that he obviously didn't prepare
for, he's fucked up in Afghanistan, and he (and I'm giving him the
benefit of the doubt) stood aside while one of the few Democracies in
the Carribean was taken over by a band of thugs.
Shit, Ace; it's only March and he's forced to pander to people who are
supposed to be his "base" with this asinine gay marriage amendment
(which he knows will never pass) and his feigned concern over
"indecency" on the airwaves.
>
> Sorry about your luck.
>
I'd be worrying about yours. You're backing a lame duck, unless Kerry
somehow self-destructs. Not likely; John Kerry is NOT Al Gore.
>
>>>
>>>>As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
>>>>families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
>>>
>>>
>>>It's just an opinion. Nobody but a Bush hater would be upset by
>>>seeing him mention 9/11.
>>
>>Don't bet on that. I'm pretty sure moves like this will do a lot to
>>create Bush haters...
>>
>>
>>> I think it's a good bet that the ads will
>>>reap rewards for Bush. They seem to think so too. So do you
>>>Democrats are you wouldn't be whining about them.
>>
>>Not likely to work. The only people impressed were already impressed.
>>
>>And I am not worried about this election...
>
>
> ROITFLOL. You and the rest of the weasels were pretty sure in 2000
> and 2002 too, weren't you?
>
We won in 2000.
2002 did surprise me. That was the first surprising election in my life.
I never expected liberals to stay away from the polls. They won't this
time; Bush keeps giving the hard core liberals too much red meat. You
see, every time he panders to his "base," he energizes another group.
I especially liked it when the Bushies started getting up and telling
voters in "swing states" like Ohio and Michigan that outsourcing of jobs
was really cool...
>
>
>>>>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>>>>these folks are pissed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
>>>>>good thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
>>>>but the victims' families may or may not be.
>>>>
>>>>And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
>>>>9-11 for political gain?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Promise? <LOL> I sure hope he continues to use 9/11. I hope he also
>>>stresses how Kerry voted to cut funding for defense and intelligence
>>>departments.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, put that up against Bush's record of fucking up wars three
>>countries. That oughta do it...
>
>
> Lets wait until November and see?
If the country lasts 239 more days...
Milt
The Daily Weasel
http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>
>
> Hey everybody, check out Milt's web page. This is the kind of person
> that Kerry attracts. <LOL>
>
Yep. Good people, who like to tell the truth. Anything on there you wish
to refute, fuckwit?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
<LOL> Oh yeah, Milt says it's wrong.
>BTW, I would have said the same thing if Clinton had used OKC footage in
>his ads. He didn't, because he didn't HAVE to. That's the logical
>problem you idiots make. If Bush was doing a great job, he wouldn't NEED
>to invoke images like that.
Admit it, you morons are afraid that Bush's response to the attack
will ring a bell with the voters and that will only further highlight
Kerry's anti-defense attitude.
>>
>>
>>>As far as being "afraid," I'd say the fact that Bush is already pushing
>>>the "I'm a great leader" thing in March, when he faces no one in a
>>>primary, shows a hell of a lot more fear...
>>
>>
>> You'd rather have him just stand there and take all the mud the
>> Democrats have been throwing on him, wouldn't you?
>
>What mud? That he sucks as president? He's fucked up the economy, he
>spends money like a drunken Republican, he's alienated damn near every
>other country in the world except Britain (and only the British PM,
>who's pretty much dead meat because of Iraq, not the people), he lied
>for a year or more to get us into a war that he obviously didn't prepare
>for, he's fucked up in Afghanistan, and he (and I'm giving him the
>benefit of the doubt) stood aside while one of the few Democracies in
>the Carribean was taken over by a band of thugs.
That mud.
>Shit, Ace; it's only March and he's forced to pander to people who are
>supposed to be his "base" with this asinine gay marriage amendment
>(which he knows will never pass) and his feigned concern over
>"indecency" on the airwaves.
It's only March indeed and the Democrats have been attacking Bush
daily for months. Now its time to answer.
>> Sorry about your luck.
>>
>
>I'd be worrying about yours. You're backing a lame duck, unless Kerry
>somehow self-destructs. Not likely; John Kerry is NOT Al Gore.
<LOL> You guys are real good at telling yourselves lots of reasons
why you think you'll win.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>As for the people complaining, I'm not sure which party the victims'
>>>>>families are registered with, if at all. How do you obtain such information?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's just an opinion. Nobody but a Bush hater would be upset by
>>>>seeing him mention 9/11.
>>>
>>>Don't bet on that. I'm pretty sure moves like this will do a lot to
>>>create Bush haters...
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think it's a good bet that the ads will
>>>>reap rewards for Bush. They seem to think so too. So do you
>>>>Democrats are you wouldn't be whining about them.
>>>
>>>Not likely to work. The only people impressed were already impressed.
>>>
>>>And I am not worried about this election...
>>
>>
>> ROITFLOL. You and the rest of the weasels were pretty sure in 2000
>> and 2002 too, weren't you?
>>
>We won in 2000.
<LOL> Keep telling yourself that, Milt. Tell all your weasel buddies
too. Makes them feel better, you know.
>2002 did surprise me. That was the first surprising election in my life.
> I never expected liberals to stay away from the polls. They won't this
>time; Bush keeps giving the hard core liberals too much red meat. You
>see, every time he panders to his "base," he energizes another group.
I enjoy reading your little spins, Milt, I really do. Reminds me of
how far out in neverland you guys really are.
>I especially liked it when the Bushies started getting up and telling
>voters in "swing states" like Ohio and Michigan that outsourcing of jobs
> was really cool...
More spin? That all you've got?
How do you think Kerry's anti-national-defense record will fly in
Peoria?
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>>>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>>>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>>>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>>>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>>>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>>>>>these folks are pissed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only people that are pissed are the Democrats, and that's a very
>>>>>>good thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, how do you know the pissed off people are Democrats? Some are,
>>>>>but the victims' families may or may not be.
>>>>>
>>>>>And what does this have to do with Bush breaking his promise NOT to use
>>>>>9-11 for political gain?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Promise? <LOL> I sure hope he continues to use 9/11. I hope he also
>>>>stresses how Kerry voted to cut funding for defense and intelligence
>>>>departments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, put that up against Bush's record of fucking up wars three
>>>countries. That oughta do it...
>>
>>
>> Lets wait until November and see?
>
>If the country lasts 239 more days...
ROTFLMAO Chicken little much? Anybody doubt that Milt is a nut
case after reading that? The leftist boobs are preaching to the
choir. They're too stupid to realize that the undecided voters in the
country are all moderates, not loony radicals like themselves. Those
undecided voters are smart enough to see what a bunch of freaks the
Milt Shooks and Bryan Jamiesons are, and those radical morons don't
have the ability to speak in terms that won't turn them the average
undecided voter off.
>Milt
>
>The Daily Weasel
>http://www.lyingsocialistweasels.com
>>
>>
>> Hey everybody, check out Milt's web page. This is the kind of person
>> that Kerry attracts. <LOL>
>>
>Yep. Good people, who like to tell the truth. Anything on there you wish
>to refute, fuckwit?
sorry milt, I don't read that kind of propaganda. Nobody else that
matters will either. You extremists will never figure out that your
outlandish claims just turn the ordinary folks off. The only people
who respond favorably to your "If the country lasts 239 more days..."
are the nut cases like yourself. So keep it up.
--Ace
Jeffrey Scott Linder
He will? How do you figure that Milt?
>Do you even read this shit before you respond? CC owns 1200 stations.
>Clear Channel and Infinity own 42% of the broadcast stations in the
>country. If Stern getsw canned by both, there are many markets where he
>will be unable to find an outlet!
There are? Well then maybe PBS should pick him up. They're
everywhere.
>>
>>>Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
>>>raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
>>>20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
>>>definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
>>
>>
>> See what happens when the government is given too much power to
>> regulate Milt?
>
>There ARE no regulations, you twit! The government is upping the fine
>for "indecency" to $500,000 "per incident" when there is NO statute or
>regulation defining what that is. The purpose of regulation is to set
>the ground rules so that everyone is served equally. The problem, ya
>moron is that there is NO regulation, just a dictate and a fine amount.
So let's see if I understand what your are saying. The FCC is
regulating the airwaves but since the rules aren't clear it's not
really regulating. OK
>>
>>
>>>With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
>>>will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
>>>supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
>>>belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
>>
>>
>> Milt's finally getting it.
>>
>> Didn't stop you from ranting out "equal time" provisions a while back
>> did it? That was when YOU wanted the government to interfere in
>> broadcasting...why the sudden change of heart?
>>
>
>You have to be the mud dumbest person on Usenet, Jeffrey. I'm all for
>equal time, and I also think a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a
>necessity. Set the regulations so that broadcasters know what's allowed
>and what's not allowed. The problem is a LACK of regulation, not
>excessive regulation.
So you are in favor of regulating the airwaves...you just don 't seem
to like it when you disagree with who is in charge of the regulating.
>You people simply haven't a clue. The reason I object is the
>abitrariness of going after Stern now. The lack of regulation is what's
>creating an atmosphere in which one FCC can do whatever it wants to
>whomever it wants.
>
>Grow up and get a clue...
A regulating board is regulating and Milt can't seem to get his hands
around that....
>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>anyone with half a brain should expect.
Wow, a politician broke a promise!
>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>these folks are pissed.
And some are happy....go figure.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Ace wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>
>>
>> The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
>> are accomplishing their purpose.
>>
>What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
>ahead of the people he works for?
And this from a guy who supported Clinton...lol.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>Ace wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:05:44 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ace wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:43:06 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The fact that the Democrats are whining about the ads show that they
>>>>are accomplishing their purpose.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What? To demonstrate that Bush doesn't keep his word and puts politics
>>>ahead of the people he works for?
>>
>>
>> LOL, for one thing they piss off you lib types, and that means that
>> you are afraid of them. If you really thought they were a negative
>> for Bush you wouldn't be throwing a tantrum about them.
>
>They piss me off because they exploit people, and I don't think
>exploiting victims of a tragedy is a good thing, no matter who's doing
>it. If Kerry was taking pictures of the homeless and using them to bash
>Bush, I might say the same thing, depending on how it's done...
That means if Milt agrees with the message he doens't mind the
exploitation.
For Milt, the ends always justifies the means.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
How can that be Milt? I'm listening to Howard Stern right now. Just
heard from Robert Varkony(sp?)..WSOP 2002 winner.
You wouldn't be making shit up would you?
>>In fact, the entire scenario is laid out for you in the article above.
>>
>>
>>>Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
>>>with it, Jeffrey.
>>
>>
>> Well, first, I haven't a clue as to when the FCC took howard stern off
>> the air.
>
>Clear Channel owns 1200 stations and it wants a lot more. It's only
>chance of increasing its reach is to keep their long-time buddy Dubya in
>office. The only way for Bush to appeal to his "base" (was there a more
>appropriate word for Bush supporters?) is to go after those who would be
>"indecent." So, the GOP proposed raising the fine to $500,000 to appease
> the idiots, and CC banned Stern from damned near 1/3 of the radio
>stations in the country, including 1/2 the stations in many markets, to
>appease the Bushies.
I still haven't a clue as to when the FCC or HR3717 took Howard Stern
off the air.
>>
>>
>>>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
>>
>>
>> Poor Milt.
>>
>I know you didn't. It's obvious every time you write.
LOL
Steve Canyon
It's not even that complicated. To imagine that Milt and any other of
the leftist crowd is concerned about or trying to defend the feelings
of 9/11 victims is ridiculous. The ONLY thing Milt is concerned with
is trying to get his guys back in power. The liberal crowd makes a
lot of noise in their attempts to appear as if they care about other
people but it's all a facade. They want a world where nobody has to
compete for anything and it's because they know they themselves don't
have what it takes.
--Ace
Milt
Ya dumb fuck. You don't even know what you're talking about.
>
>
>>>>Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
>>>>raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
>>>>20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
>>>>definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
>>>
>>>
>>>See what happens when the government is given too much power to
>>>regulate Milt?
>>
>>There ARE no regulations, you twit! The government is upping the fine
>>for "indecency" to $500,000 "per incident" when there is NO statute or
>>regulation defining what that is. The purpose of regulation is to set
>>the ground rules so that everyone is served equally. The problem, ya
>>moron is that there is NO regulation, just a dictate and a fine amount.
>
>
> So let's see if I understand what your are saying. The FCC is
> regulating the airwaves but since the rules aren't clear it's not
> really regulating. OK
The FCC is NOT regulating the airwaves, you asshole!
Handing out fines is not regulating anything. There are no regulations!
The FCC gets a complaint from some little old lady in Bugtussle, or a
group from a couple of churches in Tulsa, and they listen, and decide,
with no written guidelines, what is "indecent" and what is not. It
completely arbitrary. Arbitrariness is a sign of a LACK of regulation,
you pinhead.
>
>>>
>>>>With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
>>>>will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
>>>>supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
>>>>belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>Milt's finally getting it.
>>>
>>>Didn't stop you from ranting out "equal time" provisions a while back
>>>did it? That was when YOU wanted the government to interfere in
>>>broadcasting...why the sudden change of heart?
>>>
>>
>>You have to be the mud dumbest person on Usenet, Jeffrey. I'm all for
>>equal time, and I also think a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a
>>necessity. Set the regulations so that broadcasters know what's allowed
>>and what's not allowed. The problem is a LACK of regulation, not
>>excessive regulation.
>
>
> So you are in favor of regulating the airwaves...you just don 't seem
> to like it when you disagree with who is in charge of the regulating.
>
Dumbass, there is no regulation regarding "indecency." The only
regulation is, there can never be "obscenity" and "indecency" is only
allowed between the magical hours of 10 pm and 6 am. But there is no
DEFINITION.
>
>
>>You people simply haven't a clue. The reason I object is the
>>abitrariness of going after Stern now. The lack of regulation is what's
>>creating an atmosphere in which one FCC can do whatever it wants to
>>whomever it wants.
>>
>>Grow up and get a clue...
>
>
> A regulating board is regulating and Milt can't seem to get his hands
> around that....
>
They're not regulating, you dumb fuck. They're enforcing. But they're
enforcing regulations which don't exist. I happen to think Rush Limbaugh
is "indecent" most of the time. If I was on the FCC and enforcing the
current regulation, I bet you'd be really upset.
>
>
>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>
>
> Wow, a politician broke a promise!
>
>
>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>these folks are pissed.
>
>
> And some are happy....go figure.
>
Yeah, go figure. If 200,000 people condemn Bush and 12 people defend
him, Jeffrey will use the 12 as "proof" that his hero did the right thing...
Milt
Not only is Jeffrey ignorant, he seems to be unaware that he's
demonstrating it with every post.
Stern has only been cut from six CC stations thus far. But he has been
banned from 1200 others. Also, Congress is proposing fines of $500,000
and the ability to pull the license for every "incident" for whatever
Michael Powell decides is "indecent." Given the fact that Powell wanted
to pull the licenses of every CBS-owned station because of Janet
Jackson's bare breast, and given that there are NO regulations on the
books guiding what on-air may say or do, all it would take is Howard
Stern saying ONE thing that pissed off Michael Powell (and who knows
what that might be?) for Infinity to be looking at tens of millions of
dollars in fines (Stern is on 41 stations currently, so that would be
about $20 million for one nasty word or whatever. Given the woody the
FCC has had for Stern over the years, that makes Stern a liability for
Infinity. Their insurance would probably go way up and the risk to
licensees would be too great.
And all because Stern decided he no longer likes Bush.
>>>In fact, the entire scenario is laid out for you in the article above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
>>>>with it, Jeffrey.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, first, I haven't a clue as to when the FCC took howard stern off
>>>the air.
>>
>>Clear Channel owns 1200 stations and it wants a lot more. It's only
>>chance of increasing its reach is to keep their long-time buddy Dubya in
>>office. The only way for Bush to appeal to his "base" (was there a more
>>appropriate word for Bush supporters?) is to go after those who would be
>>"indecent." So, the GOP proposed raising the fine to $500,000 to appease
>> the idiots, and CC banned Stern from damned near 1/3 of the radio
>>stations in the country, including 1/2 the stations in many markets, to
>>appease the Bushies.
>
>
> I still haven't a clue as to when the FCC or HR3717 took Howard Stern
> off the air.
>
Then you are, in fact, an idiot. If you don't see the connection, you
have certified your ignorance for all of us.
1. CC and Bush go way the hell back.
2. CC has 1200 stations and wants lots more.
3. CC knows that Bush will help them get more stations; Kerry likely won't.
4. Stern turns "against" Bush.
5. FCC holds hearings on indecency, and Congress debates HR 3717, which
would make it financially risky for any license holder to carry Stern.
Not because he's indecent, but because there is no definition of what is
"indecent."
6. CC now has a pretext for getting rid of the disloyal Stern, so they
ban him from its 1200 stations.
(Then they get Rush Limbaugh to write a column defending CC, who just
happen to be his employers. I tear that apart on the Weasel site...)
>
>>>
>>>>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
>>>
>>>
>>>Poor Milt.
>>>
>>
>>I know you didn't. It's obvious every time you write.
>
>
> LOL
>
Yeah, laugh, Jeffrey. You might as well, everyone else is...
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>
>Stern has only been cut from six CC stations thus far. But he has been
>banned from 1200 others. Also, Congress is proposing fines of $500,000
>and the ability to pull the license for every "incident" for whatever
>Michael Powell decides is "indecent." Given the fact that Powell wanted
>to pull the licenses of every CBS-owned station because of Janet
>Jackson's bare breast, and given that there are NO regulations on the
>books guiding what on-air may say or do, all it would take is Howard
>Stern saying ONE thing that pissed off Michael Powell (and who knows
>what that might be?) for Infinity to be looking at tens of millions of
>dollars in fines (Stern is on 41 stations currently, so that would be
>about $20 million for one nasty word or whatever. Given the woody the
>FCC has had for Stern over the years, that makes Stern a liability for
>Infinity. Their insurance would probably go way up and the risk to
>licensees would be too great.
>
>And all because Stern decided he no longer likes Bush.
>
<LOL!> if that were true, Milt, your side is in deep do-do, but, of
course it's not. There's many, many anti-bush people running around
with no problems at all, and then there's the fact among the general
public, a public endorsement from a creep like Howard Stern would be a
bad thing. If I were on Bush's campaign and had any control over the
air waves I'd leave Stern on and I'd put you, Jamieson, Yeadon and all
the rest of the weasels on the air too.
--Ace
Thomas Trust
Milt
Yeah, well, I note that you don't address the actual issue...
I presented a bunch of facts, and all you've come up with is, "it's not
true."
Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
some facts.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
So NPR (not PBS) won't pick up the alternative Howard Stern?
Think what a commercial success it would become.
>>>>>Wonder if Jeffrey will tell us how many insurance companies will NOT
>>>>>raise their rates for liability insurance when the FCC is proposing a
>>>>>20X increase in possible fines for "indecency," when there is no
>>>>>definition of "indecency" anywhere in the code?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>See what happens when the government is given too much power to
>>>>regulate Milt?
>>>
>>>There ARE no regulations, you twit! The government is upping the fine
>>>for "indecency" to $500,000 "per incident" when there is NO statute or
>>>regulation defining what that is. The purpose of regulation is to set
>>>the ground rules so that everyone is served equally. The problem, ya
>>>moron is that there is NO regulation, just a dictate and a fine amount.
>>
>>
>> So let's see if I understand what your are saying. The FCC is
>> regulating the airwaves but since the rules aren't clear it's not
>> really regulating. OK
>
>The FCC is NOT regulating the airwaves, you asshole!
They aren't? What does the FCC do then Milt?
You claimed to know not too long ago when you posted this:
-----------
Take Back OUR Airwaves
by Milt Shook
Enter the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was created with
the Communications Act of 1934; a far-reaching law borne of the
knowledge that without significant regulation, there would be no
order, and all messages would end up garbled. If radio (and later,
television) was to be useful as an informational tool, there had to be
guidelines as to how the airwaves could be used, because the spectrum
was necessarily limited and it was important that all points of view
have the potential to be represented. Check out the purity of the
original law creating the FCC:
-----------
>Handing out fines is not regulating anything. There are no regulations!
>The FCC gets a complaint from some little old lady in Bugtussle, or a
>group from a couple of churches in Tulsa, and they listen, and decide,
>with no written guidelines, what is "indecent" and what is not. It
>completely arbitrary. Arbitrariness is a sign of a LACK of regulation,
>you pinhead.
So your other post on the subject when you said the FCC regulates is
what then? Rhetoric?
You're such a reactionary Milt.
>>>>
>>>>>With no definition, and a $500,000 fine in the balance, how many shows
>>>>>will be pushed off the air because they honestly don't know what they're
>>>>>supposed to do? It's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't
>>>>>belong, and putting the kibosh on free speech, pure and simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Milt's finally getting it.
>>>>
>>>>Didn't stop you from ranting out "equal time" provisions a while back
>>>>did it? That was when YOU wanted the government to interfere in
>>>>broadcasting...why the sudden change of heart?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have to be the mud dumbest person on Usenet, Jeffrey. I'm all for
>>>equal time, and I also think a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a
>>>necessity. Set the regulations so that broadcasters know what's allowed
>>>and what's not allowed. The problem is a LACK of regulation, not
>>>excessive regulation.
>>
>>
>> So you are in favor of regulating the airwaves...you just don 't seem
>> to like it when you disagree with who is in charge of the regulating.
>>
>Dumbass, there is no regulation regarding "indecency." The only
>regulation is, there can never be "obscenity" and "indecency" is only
>allowed between the magical hours of 10 pm and 6 am. But there is no
>DEFINITION.
There isn't? Maybe you should have researched a little harder for
your article then. There certainly are guidelines:
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/25-2/bct-indecenc.html
>>
>>
>>>You people simply haven't a clue. The reason I object is the
>>>abitrariness of going after Stern now. The lack of regulation is what's
>>>creating an atmosphere in which one FCC can do whatever it wants to
>>>whomever it wants.
>>>
>>>Grow up and get a clue...
>>
>>
>> A regulating board is regulating and Milt can't seem to get his hands
>> around that....
>>
>They're not regulating, you dumb fuck. They're enforcing. But they're
>enforcing regulations which don't exist. I happen to think Rush Limbaugh
>is "indecent" most of the time.
Complain to the FCC then....that's what they are there for.
>If I was on the FCC and enforcing the
>current regulation, I bet you'd be really upset.
Ah...Milt dreams of being the dictator.
>>
>>
>>>The fact is, Bush promised not to exploit this tragedy, because he knew
>>>how people would take it. He broke his promise and got exactly what
>>>anyone with half a brain should expect.
>>
>>
>> Wow, a politician broke a promise!
>>
>>
>>>It's only been a bit over two years, and nerves amongst the victims'
>>>families are probably still frayed. Add to that the fact that Bush tried
>>>to screw the firemen a while back, the underfunding of Homeland
>>>Security, at the same time he's handing $87 billion to Iraq and his
>>>refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the events leading up to
>>>9-11, and most people with any intelligence at all could understand why
>>>these folks are pissed.
>>
>>
>> And some are happy....go figure.
>>
>
>Yeah, go figure. If 200,000 people condemn Bush and 12 people defend
>him, Jeffrey will use the 12 as "proof" that his hero did the right thing...
There's Milt constructing yet another strawman.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
That may be all well and good Milt but its hardly evidence that the
FCC has banned Howard Stern.
>
>And all because Stern decided he no longer likes Bush.
He liked Gore too...so what?
>>>>In fact, the entire scenario is laid out for you in the article above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Now, why don't you explain to us how the government had nothing to do
>>>>>with it, Jeffrey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, first, I haven't a clue as to when the FCC took howard stern off
>>>>the air.
>>>
>>>Clear Channel owns 1200 stations and it wants a lot more. It's only
>>>chance of increasing its reach is to keep their long-time buddy Dubya in
>>>office. The only way for Bush to appeal to his "base" (was there a more
>>>appropriate word for Bush supporters?) is to go after those who would be
>>>"indecent." So, the GOP proposed raising the fine to $500,000 to appease
>>> the idiots, and CC banned Stern from damned near 1/3 of the radio
>>>stations in the country, including 1/2 the stations in many markets, to
>>>appease the Bushies.
>>
>>
>> I still haven't a clue as to when the FCC or HR3717 took Howard Stern
>> off the air.
>>
>Then you are, in fact, an idiot. If you don't see the connection, you
>have certified your ignorance for all of us.
Why is it then Milt, that I could listen to Howard this morning and
can listen tomorrow? You just got done saying he was banned by the
FCC and HR3717? How can this be?
>
>1. CC and Bush go way the hell back.
>2. CC has 1200 stations and wants lots more.
>3. CC knows that Bush will help them get more stations; Kerry likely won't.
>4. Stern turns "against" Bush.
>5. FCC holds hearings on indecency, and Congress debates HR 3717, which
>would make it financially risky for any license holder to carry Stern.
>Not because he's indecent, but because there is no definition of what is
>"indecent."
>6. CC now has a pretext for getting rid of the disloyal Stern, so they
>ban him from its 1200 stations.
>
>(Then they get Rush Limbaugh to write a column defending CC, who just
>happen to be his employers. I tear that apart on the Weasel site...)
I'm sure you think you do.
>>>>
>>>>>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Poor Milt.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I know you didn't. It's obvious every time you write.
>>
>>
>> LOL
>>
>
>Yeah, laugh, Jeffrey. You might as well, everyone else is...
The irony.
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Facts? You said the FCC has banned Howard Stern. That is not a
"fact" by any stretch of the imagination.
>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>some facts.
BWAHAHAHHAAA
The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
elude Milt Shook.
JSL
Milt
No I didn't. You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
the FCC, hearings by the government and a bill that gave Clear Channel
the incentive to ban Stern from 1200 stations. In other words, the
government, through threats and intimidation gave them the incentive to
get rid of him.
>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>some facts.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHHAAA
>
> The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
> elude Milt Shook.
>
The fact that his days are numbered does not register with you, does it?
Stern Sources Say FCC Fines Delayed
March 8, 2004
Howard Stern was still on the air this morning after the FCC failed to
hit Infinity with the the Notice of Apparent Liability that Stern's
inside source at the Commission was “99% sure” was coming down at the
end of last week. “Friday after the show I was sitting around waiting
for the axe to fall,” admitted Stern as he signed on this morning. “The
FCC hasn’t come out with their fines yet. They’re preparing their case
still.”
Stern said his source told him, “[FCC Chairman Michael] Powell is
freaking out because he realizes he’s turning me into a martyr and he’s
afraid it will affect the Bush campaign. He actually does know how much
power we wield with this radio show. So now he’s trying to figure out
when to put the fines against me. I know this because I have inside
sources at the FCC. I have about three people in there, so I know
exactly what is going on. So now they’re in a weird position. If the
fines come out, everyone’s going to know how truthful this show is and
what we’ve been saying. If they don’t, it just makes me look like I’ve
been crying wolf.”
Stern says the fines will be timed so as not to interfere with President
Bush’s reelection bid. “Chairman Powell has been really freaked out by
how I keep reporting everything that has been going on, including The
Fellowship, George Bush, everything,” Stern said. “He’s just a little
afraid he’s turning me into a martyr and that this could cost Bush the
election. So he’s thinking it through to maybe hold off my fine until
right before the election so I’ll look like a crazy man. He’s still
preparing his case. He’s got a whole bunch of little things I’ve said on
the air that he doesn’t like.”
Assuming Stern does trigger new fines against Infinity, he now sounds
less convinced that the company will immediately remove him from the
air. “This could drag on for months,” he said. “The company is going to
try and fight back.” On Friday (3/5), WXRK/New York GM Tom Chiusano told
Stern, "I believe we will find a way through all this. There are a lot
of smart people that work here. You’ve got a lot of important friends in
important places. We have the best legal team we can have behind us and
we have the strongest leader."
Support for Stern is growing. NY Congressman José E. Serrano called to
voice his allegiance, Stern said. “He’s the dude that I think heads the
committee that gives funds to the FCC,” explained Stern. “They have to
come to him in a couple of weeks to ask for funding and he is going to
lay it out to them.” Serrano, a Democrat, is a minority member of the
Appropriations Committee, which must approve any money drawn from the
U.S. Treasury. He's also the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary.
Later in the show, former New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato phoned in his
support, saying “the FCC is off their rocker” and “there is such a thing
known as free speech. You still have a great program that maybe everyone
doesn’t like, but they don’t have to listen if they don’t like you.”
Funny man Artie Lange returned to the show today after a week off to
attend the Aspen Comedy Festival, saying that there were plenty of
people at the gathering voicing their support for Stern, including Drew
Carey and Joe Rogan. Other celebs offering support for Stern recently
have included Viggo Mortenson and Starksy & Hutch director Todd Phillips.
Milt
You don't know what's going on, do you?
March 8, 2004
>>1. CC and Bush go way the hell back.
>>2. CC has 1200 stations and wants lots more.
>>3. CC knows that Bush will help them get more stations; Kerry likely won't.
>>4. Stern turns "against" Bush.
>>5. FCC holds hearings on indecency, and Congress debates HR 3717, which
>>would make it financially risky for any license holder to carry Stern.
>>Not because he's indecent, but because there is no definition of what is
>>"indecent."
>>6. CC now has a pretext for getting rid of the disloyal Stern, so they
>>ban him from its 1200 stations.
>>
>>(Then they get Rush Limbaugh to write a column defending CC, who just
>>happen to be his employers. I tear that apart on the Weasel site...)
>
>
> I'm sure you think you do.
>
It's been quoted on at least two radio shows, and Limbaugh mentioned it
today, although he didn't mention the site...
>
>
>>>>>>You didn't even read the article, did you, you stupid ass??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Poor Milt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know you didn't. It's obvious every time you write.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, laugh, Jeffrey. You might as well, everyone else is...
>
>
> The irony.
>
You wouldn't understand irony if it hit you in the head. Every post of
yours drips with it.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
You presented an undocumented opinion, Milt.
>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>some facts.
>
I say Stern got booted because he's a piece of crap. You say it was
because he didn';t like Bush.
My opinion is just as valid as yours.
I also say if people got booted because they didn't like Bush there'd
be a lot of people booted.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
Milt didn't mean that he had facts. What he meant was that he had
some opinions. Milt gets those two confused.
>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>some facts.
>
>BWAHAHAHHAAA
>
>The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
>elude Milt Shook.
>
>
>
>JSL
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Stern said his source told him, [FCC Chairman Michael] Powell is
>freaking out because he realizes he’s turning me into a martyr and he’s
>afraid it will affect the Bush campaign.
Stern's source told him, huh? My source tells me that Stern's source
is some hooker he met.
--Ace
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You didn't? Well then someone hacked into your account and answered
this question:
"Tell us Milt....what government agency took Howard Stern off the
air?"
With this answer:
"The FCC."
>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
>the FCC,
LOL.
>hearings by the government and a bill that gave Clear Channel
>the incentive to ban Stern from 1200 stations. In other words, the
>government, through threats and intimidation gave them the incentive to
>get rid of him.
Dream on Milt. He's still on the air in my market...the FCC, as you
claim, has not banned Howard Stern.
>>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>>some facts.
>>
>>
>> BWAHAHAHHAAA
>>
>> The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
>> elude Milt Shook.
>>
>The fact that his days are numbered does not register with you, does it?
So now he isn't banned? Which is it Milt?
< yawn >
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
So Howard Stern is in charge of the FCC? How does he "know" the FCC
is going to fine him? Maybe the list of fines is in your briefcase
with your list of childproof saftey features of power tools.
JSL
Milt
Exactly.
>
>
>>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
>>the FCC,
>
>
> LOL.
Right. Laugh. Might as well. Stern has already been banned from 1200
stations and is on the verge of being kicked off the airwaves by the
FCC. That should chill your shit.
>
>
>>hearings by the government and a bill that gave Clear Channel
>>the incentive to ban Stern from 1200 stations. In other words, the
>>government, through threats and intimidation gave them the incentive to
>>get rid of him.
>
>
> Dream on Milt. He's still on the air in my market...the FCC, as you
> claim, has not banned Howard Stern.
You obviously don't listen to him. He's not doing his show, because he
literally cannot. His voice is on the air, but the show is not.
>
>
>>>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>>>some facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>BWAHAHAHHAAA
>>>
>>>The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
>>>elude Milt Shook.
>>>
>>
>>The fact that his days are numbered does not register with you, does it?
>
>
> So now he isn't banned? Which is it Milt?
He's banned from 1200 stations, you moron! And because of the FCC's
pending action, his show has pretty much been cancelled for the time
being. What part of this do you not get?
If this was happening to Rush Limbaugh, you'd be picketing the FCC. And
that's the difference between us. If Limbaugh were being banned from
stations and drummed off the air by the FCC for his political beliefs,
I'd be picketing with you.
You simply don't understand this issue, so why don't you just admit it
and move on? Stop embarrassing yourself.
Milt
Yeah. Like the facts I present that refute your "opinions", which you
keep snipping?
Howard Stern has not been able to do his show for more than a week,
because of pending FCC action. That pending FCC action "forced" Clear
Channel to ban him from 1200 broadcast stations.
What part of this are you not getting. This guy is being drummed off the
air because of his political positions, and that's wrong. It would be
wrong if Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other moron hosts were being
drummed off the air, and it's wrong when it happens to Stern, whose show
I thought was horrible, btw. But the fact is, the millions of people who
DO like him and DO listen to him are being shut out of the decision
making process by their own government, because of its political agenda.
I thought you RW clowns objected to that sort of thing. Or is that only
when Clinton is in office?
Milt
No, I presented the facts, and it is quite well documented.
>
>
>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>some facts.
>>
>
>
> I say Stern got booted because he's a piece of crap. You say it was
> because he didn';t like Bush.
>
> My opinion is just as valid as yours.
No, it isn't, because it's not supported by the facts.
He's been a piece of crap for 20 years. The FCC has fined him several
times, and in some cases, rightly so. But the fact is, the FCC didn't
touch him during the entire Bush Administration, until just after he
started bashing Bush. Now, all of a sudden, he's a menace.
If your opinion is so fucking valid, how come Powell didn't try to get
rid of him three years ago? After all, one of Bush's campaign promises
was to clean up the "filth."
Why did it suddenly become important to get rid of Howard Stern? it
wouldn't be because Stern has come out against Bush, and has a
significant influence on a lot of the voters Bush covets, would it?
Young, urban white males?
Why don't you support your opinion?
Milt
Yeah, you know a lot about this issue. if you knew anything about Stern,
you'd know that he has a lot of friends in Washington. In fact, he was a
huge Bush supporter until a short time ago. And among his friends are Al
D'Amato and Rudy Giuliani. He can find out what's going on up there...
Milt
> Milt <miltrem...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>How can that be Milt? I'm listening to Howard Stern right now. Just
>>>>>heard from Robert Varkony(sp?)..WSOP 2002 winner.
>>>>>
>>>>>You wouldn't be making shit up would you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not only is Jeffrey ignorant, he seems to be unaware that he's
>>>>demonstrating it with every post.
>>>>
>>>>Stern has only been cut from six CC stations thus far. But he has been
>>>>banned from 1200 others. Also, Congress is proposing fines of $500,000
>>>>and the ability to pull the license for every "incident" for whatever
>>>>Michael Powell decides is "indecent." Given the fact that Powell wanted
>>>>to pull the licenses of every CBS-owned station because of Janet
>>>>Jackson's bare breast, and given that there are NO regulations on the
>>>>books guiding what on-air may say or do, all it would take is Howard
>>>>Stern saying ONE thing that pissed off Michael Powell (and who knows
>>>>what that might be?) for Infinity to be looking at tens of millions of
>>>>dollars in fines (Stern is on 41 stations currently, so that would be
>>>>about $20 million for one nasty word or whatever. Given the woody the
>>>>FCC has had for Stern over the years, that makes Stern a liability for
>>>>Infinity. Their insurance would probably go way up and the risk to
>>>>licensees would be too great.
>>>
>>>
>>>That may be all well and good Milt but its hardly evidence that the
>>>FCC has banned Howard Stern.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And all because Stern decided he no longer likes Bush.
>>>
>>>
>>>He liked Gore too...so what?
I missed this the first time.
Stern could not stand Al Gore. He was a HUGE Bush supporter in 2000.
Why don't you read the fucking article, you bonehead.
You don't think anyone can find out anything about the FCC unless
they're Michael Powell? That's pretty naive...
zepp
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
Milt, it's possible that "Ace" is the hooker that Stern met. We had
been wondering how he made his money.
>
-
Kerry served in Vietnam and got a silver star.
Putsch served in the National Guard and got a silver filling.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Steve Canyon
wrote:
The FCC forced it huh?
>What part of this are you not getting.
the next part....
>This guy is being drummed off the
>air because of his political positions, and that's wrong.
Yeah, that part.... you still claim it's some sort of fact?
>It would be
>wrong if Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other moron hosts were being
>drummed off the air, and it's wrong when it happens to Stern, whose show
>I thought was horrible, btw. But the fact is, the millions of people who
>DO like him and DO listen to him are being shut out of the decision
>making process by their own government, because of its political agenda.
You've yet to show that he was booted for his political decisions. I
suspect it's because there is no connection.
>I thought you RW clowns objected to that sort of thing. Or is that only
>when Clinton is in office?
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Not only can you not provide any evidence to support your claim that
it had anything to do with Stern's political position, you clearly
show that you don't understand what a fact is.
>>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>>some facts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I say Stern got booted because he's a piece of crap. You say it was
>> because he didn';t like Bush.
>>
>> My opinion is just as valid as yours.
>
>No, it isn't, because it's not supported by the facts.
>
>He's been a piece of crap for 20 years. The FCC has fined him several
>times, and in some cases, rightly so. But the fact is, the FCC didn't
>touch him during the entire Bush Administration, until just after he
>started bashing Bush. Now, all of a sudden, he's a menace.
So that's your "facts?"
>If your opinion is so fucking valid, how come Powell didn't try to get
>rid of him three years ago? After all, one of Bush's campaign promises
>was to clean up the "filth."
My opinion isn't "so fucking valid," it's just as valid as yours.
>Why did it suddenly become important to get rid of Howard Stern?
I don't know... apparently, neither do you.
>it
>wouldn't be because Stern has come out against Bush, and has a
>significant influence on a lot of the voters Bush covets, would it?
It's your point to prove....
>Young, urban white males?
>
>Why don't you support your opinion?
Waiting for one of your "facts" to show up.....
>> I also say if people got booted because they didn't like Bush there'd
>> be a lot of people booted.
>>
>> --Ace
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Steve Canyon wrote:
<LOL> Riiiight.....
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:18:44 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Steve Canyon wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:48:34 -0500, Milt <miltrem...@usa.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stern said his source told him, [FCC Chairman Michael] Powell is
>>>>freaking out because he realizes he’s turning me into a martyr and he’s
>>>>afraid it will affect the Bush campaign.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stern's source told him, huh? My source tells me that Stern's source
>>> is some hooker he met.
>>>
>>> --Ace
>>
>>Yeah, you know a lot about this issue. if you knew anything about Stern,
>>you'd know that he has a lot of friends in Washington. In fact, he was a
>>huge Bush supporter until a short time ago. And among his friends are Al
>>D'Amato and Rudy Giuliani. He can find out what's going on up there...
>
>
>Milt, it's possible that "Ace" is the hooker that Stern met. We had
>been wondering how he made his money.
You have? I thought you hadn't been thinking about me at all.
But, of course, I knew better. You're too easy Zepp.
--Ace
Milt
Yup. The FCC and the prudes in Congress.
>
>
>>What part of this are you not getting.
>
>
> the next part....
>
>
>>This guy is being drummed off the
>>air because of his political positions, and that's wrong.
>
>
> Yeah, that part.... you still claim it's some sort of fact?
Based on the evidence, it's the only conclusion that makes sense. The
same company that banned Stern just hired Michael Savage, who was fired
from MSNBC for telling a gay caller "I hope you get AIDS and die." And I
could rattle off a host of radio people who are almost as "tasteless" as
Stern but aren't being touched. And Stern has done nothing in the last
few months that is any worse than anything he's been doing for years.
The only thing that's changed is that he's gone from being an unabashed
Bush supporter to being anti-Bush.
>
>
>>It would be
>>wrong if Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other moron hosts were being
>>drummed off the air, and it's wrong when it happens to Stern, whose show
>>I thought was horrible, btw. But the fact is, the millions of people who
>>DO like him and DO listen to him are being shut out of the decision
>>making process by their own government, because of its political agenda.
>
>
> You've yet to show that he was booted for his political decisions. I
> suspect it's because there is no connection.
It's only no connection to people who don't know what's actually going on.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
But you can't connect any dots...
>>>What part of this are you not getting.
>>
>>
>> the next part....
>>
>>
>>>This guy is being drummed off the
>>>air because of his political positions, and that's wrong.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, that part.... you still claim it's some sort of fact?
>
>Based on the evidence, it's the only conclusion that makes sense. The
>same company that banned Stern just hired Michael Savage, who was fired
>from MSNBC for telling a gay caller "I hope you get AIDS and die." And I
>could rattle off a host of radio people who are almost as "tasteless" as
>Stern but aren't being touched. And Stern has done nothing in the last
>few months that is any worse than anything he's been doing for years.
>The only thing that's changed is that he's gone from being an unabashed
>Bush supporter to being anti-Bush.
the only conclusion that makes sense to *YOU* perhaps, but then not
very much makes sense to you, does it?
>>>It would be
>>>wrong if Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the other moron hosts were being
>>>drummed off the air, and it's wrong when it happens to Stern, whose show
>>>I thought was horrible, btw. But the fact is, the millions of people who
>>>DO like him and DO listen to him are being shut out of the decision
>>>making process by their own government, because of its political agenda.
>>
>>
>> You've yet to show that he was booted for his political decisions. I
>> suspect it's because there is no connection.
>
>It's only no connection to people who don't know what's actually going on.
Ahhhhh, so that's the mysterious fact you laid claim to?
and we're supposed to just believe based on your claim.
>>>I thought you RW clowns objected to that sort of thing. Or is that only
>>>when Clinton is in office?
>>
>>
>>
>> --Ace
--Ace
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Here we go again....Why am I listening to Howard Stern right now if
the FCC has banned him? Are you suggesting that the FCC has only
banned Howard Stern in certain markets?
>>
>>>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
>>>the FCC,
>>
>>
>> LOL.
>
>Right. Laugh. Might as well. Stern has already been banned from 1200
>stations and is on the verge of being kicked off the airwaves by the
>FCC. That should chill your shit.
On the verge? Wait a second....you said he has already been banned.
Which is it?
>>
>>>hearings by the government and a bill that gave Clear Channel
>>>the incentive to ban Stern from 1200 stations. In other words, the
>>>government, through threats and intimidation gave them the incentive to
>>>get rid of him.
>>
>>
>> Dream on Milt. He's still on the air in my market...the FCC, as you
>> claim, has not banned Howard Stern.
>
>You obviously don't listen to him. He's not doing his show, because he
>literally cannot. His voice is on the air, but the show is not.
LOL!! So what is this? Your usual....'that's not what I really
meant' comments?
>>
>>
>>>>>Given your tendency to repeat lies verbatim, I suggest you come up with
>>>>>some facts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BWAHAHAHHAAA
>>>>
>>>>The FACT that I can listen to Howard Stern in the morning seem to
>>>>elude Milt Shook.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The fact that his days are numbered does not register with you, does it?
>>
>>
>> So now he isn't banned? Which is it Milt?
>
>He's banned from 1200 stations, you moron!
So?
>And because of the FCC's
>pending action, his show has pretty much been cancelled for the time
>being. What part of this do you not get?
The part where you insist one moment that the FCC has banned Howard
Stern and the next that he is about to be banned and the next that
while the Howard Stern Show is not banned its not the Howard Stern
Show.
And, btw Milt, how do you know that it not "his show" anymore? You
claim you don't listen....
There you go, projecting again.
JSL
Steve Canyon
Milt once claimed that he was going to be a lawyer. Does his arguing
style indicate why he's never made that dream come true?
He also says that he's going to write a book, yet he hasn't achieved
that either.
Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
column, not a mark under "achieved."
--Ace
Jeffrey Scott Linder
I thought you never listened? It appears you don't...
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/elec13.htm
The New York Post notes today that radio shock-jock Howard Stern says
that Lieberman is a "hypocrite" and potentially "dangerous," but like
many admits that when November arrives, he will likely vote for the
Gore ticket anyway.
I guess you're right Milt...somehow you've found out that the FCC has
banned Howard Stern and the FCC doesn't even know it!
JSL
Milt
Jesus, what a waste of time you are. If you're not going to read what I
supply you with, then there's not point in wasting my time.
Trust me, fuckwit. There are a hell of a lot of really intelligent
people who are with me on this. In fact, Michael Powell is so
intimidated, he's publicly backing off of Stern as of late yesterday.
Milt
I've never said that. In fact, just the opposite. I didn't want to take
on the debt.
> Does his arguing
> style indicate why he's never made that dream come true?
>
> He also says that he's going to write a book, yet he hasn't achieved
> that either.
I've finished two. One is in the process of being published, the other
one is in the editing stage.
>
> Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
> column, not a mark under "achieved."
>
And this asshole is a typical right winger. Can't win the argument, so
he has to get personal.
Milt
FCC action led to Howard Stern's ban from 1200 radio stations because of
his political views. The FCC has also drafted complaints against
Infinity for Stern's show, which will impose such fines on Infinity that
it would be impossible to keep his show on the air.
If you're too stupid to see this with the evidence that's been placed
before you, that's not my problem.
People with a brain and a concern for the First Amendment get it, even
if you don't.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
I know I read where you claimed you were going to be a "civil rights
lawyer." Are you denying that you said that?
> > Does his arguing
>> style indicate why he's never made that dream come true?
>>
>> He also says that he's going to write a book, yet he hasn't achieved
>> that either.
>
>I've finished two. One is in the process of being published, the other
>one is in the editing stage.
I mis-spoke. Anybody can write a book, and nowdays anybody can put up
some cash to get them published. The proof of your claimed success
will be seen later.
>> Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
>> column, not a mark under "achieved."
>>
>
>And this asshole is a typical right winger. Can't win the argument, so
>he has to get personal.
You know that I always get personal, Milt. You know also that I have
nothing but disdain for you liberals. You always think that you can
stand up and fight, but you always end whining like a child.
The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
to them.
Run along Milt. This victimhood argument of your's is really making
me sick to my stomach and who knows what kind of personal attacks any
further discussion of it will lead me to.
--Ace
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Milt, Milt, Milt....
"I have my son. My ex doesn't have my son. In the last five years, I
earned an Associates Degree and am about six units from a Bachelor's.
I landed a very good job with a large law firm which may pay my way to
law school. I simply decided a long time ago that I could sit around
and be angry about my plight, or I could do something about it. Guess
which one I chose? " --Milt Shook.
"Now, i don't know whether you plan to be a lawyer, but I do, and I
must tell you this. If i go in, and I argue ANYTHING based on a
minority opinion, I'd better have a lot more than that to back it up,
because a MINORITY opinion, by definition, can't be used to be held
up as common law. The Supreme Court does not make law. Congress and
the states make the laws. The courts only decide on whether the laws
that are out there are legally allowed to be there, that's all. Over
40 states had laws against abortion. The Supremes simply decided that
they deprived the woman of her autonomous right to decide to carry her
child. Period. End of story." --Milt Shook.
>
> > Does his arguing
>> style indicate why he's never made that dream come true?
>>
>> He also says that he's going to write a book, yet he hasn't achieved
>> that either.
>
>I've finished two. One is in the process of being published, the other
>one is in the editing stage.
LOL! You forgot your self-published little short story about some
Limbaugh like character.
>>
>> Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
>> column, not a mark under "achieved."
>>
>
>And this asshole is a typical right winger. Can't win the argument, so
>he has to get personal.
You're the one that claimed you wanted to be a lawyer....
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
You mean the FCC but Stern back on the air? Or the FCC hasn't fined,
sactioned, or done anything to Howard Stern recently?
That's a long way from your claim that the FCC banned him from the
airwaves isn't it Milt?
>>>>>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
>>>>>the FCC,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL.
>>>
>>>Right. Laugh. Might as well. Stern has already been banned from 1200
>>>stations and is on the verge of being kicked off the airwaves by the
>>>FCC. That should chill your shit.
>>
>>
>> On the verge? Wait a second....you said he has already been banned.
>>
>> Which is it?
Well? Which is it Milt?
JSL
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Still, you can produce no evidenc that the FCC banned Howard Stern and
in fact you claim that the FCC has backed off of Howard Stern? Backed
off of what Milt? They didn't DO anything.
Edw
"Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:fn2150tgje8n2uk7h...@4ax.com...
Neither is there any evidence Stern said anything recently that was worse
than whatever he's been saying for years. So, we are to believe it is a
coincidence that within a few days of criticizing Bush, he is in trouble?
Bush's integrity is a function of his supporter's naivete. He need only
maintain plausible deniability and a dozen robots will show up here to
"explain" that we Liberals are making much of nothing. Enough. You are
supporting a man who believes only in expediency and exigency.
Edw
"Jeffrey Scott Linder" <linde...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:4050902a....@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu...
It quite clear that the FCC has pressured Stern's employer. A fine is
contemplated, the sticking point being whether the political puppetmasters
will thereby reveal themselves.
It's just more rightwing whining, accompanied by the usual bland
protestations of innocence.
>
> >>>>>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
> >>>>>the FCC,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>LOL.
> >>>
> >>>Right. Laugh. Might as well. Stern has already been banned from 1200
> >>>stations and is on the verge of being kicked off the airwaves by the
> >>>FCC. That should chill your shit.
> >>
> >>
> >> On the verge? Wait a second....you said he has already been banned.
> >>
> >> Which is it?
>
> Well? Which is it Milt?
>
> JSL
Try really hard not to be such a fool. If Stern was/is currently on more
than 1200 stations, then being removed from 1200 stations leaves a non-zero
number on which he is still broadcast. He has therefor not been banned,
which is an exhaustive action.
Steve Canyon
>
>"Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
>news:fn2150tgje8n2uk7h...@4ax.com...
>> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
>> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
>> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
>> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
>> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
>> to them.
>
>Neither is there any evidence Stern said anything recently that was worse
>than whatever he's been saying for years. So, we are to believe it is a
>coincidence that within a few days of criticizing Bush, he is in trouble?
I wouldn't even attempt to begin to tell you what to believe. I was
merely correctly stating that there is absolutely nothing to support
the conjecture that Bush's campaign had anything to do with Sterns
demise except for you pathetic liberals penchant for portraying
yourselves as victims.
>Bush's integrity is a function of his supporter's naivete. He need only
>maintain plausible deniability and a dozen robots will show up here to
>"explain" that we Liberals are making much of nothing.
Actually, you liberals *ARE* much of nothing. Everytime one of you
bedwetters gets slapped with the cold hard hand we call "the
consequences of your own actions" you whimper and whine that somebody
else is to blame.
> Enough. You are
>supporting a man who believes only in expediency and exigency.
I sure hope that's true.
--Ace
Milt
Yup. Not that it's relevant to anything.
>
>>> Does his arguing
>>>style indicate why he's never made that dream come true?
>>>
>>>He also says that he's going to write a book, yet he hasn't achieved
>>>that either.
>>
>>I've finished two. One is in the process of being published, the other
>>one is in the editing stage.
>
>
> I mis-spoke. Anybody can write a book, and nowdays anybody can put up
> some cash to get them published. The proof of your claimed success
> will be seen later.
You know what, Ace/Parker/Steve or whatever your alias will be next
week? I don't give a shit whether anything I do is "proved" to you or not.
You're too stupid to get that John Kerry did not vote against the B-1
when he voted against an appropriations bill for the entire defense
department. You even said that, if it had lost, no weapons system would
cease to exist. Please explain how that's possible. If a majority is
actually voting against a weapons system, that weapons system is
history. Therefore, voting against a bill that would not kill a weapons
system if it fails cannot be contrued as a vote against a weapons
system, except in the warped minds of Bush apologists.
>
>
>>>Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
>>>column, not a mark under "achieved."
>>>
>>
>>And this asshole is a typical right winger. Can't win the argument, so
>>he has to get personal.
>
>
> You know that I always get personal, Milt. You know also that I have
> nothing but disdain for you liberals. You always think that you can
> stand up and fight, but you always end whining like a child.
No, fuckwit. Getting personal when they can't win an argument is what
children do. "Yeah, well, YOU'RE STUPID!" isn't exactly the response of
a well-developed adult...
>
> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
> to them.
Actually, I do. And I've presented it here. You're either stupid or
playing stupid. But that's okay. The rest of us know what the real
situation is.
>
> Run along Milt. This victimhood argument of your's is really making
> me sick to my stomach and who knows what kind of personal attacks any
> further discussion of it will lead me to.
>
You don't know me, and you know nothing about me, except for what I
choose to say on here. Therefore, any personal attack by you is
meaningless, because it couldn't possibly be true...
Milt
Jeffrey Jeffrey Jeffrey.
I said none of the above. Prove I did.
Milt
Check the thread for more information
Milt
See rest of thread for details...
Edw
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:46:47 GMT, "Edw" <the...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
> >news:fn2150tgje8n2uk7h...@4ax.com...
>
> >> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
> >> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
> >> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
> >> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
> >> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
> >> to them.
> >
> >Neither is there any evidence Stern said anything recently that was worse
> >than whatever he's been saying for years. So, we are to believe it is a
> >coincidence that within a few days of criticizing Bush, he is in trouble?
>
> I wouldn't even attempt to begin to tell you what to believe. I was
> merely correctly stating that there is absolutely nothing to support
> the conjecture that Bush's campaign had anything to do with Sterns
> demise except for you pathetic liberals penchant for portraying
> yourselves as victims.
Which pretty well shoots your credibility in the butt. You are the one
claiming victimhood, and, as I pointed out, relying on yet another happy
coincidence for Bush to make the claim.
>
> >Bush's integrity is a function of his supporter's naivete. He need only
> >maintain plausible deniability and a dozen robots will show up here to
> >"explain" that we Liberals are making much of nothing.
>
> Actually, you liberals *ARE* much of nothing. Everytime one of you
> bedwetters gets slapped with the cold hard hand we call "the
> consequences of your own actions" you whimper and whine that somebody
> else is to blame.
Non sequitur. A man would either speak to the point or keep silent.
>
> > Enough. You are
> >supporting a man who believes only in expediency and exigency.
>
> I sure hope that's true.
You would see self absorption as a virtue.
>
>
> --Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
ROTFLOL.. So when you can't argue any more you drop into that old,
"you're really somebody else" claim.'
You can't support that one either Milt.
>You're too stupid to get that John Kerry did not vote against the B-1
>when he voted against an appropriations bill for the entire defense
>department. You even said that, if it had lost, no weapons system would
>cease to exist.
Actually, that's a lie. I never said any such thing. I'm not
surprised that old Milt has to start lying now. Desperation makes
liberals stoop even lower.
>Please explain how that's possible. If a majority is
>actually voting against a weapons system, that weapons system is
>history. Therefore, voting against a bill that would not kill a weapons
>system if it fails cannot be contrued as a vote against a weapons
>system, except in the warped minds of Bush apologists.
>>
>>
>>>>Milt is a typical liberal. Lots of stuff in the "talked about"
>>>>column, not a mark under "achieved."
>>>>
>>>
>>>And this asshole is a typical right winger. Can't win the argument, so
>>>he has to get personal.
>>
>>
>> You know that I always get personal, Milt. You know also that I have
>> nothing but disdain for you liberals. You always think that you can
>> stand up and fight, but you always end whining like a child.
>
>No, fuckwit. Getting personal when they can't win an argument is what
>children do. "Yeah, well, YOU'RE STUPID!" isn't exactly the response of
>a well-developed adult...
Actually, you're not just stupid, you're also pathetic, Milt and this
ridiculous claim of yours that Stern is a victim of the government
really brought this out.
>> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
>> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
>> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
>> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
>> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
>> to them.
>
>Actually, I do. And I've presented it here. You're either stupid or
>playing stupid. But that's okay. The rest of us know what the real
>situation is.
You never presented anything, Milt, accept a silly claim that
"everybody that knows anything about this agrees with [you]
How damned pathetic is that Milt, how pathetic!
It's really easy to see why you abandoned that notion of being a
lawyer.
>> Run along Milt. This victimhood argument of your's is really making
>> me sick to my stomach and who knows what kind of personal attacks any
>> further discussion of it will lead me to.
>>
>
>You don't know me, and you know nothing about me, except for what I
>choose to say on here. Therefore, any personal attack by you is
>meaningless, because it couldn't possibly be true...
The victim argument you present really makes me sick, Milt. It's
difficult for me to understand how a grown man can act like such a
baby.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
You see Jeff? You're dealing with a child mentality here and telling
a lie is second nature to him.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>Jeffrey Scott Linder is just too fucking stupid to continue to respond to.
>
>See rest of thread for details...
Milt is telling everybody that he's been whipped. He doesn't realize
it, of course, much as a child thinks that he can lie about having
peed in his pants and that nobody will notice.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
>
>"Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
>news:hc615099nc1m2oggn...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:46:47 GMT, "Edw" <the...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Steve Canyon" <Steven...@yahoooooooooo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fn2150tgje8n2uk7h...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
>> >> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
>> >> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
>> >> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
>> >> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
>> >> to them.
>> >
>> >Neither is there any evidence Stern said anything recently that was worse
>> >than whatever he's been saying for years. So, we are to believe it is a
>> >coincidence that within a few days of criticizing Bush, he is in trouble?
>>
>> I wouldn't even attempt to begin to tell you what to believe. I was
>> merely correctly stating that there is absolutely nothing to support
>> the conjecture that Bush's campaign had anything to do with Sterns
>> demise except for you pathetic liberals penchant for portraying
>> yourselves as victims.
>
>Which pretty well shoots your credibility in the butt. You are the one
>claiming victimhood, and, as I pointed out, relying on yet another happy
>coincidence for Bush to make the claim.
LOL Me? A victim? Of what?
>> >Bush's integrity is a function of his supporter's naivete. He need only
>> >maintain plausible deniability and a dozen robots will show up here to
>> >"explain" that we Liberals are making much of nothing.
>>
>> Actually, you liberals *ARE* much of nothing. Everytime one of you
>> bedwetters gets slapped with the cold hard hand we call "the
>> consequences of your own actions" you whimper and whine that somebody
>> else is to blame.
>
>Non sequitur. A man would either speak to the point or keep silent.
I was explaining why you liberals are making much of nothing.
>> > Enough. You are
>> >supporting a man who believes only in expediency and exigency.
>>
>> I sure hope that's true.
>
>You would see self absorption as a virtue.
I do, and so do others, and that's what you dependency types whine
about.
--Ace
Edw
Another believer in divine serendipity!
me
> Why?
Because Rush said so.
Edw
I certainly don't know why you whine so much.
>
> >> >Bush's integrity is a function of his supporter's naivete. He need
only
> >> >maintain plausible deniability and a dozen robots will show up here to
> >> >"explain" that we Liberals are making much of nothing.
> >>
> >> Actually, you liberals *ARE* much of nothing. Everytime one of you
> >> bedwetters gets slapped with the cold hard hand we call "the
> >> consequences of your own actions" you whimper and whine that somebody
> >> else is to blame.
> >
> >Non sequitur. A man would either speak to the point or keep silent.
>
> I was explaining why you liberals are making much of nothing.
No, you were spouting, and turbulently.
>
> >> > Enough. You are
> >> >supporting a man who believes only in expediency and exigency.
> >>
> >> I sure hope that's true.
> >
> >You would see self absorption as a virtue.
>
> I do, and so do others, and that's what you dependency types whine
> about.
You are a bloomin' idiot. Everyone is dependent. Or are you living in the
Montana wilderness on roots and berries?
It is a badge of your one-dimensional thinking that you counterpose
dependence with self absorption.
>
> --Ace
Steve Canyon
Ding, ding, ding... Irony alert!
>> >> The obvious truth is that you've got absolutely nothing to back up
>> >> your claims that Stern is being hit on because of his political views
>> >> although I know that you believe it because you're a pathetic liberal
>> >> that wallows in victimhood and refuses to accept that bad things
>> >> happen to people for any reason other than that somebody else did it
>> >> to them.
>> >
>> >Actually, I do. And I've presented it here. You're either stupid or
>> >playing stupid. But that's okay. The rest of us know what the real
>> >situation is.
>>
>> You never presented anything, Milt, accept a silly claim that
>> "everybody that knows anything about this agrees with [you]
>>
>> How damned pathetic is that Milt, how pathetic!
>>
>> It's really easy to see why you abandoned that notion of being a
>> lawyer.
>>
>> >> Run along Milt. This victimhood argument of your's is really making
>> >> me sick to my stomach and who knows what kind of personal attacks any
>> >> further discussion of it will lead me to.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You don't know me, and you know nothing about me, except for what I
>> >choose to say on here. Therefore, any personal attack by you is
>> >meaningless, because it couldn't possibly be true...
>>
>> The victim argument you present really makes me sick, Milt. It's
>> difficult for me to understand how a grown man can act like such a
>> baby.
>>
>> --Ace
>
--Ace
Steve Canyon
It's OK, Edw, you can be a dependant if you want, and you can pretend
that everyone else is to, if it makes you feel better about being such
a helpless baby yourself.
In the meantime, there's a whole lot of us that don't need the
government to take over where mommy left off, and you won't mind if we
look at pathetic little girly-men like you and laugh, will you?
--Ace
Steve Canyon
No one doubts that there's a war being waged by the secularist
liberals against the establishment here in the USA. The war is being
waged on several different fronts. One of those fronts is in the
courtroom There's no doubt that the secularists have scored some
significant wins in the courtrooms across America. That's pretty easy
to do when you can get secularists onto the benches.
There's another big front of this war. It's in the hearts of minds of
the people where the judges cannot venture. These battles are fought
within the fabric of our social structure. The secularists have
scored some wins there as well. A lot of those wins are in what we
call the politically correct movement. The people have been shamed,
in part by the liberal media, into backing themselves into the
shadows. We have been told that we should be ashamed to call illegal
immigrants "illegals." We have been told that the rap artists that
make references to killing cops and slapping their "hoes" are just
reflecting their culture and we must not talk against it. We must
stop referring to things as what they are because it might offend
someone. Of course the secularists also tell us that we should be
ashamed of our religious heritage and we should keep it to ourselves,
again because others might be offended or because they feel left out.
The secularists can get their hands on the gavel and make laws, but
that approach has two serious limitations, both of which require that
the war must also be won on the social front.
First of all, they know that in the end the people have the power to
over-rule the judges. If the social front is not taken the people can
get rid of the judges and the people who put them there and they can
rewrite the Constitution if need be.
Secondly, there are way to many areas of our lives that the judges
cannot get into. Much of the political correctness cannot be
supported by law and that frightens them. For example, the judges and
legislatures can mandate gay marriage but they cannot make people the
people view it as normal, which is what they want. The fact is that
homosexuals are a very long way from being accepted as normal by
society. Homosexuals will continue to be laughed at and there's not a
thing the politically correct crowd can do about it.
Without the acceptance of secularism in the society as a whole, the
movement doesn't have a chance.
Now a new weapon on the social front of this war has emerged in the
form of a movie. As soon as word of it's development leaked out the
secularists began to plot against it. They were afraid, and rightly
so, that a deeply religious movie caught on the public might dare to
bring their religion out of the shadows. What's more, the man that
was bringing this movie to the public was a very popular person and
seeing him proclaim his deeply religious beliefs might make it easier
for others to step forward.
"Oh horror or horrors" the secularists said to themselves, we've got
to nip this thing in the bud." The liberal media was drafted into
action. The first attack was to announce that the movie was
anti-semitic. They figured that would work because the Christians seem
to have a soft spot in their hearts for the Jewish people, especially
the Israelis. Unfortunately for the secularists, there were enough
reports to the contrary to put down that attack.
Currently, the secularists are trying to attack the movie as being too
violent and that too is surely a total failure. It's almost funny to
see the same people that defend the words of the rappers attack a
movie that accurately portrays what is written in The Bible
The fact is that the movie is attracting people at an almost
unprecedented rate. The worst fears of the secularists are becoming
real. The people are revolting against the secularists and the
secularists are running scared.
--Ace
Edw
Ah! you are just a fool.
>
> --Ace
Milt
See, Ace would have us believe that he built his own house, goes down to
the river to get his own water, dug his own latrine, grows and raises
all of his own food, goes down to the river and gets all of his own
water, built and drives his own car, on roads he himself built, built
his own boat and refines his own gasoline. I can only imagine the loin
cloths he runs around in, since I'm sure he's no seamstress. besides, we
all know he makes his own fabric.
he's too fucking stupid to get that if we run out of oil, his beloved
car and boat sit and rot. If all farmers stop farming and raising
animals, he has to go out and hunt on his own. If the electric company
goes out of business, he'll have to figure out a way to generate
electricity so that he can write his asinine drivel on here.
Only a fucking idiot would think he was even remotely independent. These
fuckwits think that, because someone paid them money for doing a job for
many years (and of course, there's no dependence in that relationship)
and they were able to save his Federal Reserve issued money in his FDIC
or FSLIC-insured bank, or invest it in a stock market (and we all know
there's no dependence there, either, don't we?) and now he can take his
government printed cash to a store and buy manufactured goods, they are
somehow "independent."
Wonder who the fuck he calls when there's a pothole on his front street?
Or Ace, do you mix up your own blacktop mixture from stuff you find in
your (government-deeded) house?
What a delusiuonal moron.
Milt
Yeah, this from someone who claims he's not dependent on anyone for
anything.
Of course, he wouldn't understand real irony, anyway. The right wing
doesn't see it...
Milt
Like I said; prove it.
Milt
I wish. This time, it's insidious. It's about Clear Channel dominating
the radio industry. The less competition they have, the more they can
charge for advertising, and the more ads they can run. Not only that,
but if they have no competition, they can automate stations at will and
save even more money. But they can't do that if Bush doesn't help them.
And with Stern preaching against Bush to an audience that Bush covets
(white males), in an election year which many figure will be very close,
they're trying to silence him.
>
>>>>>>>You have a real reading problem. I said that threats from
>>>>>>>the FCC,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right. Laugh. Might as well. Stern has already been banned from 1200
>>>>>stations and is on the verge of being kicked off the airwaves by the
>>>>>FCC. That should chill your shit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On the verge? Wait a second....you said he has already been banned.
>>>>
>>>>Which is it?
>>
>>Well? Which is it Milt?
>>
>>JSL
>
>
> Try really hard not to be such a fool. If Stern was/is currently on more
> than 1200 stations, then being removed from 1200 stations leaves a non-zero
> number on which he is still broadcast. He has therefor not been banned,
> which is an exhaustive action.
Jeffrey knows I never said Stern was banned from the airwaves. I said he
was banned from ever broadcasting on 1200 stations, which in many
markets means he can't appear anywhere, and it severely restricts his
ability to make a living on the radio. And because his contract was
exclusive from Clear Channel, he is effectively banned from at least six
markets altogether. And the FCC is in the process of preparing an action
against Infinity (which is owned by Viacom and whose stations Clear
Channel covets), which would hit Infinity with such massive fines and
potential loss of licenses as to put it out of the radio business.
In addition, Clear Channel has very close ties to the Bushies, and knows
that the only way it can expand its radio empire is to keep Powell at
the FCC and the Bushies in the White House.
All just after Stern started bashin Bush on his show. Jeffrey would like
to believe it's coincidence, but anyone who knows anything about the
radio business and Clear Channel, knows it's not.
Don't waste your time on Jeffrey. He's about the dumbest mook on Usenet.
He makes Steve Canyon look like a genius...
Edw
"Mandate gay marriage?" The proposed amendment is clearly government
interference in religion. If a church wants to recognize gay marriage, it
is you who would impose a mandate. The absence of a law is just that. It
doesn't mandate anything.
And, if this is not a matter for the courts, as you seem to suggest, then it
is even less a matter for a Constitutional amendment, for you are saying
public opinion trumps law.
>
> Without the acceptance of secularism in the society as a whole, the
> movement doesn't have a chance.
We are a secular state. That may be an accident of history, but it is
nonetheless a fact.
>
> Now a new weapon on the social front of this war has emerged in the
> form of a movie. As soon as word of it's development leaked out the
> secularists began to plot against it. They were afraid, and rightly
> so, that a deeply religious movie caught on the public might dare to
> bring their religion out of the shadows. What's more, the man that
> was bringing this movie to the public was a very popular person and
> seeing him proclaim his deeply religious beliefs might make it easier
> for others to step forward.
The movie might as well be titled "Lethal Weapon N" - whatever sequel it
would be. It revels in gore, and you think that's okay, so long as it's
nominally 'Christian.' In fact, Christians know what happened to Christ,
and they understand His sufffering in all its dimensions. Gibson is singing
to the choir, and making a tidy sum. It's a non-event.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
Whenever you attack the communalist agenda of a leftist like Milt
they'll come back with the old strawman about how nobody is an island
as if it were a legit argument. The problem, of course, is that the
idea of not subjugating your individuality to the group, as I promote,
is a long way from claiming that I'm an island.
Milt can't argue the issue, of course. He never could. Instead he'll
offer up one of his strawmen, which is what he's done here.
Sometimes I feel for him. I have to do something about that. I don't
want to get soft in my old age.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Look up dependant, Milt, you moron.
<shaking my head and smiling>
--Ace
Milt
Well, look at what he said, and how you answered him. He was claiming
(rightly) that we're all dependent on each other. We are. That's not
even a controversial claim.
> Milt can't argue the issue, of course. He never could. Instead he'll
> offer up one of his strawmen, which is what he's done here.
Nope. I answered based on what you wrote, you idiot. Perhaps you should
be more careful. Read what you're arguing with, for starters.
This is what he said:
"You are a bloomin' idiot. Everyone is dependent. Or are you living in
the Montana wilderness on roots and berries? It is a badge of your
one-dimensional thinking that you counterpose dependence with self
absorption."
To which you asserted your complete INdependence.
You either have a reading problem, or a problem with basic logic. Or both...
> Sometimes I feel for him. I have to do something about that. I don't
> want to get soft in my old age.
It's too late. You're already soft. In the head.
Milt
>
>
> No one doubts that there's a war being waged by the secularist
> liberals against the establishment here in the USA. The war is being
> waged on several different fronts. One of those fronts is in the
> courtroom There's no doubt that the secularists have scored some
> significant wins in the courtrooms across America. That's pretty easy
> to do when you can get secularists onto the benches.
Well, guess what fuckwit? Our system is secular. Damn, huh?
>
> There's another big front of this war. It's in the hearts of minds of
> the people where the judges cannot venture. These battles are fought
> within the fabric of our social structure. The secularists have
> scored some wins there as well.
Considering the fact that the law is secular and secularism is mandated
by the fucking Constitution, I should hope so...
> A lot of those wins are in what we
> call the politically correct movement. The people have been shamed,
> in part by the liberal media, into backing themselves into the
> shadows. We have been told that we should be ashamed to call illegal
> immigrants "illegals."
No one has said that, that I'm aware of. I call them that all of the
time. IF they're actually illegal. Of course, I don't look at everyone
of Hispanic origin and assume they're illegal.
> We have been told that the rap artists that
> make references to killing cops and slapping their "hoes" are just
> reflecting their culture and we must not talk against it.
By whom? Please, cite names, dates and quotes.
AFAIK, all anyone has defended is their right to free speech. You have a
right to speak against it, if you wish. You do not have the right to
silence them.
> We must
> stop referring to things as what they are because it might offend
> someone.
Hmm... this is an interesting one. Please be more specific. I can't wait
to read this one...
> Of course the secularists also tell us that we should be
> ashamed of our religious heritage and we should keep it to ourselves,
> again because others might be offended or because they feel left out.
Again; our government and Constitution is "secularist." It's not an
insult, you clod.
And no one should be ashamed of their religious heritage, and no one is
requiring you to keep it to yourself. Just keep it out of the
government. If you want to start your own religious school, more power
to you; just don't ask for tax money. You want to teach creationism in
your little school, go ahead, as long as you also teach real science,
and we don't have to deal with a lot of mindless dopes when they
graduate. You can be as Jewish as you want, Ace, as long as you don't
require others to join in.
>
> The secularists can get their hands on the gavel and make laws, but
> that approach has two serious limitations, both of which require that
> the war must also be won on the social front.
>
> First of all, they know that in the end the people have the power to
> over-rule the judges.
Which, of course, is why the religious reich is trying to pack the
courts right now. (wink wink)
> If the social front is not taken the people can
> get rid of the judges and the people who put them there and they can
> rewrite the Constitution if need be.
Yeah. That must be why it's been amended so often, huh?
>
> Secondly, there are way to many areas of our lives that the judges
> cannot get into. Much of the political correctness cannot be
> supported by law and that frightens them. For example, the judges and
> legislatures can mandate gay marriage but they cannot make people the
> people view it as normal, which is what they want.
BZZZTTT!
You don't understand this issue.
Judges can't mandate gay marriage, you dumb fuck. You can't even
articulate what you mean. A judge won't make you marry a guy! But if
some other guy wants to marry a guy, he's ALREADY ALLOWED TO! Gays get
married all of the time. What they are not allowed is the LICENSE, which
provides the married couples who have one with benefits and privileges
that are denied couples who do NOT have one. THAT is where the problem
comes in. The CONSTITUTION requires JUDGES to accept gay marriage. And
that is the right thing. Again; gays are already marrying, you clod. The
only thing they're denied is their rights as a married couple. That
violates the 14th Amendment. And if a church married them, it also
violates the 1st Amendment.
Ironic, huh? By denying a gay couple a marriage license, after a church
has already married them, you're denying them their religious freedom.
What was that you were whining about at the beginning of this piece of shit?
> The fact is that
> homosexuals are a very long way from being accepted as normal by
> society. Homosexuals will continue to be laughed at and there's not a
> thing the politically correct crowd can do about it.
I see. So the fact that most of us laugh at your sorry ass, and think
you're just a dumb fuck means that you should be denied any rights we
don't want you to have?
>
> Without the acceptance of secularism in the society as a whole, the
> movement doesn't have a chance.
Our society IS secular, you ass! And wait about five years, and most
people will accept gay marriage, because it's none of their fucking
business! The fact that your wife married a dickhead makes no difference
to my pending marriage, and the fact that Joe married Jake or Jill
married Joan makes no difference, either. Funny how you morons want the
government to leave you alone, because what you do is none of their
business, but you want the government all over gays.
Homophobia is a disease, Stevie. Get help.
> Now a new weapon on the social front of this war has emerged in the
> form of a movie. As soon as word of it's development leaked out the
> secularists began to plot against it. They were afraid, and rightly
> so, that a deeply religious movie caught on the public might dare to
> bring their religion out of the shadows. What's more, the man that
> was bringing this movie to the public was a very popular person and
> seeing him proclaim his deeply religious beliefs might make it easier
> for others to step forward.
>
> "Oh horror or horrors" the secularists said to themselves, we've got
> to nip this thing in the bud." The liberal media was drafted into
> action. The first attack was to announce that the movie was
> anti-semitic. They figured that would work because the Christians seem
> to have a soft spot in their hearts for the Jewish people, especially
> the Israelis. Unfortunately for the secularists, there were enough
> reports to the contrary to put down that attack.
Only a loon could link the issues of gay marriage and the Passion of the
Christ...
Lemme be the first to tell you, Stevie! It's just a fucking movie. It's
Mel Gibson's vision, possibly, but it's only a movie. On the other hand,
gay marriage affects actual people's lives. It's REAL. The Passion of
the Christ is a MOVIE. That's not really Jesus being whipped and beaten
and dying on the cross; it's an animatronic doll. It's a MOVIE. It's
ART. Just like "Piss Christ" is art...
>
> Currently, the secularists are trying to attack the movie as being too
> violent and that too is surely a total failure. It's almost funny to
> see the same people that defend the words of the rappers attack a
> movie that accurately portrays what is written in The Bible
Excuse me, but I haven't seen many attacks on the movie, really. Most of
us who object to it, object to it because it's not about Christianity;
it's abotu sadism. It's one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church
many years ago. The Passion is a very Catholic movie. But it's ONLY A
MOVIE.
>
> The fact is that the movie is attracting people at an almost
> unprecedented rate. The worst fears of the secularists are becoming
> real. The people are revolting against the secularists and the
> secularists are running scared.
>
It's attracting morons, who have been convinced by their pastors and
others that seeing it will somehow make them more holy. But the reality
is, it's just a bloodfest. I got a free ticket and walked out about 1/2
an hour early, because it was just sick. Anyone who came out of that
movie feeling good is simply a sick person, and the reason why I say
that religion is mass psychosis. The emperor is NAKED, people. God did
NOT tell Mel Gibson to make this movie; He's not that sick...
Milt
I know what it means. And everyone is dependent on everyone else. You
may not like the idea, but it's true. I pay for a home that someone else
built, and electricity and gas that someone else drilled for. I bought
gas for the car that someone else built for me today, and they were kind
enough to refine it for me and put it into tanks for easy access.
See, I'm man enough to admit that I'm part of society, not above it.
You're pathetic...
Thomas Trust
subcriber based radio.
Don W. McCollough
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/vs-passion.htm
for the $$$ numbers.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
No, Milt, I'm not dependant on anyone and there are a lot of folks
like me. The difference is that I can barter and trade, nowdays we
call it purchasing, all the things I want from other people. I'm not
dependant upon them when I'm able to freely trade to acquire what I
want from them. Dependency implies if not states implicitly a
subordinancy. Dependant is what a child is to his parents.
>> Milt can't argue the issue, of course. He never could. Instead he'll
>> offer up one of his strawmen, which is what he's done here.
>
>Nope. I answered based on what you wrote, you idiot. Perhaps you should
>be more careful. Read what you're arguing with, for starters.
>
>This is what he said:
>
>"You are a bloomin' idiot. Everyone is dependent. Or are you living in
>the Montana wilderness on roots and berries? It is a badge of your
>one-dimensional thinking that you counterpose dependence with self
>absorption."
Simple fact. I'm not dependant. I'm sure you are. I'll bet you
stayed with your mommy until she practically pushed you out the door.
How old were you when you let home, Milt? Maybe 28?
The argument against the dependency that you liberals insist we must
all be bound with isn't an argument about living as a hermit and you
know it. It's an argument against having the government take care of
people. Yet every time someone argues with you about it you trot out
the same old strawman about not being able to build your own car or
some such nonsense.
Of course, I understand that you have no argument to support your
preference for a mommy government and that's why you always play the
strawman game.
You're really pitiful Milt.
>To which you asserted your complete INdependence.
Complete????
>You either have a reading problem, or a problem with basic logic. Or both...
Put your reading skills to work and show where I ever said "complete
INdependence."
>> Sometimes I feel for him. I have to do something about that. I don't
>> want to get soft in my old age.
>
>It's too late. You're already soft. In the head.
--Ace
Steve Canyon
wrote:
Kind enough?
>See, I'm man enough to admit that I'm part of society, not above it.
>
>You're pathetic...
Talk about pathetic. Every time someone argues against the mommy
government you liberals want you trot out the old "I can't build my
own car" strawman as if that has anything to do with you wanting the
government to provide you with free medical care or a minimum wage.
I kow why you do this...
The ONLY argument that you could possibly muster up to support having
the government take care of you is that you are afraid that you can't
take care of yourself.
....and that *IS* pathetic.
--Ace
Milt
provide the child with what it needs, and the government gives you a tax
break for that purpose.
But unless you live in a cave and eat the fruits and berries available
and drink the water from the nearby stream, and nothing else, you are
dependent on what others do for your lifestyle. You depend on the
electric company to supply you with electricity, you depend on the
various car companies to build cars. You depend on refiners and
suppliers to provide you with fuel for that car. You "barter" for goods
and services, but you also depend on them. Put it this way; when there
were gas shortages in 1973 and 1979, you waited in the same lines as
everyone else. If all of the refineries were shut down at the same time,
you'd pay the same $5-10 a gallon for the available gas as everyone else.
You've conned yourself into thinking you're "independent," but that's
your delusion. I depend on the electric company to deliver electricity,
and BP or Shell or whomever to have gas available in their tanks so that
I may buy it. I depend on the local supermarkets to have an array of
good, healthy food (and a nice supply of my favorite junk foods.
You seem to think that all good for which you "barter" somehow appear
magically, just for you. That's delusional. You depend on the market,
and you depend on the government, whether you allow yourself to believe
it or not.
>>>Milt can't argue the issue, of course. He never could. Instead he'll
>>>offer up one of his strawmen, which is what he's done here.
>>
>>Nope. I answered based on what you wrote, you idiot. Perhaps you should
>>be more careful. Read what you're arguing with, for starters.
>>
>>This is what he said:
>>
>>"You are a bloomin' idiot. Everyone is dependent. Or are you living in
>>the Montana wilderness on roots and berries? It is a badge of your
>>one-dimensional thinking that you counterpose dependence with self
>>absorption."
>
>
> Simple fact. I'm not dependant.
Yes you are. You're writing on a computer likely built by someone else.
Even if you put it together, someone else made the parts. The fact that
you access the Internet through either a phone or cable line makes you
dependent. You're delusional. BTW, where did the Internet come from? Who
started Usenet?
It's a fact, you moron; we are all dependent on each other.
> I'm sure you are. I'll bet you
> stayed with your mommy until she practically pushed you out the door.
> How old were you when you let home, Milt? Maybe 28?
I started working when I was 13, and left home when I was 19. But what
does that have to do with my dependence on others for quality of life?
When I worked, even at age 13, how much money I made was dependent on
how often my neighbors needed/wanted their lawn cut. When I was employed
by others, I was dependent on them for income. Ask anyone who works for
a living whether their dependent on others, and the sane ones will say
yes. If you work for someone, you depend on them for continued
employment.. If you own your own business, you depend on vendors,
suppliers, customers and advertising media for your living.
>
> The argument against the dependency that you liberals insist we must
> all be bound with isn't an argument about living as a hermit and you
> know it. It's an argument against having the government take care of
> people. Yet every time someone argues with you about it you trot out
> the same old strawman about not being able to build your own car or
> some such nonsense.
It's not a strawman, you idiot. YOU depend on the government for a lot
of things. You drive on the nicely paved roads, right? The fact that
someone hasn't built a highrise condo complex on either side of your
property is thanks to the government. Take any medications? Thank the
government for regulating the testing. If you have a fire, you'll thank
God for government firefighters. Get robbed ro beaten? Bet you'll call
the police. Have a dispute with someone? Bet you'll take them to court.
I'll put it this way; why are you so adamant in your support for George
W Bush? You don't depend on the government for anything, anyway; why
should you care who the president is?
> Of course, I understand that you have no argument to support your
> preference for a mommy government and that's why you always play the
> strawman game.
>
> You're really pitiful Milt.
This is where little Stevie loses the argument and has to attack me
personally.