Bush is next door to my job.

Quote:

---

Howard Stern starts criticising Bush and says to vote him out of office, a few days later he gets kicked off ClearChannel (for indecency, sure) and the FCC is currently processing the enormous fine they will be giving Viacom for something he said three years ago. Then they'll pressure them into paying the fine and firing Stern. Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus are much more offensive but they stay on the air. Hmm.

---

Yea, Rush is still on ESPN and all.

Anyway... the guy pushing for these indecency regulations has been Mike Powell, chairman of the FTC. The FTC's been having it for Stern for a long time. He's been fined in the past.

Nipplegate just gave Powell a chance to move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

Tell me about it. What an ugly vehicle. My car gets good gas mileage, though, so I won't need to buy a Prius until my car dies. :)

---

I think the latest Prius-- I don't really know if it's an offshoot or the 2004 model or what, is pretty nice looking. It looks more normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yea, Rush is still on ESPN and all.

---

If you look back through the thread about that I said they were overreacting even though I can't stand Rush. :)

Quote:

---

Anyway... the guy pushing for these indecency regulations has been Mike Powell, chairman of the FTC. The FTC's been having it for Stern for a long time. He's been fined in the past.

Nipplegate just gave Powell a chance to move.

---

Right. Powell was not elected, he was appointed. The FCC fined Stern and Viacom was not allowed to go to court to have it determined whether what he said was indecent or not. The FCC only has rules, they have no power to make laws. Stern breaks no laws with his show. FileRoom's page about Stern's past fines. No court has ever ruled on indecency with the exception of the seven dirty words. None of which are used during Stern's broadcast and none of which get through the censor when callers use them.

The reason I'm so vocal about this is because the same crap happened to pretty much all of the radio stations in Connecticut when they tried to fight back against ClearChannel's forceful takeovers - licenses were delayed, paperwork was lost, etc. The last day of broadcast for one particular station, I believe their dial position was 105.1 or 105.9, some rock station, was uncensored in protest and the DJs who (if I'm not mistaken) were fired encouraged people who cared to fight back.

The problem is that the people who listen to crap like Stern DON'T VOTE. They have "better things" to do, and if someone tells them to vote, someone else berates them. "Dude, why do you care about politics? Look at porno or something!" Once they "clean up the airwaves", porno's going, too. Damn it.

EDIT: And another thing - if you're getting offended at things you're hearing from someone on the air or on TV, YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID. You don't have the intelligence to comprehend that whoever it is doesn't know you and is not insulting you. The only time to get offended by anything is if someone knows you personally and says something that only they would know about you.

Stone, for instance, knows me in real life. If he were to come on here and say something like, "Dude, your mom is a bitch," and I didn't agree with that (she's a real bitch), I would have every right to be offended. On the other hand, I don't know Lhadatt personally, so if he were to say here or in FC, "Dude, your mom is a bitch," and I didn't agree with that, I would laugh because it's not offensive. Fucking fucky fuck.

Quote:

---

The problem is that the people who listen to crap like Stern DON'T VOTE. They have "better things" to do, and if someone tells them to vote, someone else berates them. "Dude, why do you care about politics? Look at porno or something!" Once they "clean up the airwaves", porno's going, too. Damn it.

---

I enjoy voting, listening to Howard Stern, and porno...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I enjoy voting, listening to Howard Stern, and porno...

---

Hehe. Fine, put "the majority of" in there, before "people". Exceptions to rules don't invalidate the rules.

The majority of Stern's users don't like him talking about politics because they don't care, though.

If that's your case, don't vote for Bush. Kerry or Nader or whoever else may be just as crappy, but we have to give someone else a chance. Bush has already proven that he is going to pursue this. (Not him, personally, obviously, but his interests and whatnot.)

New SUV's aren't nearly as bad on fuel economy as the used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpy

New SUV's aren't nearly as bad on fuel economy as the used to be.

---

Isn't there some stuff that car makers could do to make their fuel economy even better? I forget, but I'm pretty sure I heard something to that effect.

The H2, though... terrible with gas. :)

The original is far from a winner too. But in general, many are pushing high 20's now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

Dick Cheney is on the Haliburton payroll.

---

Fact check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

It doesn't take Mensa to figure out that Iraq has oil, and that a pro-American government in Iraq will sell crude to American refineries at a more favorable price than OPEC.

---

You assume the future Iraqi gov't will NOT be part of OPEC, but let's say they won't be. What's wrong w/that scenario?

Before this war, Saddam was the only beneficiary of Iraqi oil. Predictions are always risky but I'm willing to make a substantial wager that the Iraqi ppl will benefit most directly from the expansion of oil production in their country.

On a side note, I find it incomprehensible that among the stated reasons for NOT going to war was that the US would be fighting (in part) over oil reserves. How is that a bad thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Fact check.

---

Validated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

On a side note, I find it incomprehensible that among the stated reasons for NOT going to war was that the US would be fighting (in part) over oil reserves. How is that a bad thing?

---

No one deserves to die because of oil. Not Americans, not Iraqis, nobody. Anyone who prefers oil over human lives is a scumbag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I would argue he no longer has (meaningful) ties w/the company, but he's still getting paid...for work from 6 years ago. We could have an interesting semantical argument about this...

---

Yeah, and it's purely circumstantial that Haliburton has been knee-deep in Iraqi reconstruction from the get-go, even considering the scandal involving Haliburton extorting from the American military.

EDIT: Before you even ask, here

ADDED

Apparently Cheney is still recieving payments from his deferred '98 salary w/Halliburton. I would argue he no longer has (meaningful) ties w/the company, but he's still getting paid...for work from 6 years ago. We could have an interesting semantical argument about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

No one deserves to die because of oil. Not Americans, not Iraqis, nobody. Anyone who prefers oil over human lives is a scumbag.

---

Your link is from 3/2003. Old news.

Unless you're a pacifist, this is no argument. One (of the many) benefits to removing Saddam from power is that Iraqi oil will (eventually) flood the market, which will in all likelihood undermine the repressive, reactionary regime to the southwest of Iraq. And that is a bona fide good thing in the strategic battle w/Islamofascism.

I think your argument would have more weight were the US and its allies conquering and colonizing Iraq. Did we raze whole cities so that we may crush another people and take what is theirs? Did we wage a war of aggression or a preventive war? I think it's perfectly clear that we are trying to hand things over to the Iraqis themselves so that they may determine their own future. We are not seizing Iraqi oil for ourselves, jealously hoarding it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I think your argument would have more weight were the US and its allies conquering and colonizing Iraq.

---

The U.S. and it's -ally- did conquer and occupy (if not colonize) Iraq. The debate whether or not it was conquering or liberating is semanitcs argued from whatever side of the fence you sit on. Nevertheless, there is currently no stable Iraqi government because the 'Coalition' destroyed it and now the U.S. decides who gets the oil. These are facts, debate them if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Did we raze whole cities so that we may crush another people and take what is theirs?

---

Again, this is a matter of perspective. We did bomb their cities, hitting both military and civilian targets (electricial plants, water-treatment facilities, etc.) to help destory their government. I don't know if you'd consider that 'razing' in the traditional sense, but it certainly wasn't a tickle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

Did we wage a war of aggression or a preventive war?

---

Preventive war? To prevent what? The WMDs he DIDN'T have or the links to al Quada that DON'T exist? 'Preventive war' is a word strictly from the vocabulary of spin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I think it's perfectly clear that we are trying to hand things over to the Iraqis themselves so that they may determine their own future.

---

Who chose who gets to aide in the rebuilding process of Iraq? Was it the Iraqis? No. Who decided when the Iraqis should have a working government, or what government it should be? Was it the Iraqi people? No. I'll agree that we are trying to hand things over to the Iraqis, but only in a way that we want the unstable puppet government we've already forumlated for them to be up and running ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yea, Rush is still on ESPN and all.

Anyway... the guy pushing for these indecency regulations has been Mike Powell, chairman of the FTC. The FTC's been having it for Stern for a long time. He's been fined in the past.

Nipplegate just gave Powell a chance to move.

---

Actually the admission that fines might not come out till after the elections due to the fact that on the same day the supposed infamous phone call where the N-word was used to get him in trouble in the first place happened to be a day after Stern, who had been a pretty big Bush supporter, turned on him.

From his own mouth, Stern has been fighting this with some pretty hard hitting stuff and its amazing to me that no one in the same industry as him is particurally worried.

Also Rush is still on the radio, as is Micheal Savage who broadcasts under clear channel, and is in no danger at all even though he said something along of the lines of, "I hope all gays get aids and die."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

If you look back through the thread about that I said they were overreacting even though I can't stand Rush. :)



Right. Powell was not elected, he was appointed. The FCC fined Stern and Viacom was not allowed to go to court to have it determined whether what he said was indecent or not. The FCC only has rules, they have no power to make laws. Stern breaks no laws with his show. FileRoom's page about Stern's past fines. No court has ever ruled on indecency with the exception of the seven dirty words. None of which are used during Stern's broadcast and none of which get through the censor when callers use them.

The reason I'm so vocal about this is because the same crap happened to pretty much all of the radio stations in Connecticut when they tried to fight back against ClearChannel's forceful takeovers - licenses were delayed, paperwork was lost, etc. The last day of broadcast for one particular station, I believe their dial position was 105.1 or 105.9, some rock station, was uncensored in protest and the DJs who (if I'm not mistaken) were fired encouraged people who cared to fight back.

The problem is that the people who listen to crap like Stern DON'T VOTE. They have "better things" to do, and if someone tells them to vote, someone else berates them. "Dude, why do you care about politics? Look at porno or something!" Once they "clean up the airwaves", porno's going, too. Damn it.

EDIT: And another thing - if you're getting offended at things you're hearing from someone on the air or on TV, YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID. You don't have the intelligence to comprehend that whoever it is doesn't know you and is not insulting you. The only time to get offended by anything is if someone knows you personally and says something that only they would know about you.

Stone, for instance, knows me in real life. If he were to come on here and say something like, "Dude, your mom is a bitch," and I didn't agree with that (she's a real bitch), I would have every right to be offended. On the other hand, I don't know Lhadatt personally, so if he were to say here or in FC, "Dude, your mom is a bitch," and I didn't agree with that, I would laugh because it's not offensive. Fucking fucky fuck.

---

Wow eff, what I just said, you spelled it out perfectly.

Did anyone else hear his opening hour and half politcal broadcast today btw, nothing but quotes, interviews, and senate hearings set to music. Definately one of the most emotionally charged things I've ever heard on radio and it should played again for everyone to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youandwhosearmy

Actually the admission that fines might not come out till after the elections due to the fact that on the same day the supposed infamous phone call where the N-word was used to get him in trouble in the first place happened to be a day after Stern, who had been a pretty big Bush supporter, turned on him.

---

So, one day after he turned on Bush, the N-word call came in? Wow... Bush's watching everyone's move. Talk about big brother... One hell of a coincidence man.

Quote:

---

Also Rush is still on the radio, as is Micheal Savage who broadcasts under clear channel, and is in no danger at all even though he said something along of the lines of, "I hope all gays get aids and die."

---

I'm not sure what Rush did, aside from offending you with his conservativeness, but Savage's comment which was, "You should only get aids and die." to a prank caller occured on his MSNBC show for which he was fired. But, even before that, it wasn't like Gay groups weren't trying to get the advertisers to boycott his spot.

Perhaps this is why Rush has been defending Stern. More worried about the potential for the Left wanting to get the FAIR doctrine imposed or find something to demand his resignation again like they did for ESPN.

Regardless, ClearChannel can hire or fire whoever the hell they damn well please. I don't give a shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

The debate whether or not it was conquering or liberating is semanitcs argued from whatever side of the fence you sit on.

---

It is NOT a semantical argument. If the US waged a war to colonize Iraq, it should be roundly condemned. Of course it is NOT colonizing Iraq and in fact liberated the Iraqis from one of the more brutal dictatorships of the last 30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

Nevertheless, there is currently no stable Iraqi government because the 'Coalition' destroyed it and now the U.S. decides who gets the oil.

---

You're more than welcome to argue Saddam's Iraq was 'stable.' :lol: And even if the US were to 'decide who gets the oil' (which we clearly won't), I think it's safe to say that's better than the Oil for Food program which did nothing but line the pockets of murderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by g0zen

this is a matter of perspective. We did bomb their cities, hitting both military and civilian targets (electricial plants, water-treatment facilities, etc.) to help destory their government. I don't know if you'd consider that 'razing' in the traditional sense, but it certainly wasn't a tickle.

---

I wouldn't call what we did 'razing,' which is why I chose the word raze when writing the statement, "...we did not raze their cities." :rolleyes:

And a word about 'perspective.' If you believe, as you have clearly argued, that one man's point of view is just as valid as another man's...then we've no need to even debate this. B/c, after all, who's to say who is 'right' btw us?

As for myself, I think that, objectively speaking, the US is not colonizing Iraq, did not raze her cities and did liberate her from Saddam's regime. Perhaps there will be no fringe benefits down the line. Shucks. At the very least the Iraqis will have the opportunity to rule themselves. And to think it was liberals who most vehemently opposed this war.

I like to end a discussion of this topic by pointing out this book about the Iraq War. Written by the most eloquent writer the Left has today, it directly challenges those ostensibly liberal people who did their damndest to STOP a revolution that would objectively, qualitatively, improve Iraqi lives. It's pretty short and definitely a good read. I cannot recommend it enough. Enjoy! :nod: