Actually, it doesn't suprise me in the least that Rush would take up Stern's "cause."

They have the same job - selling soap.[/b][/quote]


It does not surprise me eitehr.

Last I checked Stern seemed to be a Libertarian - he almost single handedly got the death penalty back in NY!

I do not think Stern has any special talent, but he was in right place at right time.....

Wow... Rush & Stern on the same side? Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? lol

:rolleyes:

Wow... Rush & Stern on the same side? Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? lol

:rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
I think Rush sees this as the beginning of a domino effect that could also cause problems with his own show (not that he has the same type of show as Stern) Remember, he's had his own problems with the media with the whole black quarterback controversy....

sometimes we're only allies because we have a common enemy



Last edited by SykkBoy at Feb 26 2004, 02:11 PM

I agree
Leykis is nothing but a Stern wannabe

I don't think the real problem is Stern so much as what he spawned...he spawned a bunch of uninspired boring ripoffs...while he was shocking, he was also funny....some of his immitators just went for the shock and forgot about the funny part of the equation...

Do you think alcohol commercials will ever be banned from TV? Until 1971 there were smoking commercials.

I agree
Leykis is nothing but a Stern wannabe

I don't think the real problem is Stern so much as what he spawned...he spawned a bunch of uninspired boring ripoffs...while he was shocking, he was also funny....some of his immitators just went for the shock and forgot about the funny part of the equation...[/b][/quote]
in addition to your statement (which i completely agree with), he is HONEST. how many other people have been able to pull info from guests the way he has.

barbara walters, diane sawyer, larry king......they all stick to guidelines and for the most part, won't dare cross the line no matter how much the public wants to know if the person being interviewed is like them.

i would much rather hear drew carey talk about his molestation then watching jen and ben in the kitchen making artery clogging food. booooriiing!

I have been looking around, apparently ClearChannel is just not carrying Stern - they have a right to do this if they choose. The gov't is not censoring him yet. This is something that comes before censorship....

Definately something worth tracking....

True
while I'll defend Clear Channel's right to carry whatever programming they wish, there is a problem in how many radio stations and other venues they own.

I really think the only reason ClearChannel is acting like a bunch of fucking Pollyannas is because of the ownership laws (everyone seems to have conventiently forgotten about that) and some changes they want in those laws.

I listened to Rush today and didn't hear him saying anything close to this being a risk to free speech.
What he *was* repeating over and over is that this isn't censorship; Stern is an employee of Clear Channel and as such they can tell him to tone it down or fire him or even tell him to wear a tutu if he wants to keep his job.

He can still say whatever he likes... CC has just said that he's not going to say it on *their* airwaves while he's representing them.
No one is stopping Stern from climbing onto a soap box in the middle of Times Square and explaining in graphic detail how a naked woman is deepthroating a sausage and how hard it's making his dick and how he wants to fuck her up the ass. He can still do that if he wants (just don't ask me to listen to it, lol).

True
while I'll defend Clear Channel's right to carry whatever programming they wish, there is a problem in how many radio stations and other venues they own.

I really think the only reason ClearChannel is acting like a bunch of fucking Pollyannas is because of the ownership laws (everyone seems to have conventiently forgotten about that) and some changes they want in those laws.[/b][/quote]
Bingo!!

Why? Is there a problem with how many domain names some of us own?

Why? Is there a problem with how many domain names some of us own?[/b][/quote]
Tsk, tsk, tsk ... apples and oranges.

Actually, apples and truffles.

i like truffles.

Why? Is there a problem with how many domain names some of us own?[/b][/quote]
No, but there are established guidelines in how many radio, tv stations and newspapers a single company can own.

Imagine if Clear Channel owned every single television station, radio station and newspaper...we would all be at the whims of their CEO.

This goes far beyond the CEO schmuck of Clear Channel being offended because his 9 year old daughter might have hear Howard Stern say the word "penis"

The new FCC rules let one company own up to 8 stations in a major market. In Atlanta, Clear Channel has 8, and 7 of the 8 would be among the largest stations in town. They have a lot of influence on what we hear or do not hear whether we like it or not.

Same FCC chairman who loosened the ownership rules last year is the same guy whose conservative restrictions on content Clear Channel is now very publicly standing behind. You'd think since they are the home of some of the largest syndicated "shock jocks" that they would be fighting instead. Kinda makes you go "hmmmmmm...."

Personally, it pisses me off to no end....just change the fucking channel if you dont like what you hear....

Guidelines?

An oldy but goody. Infinity was fined $600,000 in 1992 for discussing masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima.

Stern will probably turn this latest round into another best seller. I think he is talented. He has managed a best-selling book, a #1 movie, and a top- rated radio program. When I listen to Stern and then listen to the later guys, I hear a difference. Stern sounds much more natural. He talks about his life in a personal way, with all his faults and blemishes. People connect with him and his personality above and beyond the skits and bits.

Just a little reminder for all you 'free speech' assholes out there, "CONGRESS shall make no laws...". Don't blame CC. This whole thing is an attack on Clear Channel, which has been under attack for a long time because they host Conservative talk radio. Want some indirect proof? JJ's tit provoked nothing like this furor. I don't see Viacom being hit with superfines.

Sometimes, it is wiser to reserve judgement until one has more facts. Remember, the guys below the top at the FCC, like all other UNIONIZED gov't workers, can't be fired. In fact, they can't even be called to account.

"This" is a conspiracy against conservative radio? You've lost your mind.

"This" is a conspiracy against conservative radio? You've lost your mind.[/b][/quote]
So...Is Viacom (read: CBS and MTV) in front of a committee? No! In point of fact (look it up, if you don't believe it), CC is the only broadcaster there. If your memory, for whatever reason, is really bad; check for references to Clear Channel. You'll find that they are being threatened with breakup because 'they own too many stations', even though they are within the law. The only TV network under attack at this time is Fox. Do your research and do some thinking before you sneer at someone far older and wiser than yourself...

Paranoia will destroy ya ...

Now even the Republicans who control Congress are against Conservative talk radio.

hahaha. that gives me a headache just thinking about it... a die hard conservative who is a victem of conservative talk radio is worried about conservative conspiracies to stop conservative talk radio.



Last edited by JR at Feb 27 2004, 08:08 AM

hehe.
CJ, Gonzo!!

there is a radio show right there!

Yale grad debates truck driver

Hmmmm .... we seem to see the beginning of a new species here.

Republicommies.

:ph34r: Question is ... did they evolve - or where they created? :ph34r:

shit, i just realized i ran out of tin foil.

"This" is a conspiracy against conservative radio? You've lost your mind.[/b][/quote]
Torone,
if you represent the view, spirit and inner thought of the Republican Party,
I'll canvas my neighbors and BEG them vote Democrats in the upcoming election.