Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 This morning Howard brought some information to light regarding several senators (specifically a Kansas senator - can't remember the name right now) living in homes owned by religious groups for reduced rent. Yesterday morning he proved that Clear Channel is in bed with the FCC. Clear Channel.. owned by Tom Hicks... who bought the Rangers from Bush.. who likely has monogrammed knee pads just to use on GDub.. and this all started when Howard started questioning Bush getting involved in the gay marriage issue 2 weeks ago. Howard found out last night that the FCC is about to fine Infinity a VERY substantial amount of $$ for something he did 3 years ago. If case anyone didn't know, Clear Channel fired Howard from 6 of their markets last week. The same Clear Channel that just RENEWED Howard's contracts within the past 4 months on ALL of their stations in ALL of their markets. I don't usually comment on this stuff.. but this morning Jim, who ironically was named Businessman of the Year in '03 from the National Republican Congressional Counsel headed by Tom Reynolds - and we have been invited to the 2004 Congressional Tax Summit in DC on 4/1 and to a White House dinner later in the year, said to me... "I've never been so sad at my party. I honestly feel if what it looks like is going on.. is wrong. I'm going to decline the Washington trip". Strange times we're living in folks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Pardon my lack of radio station ownage knowledge, but are Infinity and Clear Channel the same ownership group? Somehow I am not surprised by this connection being made. ABB!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach23 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Enjoy your favorite music, TV shows, books, etc. while you can. There is a big push all of a sudden to censor things. Does anyone really believe that this will stop with Howard Stern? Look at what these people consider indecent: http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articles/2...apers/index.htm You can twist that to apply to an episode of Friends, or the Simpsons. The agenda that is being pushed right now by the ultra right wing conservatives is frightening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 Pardon my lack of radio station ownage knowledge, but are Infinity and Clear Channel the same ownership group? Somehow I am not surprised by this connection being made. ABB!!! No, they are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 No, they are not the same. So is it that both of the carry the Stern show? Is that why Infinity is being fined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... Fan.. it's so much more than that. The connections. The behind the scenes things. Those who hold public office.. involved with private religious groups. Not to mention... it looks like the Constitution is about to be ALTERED... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 So is it that both of the carry the Stern show? Is that why Infinity is being fined? Infinity ownes the show - employees Howard.. CC signed Howard to a THREE YEAR SEVERAL MILLION $$ contract just months ago for the rights to air it on their channels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Fan.. it's so much more than that. The connections. The behind the scenes things. Those who hold public office.. involved with private religious groups. Not to mention... it looks like the Constitution is about to be ALTERED... I understand (and completely agree with) that, I was commenting on Zach's post about the rash of recent censorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 I understand (and completely agree with) that, I was commenting on Zach's post about the rash of recent censorship. Oh.. Sorry.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Oh.. Sorry.. lol No need to be sorry - I thought I hit quote, but apparently I hit reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 For a political party that thrives on the platform of "No Big Government", they are getting rather...ahem...big. Forming addtional departments... Instituting Federal Law over State Laws... Constitutional admendments that are religiously based... Bad times... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 For a political party that thrives on the platform of "No Big Government", they are getting rather...ahem...big. Forming addtional departments... Instituting Federal Law over State Laws... Constitutional admendments that are religiously based... Bad times... I don't know about bad, but definitely frightening. Since 'cohabitation' is seen as morally offensive by most heavily (and some moderately) religious, what's to stop a law banning marriage between two people that have been living together for any period of time? Some might say this is a stretch, but in these times, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. If something like this was instituted, Brian and I couldn't get married and that would suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Of course our opinions don't matter since we are just a baseball group. The only people who can freely comment on any public policy are those who are not affiliated with any group or organization. We can dismiss some people because they are National Geographic subscribers so they are environmental wackos, these people hang out in Internet bulleting boards so they are fanatics, etc. Jim's opinion doesn't matter because he's sold his soul to the Republican party. Vince's doesn't matter because he sold his soul to the Dem party. As long as we can identify someone with a group their opinion isn't valid. Or does that only apply if they are religious? The only Americans who can have an opinion are the atheists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 5, 2004 Author Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't know about bad, but definitely frightening. Since 'cohabitation' is seen as morally offensive by most heavily (and some moderately) religious, what's to stop a law banning marriage between two people that have been living together for any period of time? Some might say this is a stretch, but in these times, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. If something like this was instituted, Brian and I couldn't get married and that would suck. Bush made a comment that marriage is for "pro-creating'. So... does that mean that those who don't want children can't get married? Those who can't have children for medical reasons can't get married? Those who are older and remarry and are beyond childbearing years can't get married? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 So... does that mean that those who don't want children can't get married? Those who can't have children for medical reasons can't get married? Those who are older and remarry and are beyond childbearing years can't get married? Another good point. And another frightening thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... So you would think it is ok for WGN's after school special to be X-rated pornography? Because you could just change the channel. Every American has a voice in what we allow on the airwaves. To say that everyone who thinks Stern's show oversteps the bounds is just part of some religious group so their opinion is somehow less important or wrong, is not any more valid than saying everyone who agrees that Stern's show is OK is a morally bankrupt athiest and their opinion does not matter. Most religious groups believe sex between and adult and a 10 year old is wrong. Some groups believe it is ok. Should we change consent laws because it's just a religious thing? How about murder or stealing? Every American has a right to their opinion. They do not give up that right because they walk into a Mosque, Temple, Church, or simply meditate each morning. To believe that everyone who is "religious" thinks the same way is simplistic at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 So you would think it is ok for WGN's after school special to be X-rated pornography? Because you could just change the channel. That's not what I was saying and you know it. I don't like what Stern says in his show but there are a number of other channels to turn to in the morning, so that's what I do - change the channel. My main point is - where does censorship stop? Is someone going to tell me that I can no longer read Nora Roberts novels because there is sex in them and a kid could get their hands on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 The only Americans who can have an opinion are the atheists. Right on Brother! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... If you don't like pornography change the channel. Or are you in favor of censoring X-rated material from WGN? So if you are in favor of some censoring does it not come down to where we will draw the line? I felt a certain feeling here that if someone draws the line stopping something that a person likes, they dismiss the person's opinion as a religious wacko. It would be like someone saying you live in the suburbs and we know how *those* people think. There is a difference between what is played over public airwaves and what is distributed via print or other private forms of communication. Society has an obligation to manage the public airwaves. This all comes down to where people want to draw the line. Some people would find it entertaining to hear people having sex during their afternoon drive time. They will say that anyone who objects can just turn the station. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 So if you are in favor of some censoring does it not come down to where we will draw the line? I do believe that is what I stated in my post responding to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... If you don't like pornography change the channel. Or are you in favor of censoring X-rated material from WGN? So if you are in favor of some censoring does it not come down to where we will draw the line? I felt a certain feeling here that if someone draws the line stopping something that a person likes, they dismiss the person's opinion as a religious wacko. It would be like someone saying you live in the suburbs and we know how *those* people think. There is a difference between what is played over public airwaves and what is distributed via print or other private forms of communication. Society has an obligation to manage the public airwaves. This all comes down to where people want to draw the line. Some people would find it entertaining to hear people having sex during their afternoon drive time. They will say that anyone who objects can just turn the station. It's a real tricky subject, no doubt. I suppose what will eventually happen is Stern will take his show to satellite radio, and every single free-air station that used to air him will watch their profits go straight into the crapper. It's just like what's happening to the free-TV networks. They're all on the slow path to obsolescence, because of cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 And the point I am trying to make (and I guess not very well) is that we should not have an anything goes over the airwaves. Sterns argument is (at the minimum) my show is ok, it's the religious wackos coming after me. I believe from other discussion you would not describe yourself as a religious wacko. You have agreed that we should have some form of censorship. I believe every American should have a voice in where the line is drawn. To disregard someone because they attend a worship service, or live in the suburbs, or vote Republican, is wrong. For many Americans Stern's show crosses their boundry of decent and indecent. It is their right and I would add responsibility, to work towards regulations that they agree with. I also believe it is Sterns and others who would go further to work towards regulations they can live with. The healthy debate and discourse helps America to set standards and laws we all can live with. I'm defending Bush and his cronies in this thread, and ripping the boy in another. No wonder neither party wants me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I will follow Howard Stern anywhere he goes.... This is f***ing bulls***... What is bush thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 And the point I am trying to make (and I guess not very well) is that we should not have an anything goes over the airwaves. Sterns argument is (at the minimum) my show is ok, it's the religious wackos coming after me. I believe from other discussion you would not describe yourself as a religious wacko. You have agreed that we should have some form of censorship. I believe every American should have a voice in where the line is drawn. To disregard someone because they attend a worship service, or live in the suburbs, or vote Republican, is wrong. For many Americans Stern's show crosses their boundry of decent and indecent. It is their right and I would add responsibility, to work towards regulations that they agree with. I also believe it is Sterns and others who would go further to work towards regulations they can live with. The healthy debate and discourse helps America to set standards and laws we all can live with. I'm defending Bush and his cronies in this thread, and ripping the boy in another. No wonder neither party wants me. LOL! I get it and I agree with ya. Sorry, my brain is at home with Brian not at work right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.