Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Are there Any Stern Listeners in here?
JAZER Posted: Mon Mar 8 09:39:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As we all know, I am a strong conservative republican and also a strong Bush supporter, however, I am having a tough time overlooking the close ties of Bush and the people responsible for taking Howard Stern off of the air. I am a regular listener of Howard Sterns radio talk show and find it very ironic that the same day that Stern decided to bash Bush he was kicked off of six radio stations by the same person that made Bush his first millions. Dont get me wrong, this does not make me Anti-Bush. I still support him just as much as before. I was just wondering if there are any other listeners of Sterns talk show and if so what is your view on this matter.


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 8 09:46:44 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you know my thoughts on this one Jazer, so rather than take up unnecessary bandwidth stating the obvious I'll leave it at that.


 
simonvii Posted: Mon Mar 8 10:16:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  yeah so i dont listen to stern that often, and many times i disagree with the stuff he says and does, but i think its stupid what they're trying to do to him and his show...its gotta be some free speech violation or something...anyway its going too far, i guess soon we'll see who has the real power - the people or the government


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 11:54:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Are you fucking serious?



Back to the dark ages huh.


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Mar 8 12:26:52 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Jesus i watched the show on TV a little a couple of years back and it's really fucking shite anyway. Why did people pay him to do things


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 12:39:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If his show sucked or not sin't the point at all here.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 12:41:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If the government was allowed to just take any program off the air because they don't agree with it and the masses didn't like the program anyway how many political debates and such will you still see on tv you think?


 
JAZER Posted: Mon Mar 8 12:58:55 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The inevitable has happened. I agree completely with Christophe!... Anyways, by taking Stern off the air regardless of if you think his show is shitty or not is a complete violation of our first Amendment rights. The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The United States prides itself on this amendment yet is currently failing to uphold the truth within it. Its a hard point for me to admit but I believe a lot of this is Bush's fault too. Contradictory to what I should probably end this with, all I have to say is "Vote Bush-Cheney-04"





 
mat_j Posted: Mon Mar 8 13:58:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just sounds like the damn right wing doesn't know it's ass from its elbow


 
Malik Posted: Mon Mar 8 14:01:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Oh, my god, you wouldn't want to look anti-Bush, especially not in front of this crowd... :P

Now, did the government call up the radio/tv stations and tell them to pull the plug, or did the execs decide that he was full of crap and do it themselves?

I'm gonna wait until someone gives me a clear answer, because I can rant either way. :)


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 14:11:21 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Would you be surprised if it was under government pressure?

I'm pretty sure even Bush (or perhaps it would be his friends around him) isn't stupid enough to do something like that officially.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 8 14:38:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ok, he was removed by Clear Channel Communications from 6 stations. He's still syndicated to about a bazillion other stations around the country.
He was not removed by the feds, Clear Channel removed him of their own accord because they did not like his programming.
Now there are some FCC fines pending due to some obscenity charges, but this wouldn't be the first or last time that will happen to Mr. Stern.
The fact is that he just isn't important enough for the feds to fool with and he is getting a helluva lot of free publicity.
Truth be told, I would wager that Bush doesn't even know who Howard Stern is.


 
mat_j Posted: Mon Mar 8 15:11:33 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah fuck Howard Stern right in the ear


 
Malik Posted: Mon Mar 8 15:17:04 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  From all the articles that I've read, even the pro-Stern ones, it seems that Clearchannel (or whoever) dropped it, and they were pro-Bush. But, as a non-govermental organization, they are not bound by the bill of rights. Remember, Clearchannel is not the congress. And, who ultimately terminated Stern? Not congress. It's clearchannel's towers, clearchannel's signals that are being transmitted. They built the network, they control it.

They didn't agree with Stern. They stopped buying his show. I guess it's like if I go to the local starbucks to get a and buy coffee every morning for me and my friends (they pay me back, of course), and all of a sudden, I decide that I don't like them. I have not done anything illegal or unconstitutional to either my friends or Starbucks. Now, if I had a contract with either one of them, I would be civily required to do so, but I have a feeling that Clearchannel made some kind of escape clause in the contract for themselves.

Anyways, sure, this might be a case where big business is trampling on the opinion of the dissenters, but it is in no way unconstitutional. Yeah, it's really sucky for the people who listen to them, but it was really sucky for me when Fox stopped showing Futurama. Was that against the law?

simonvii said:
>i guess soon we'll see who has the real power - the people or the government

The people have no direct power. The days of the referendum are over. The people vote on candidates who promise to do what they say, and then that's it.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 16:40:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Truth be told, I would wager that Bush doesn't even know who Howard Stern is.


So what are you saying hif?


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 8 16:51:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:
>The people vote on candidates who promise to do what they say, and then that's it.

Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps the problem of american elections is that candidates are funded by corporations?

Really, I'm not only targetting Bush here but all of them, can anybody actually tell me (and believe it) that those companies are just doing that out of sympathy for the party or the candidate and out of their own moral believes and don't expect anything back or don't ask for some sort of under the table guarantee that there interests will be "protected".



I'm not saying that there isn't any corruption in (for example) the Belgian system, where each of the (very diverse) recognised parties gets the same amount of government funding for a VERY limited campaign, and the rest is 'fought out' in political debates on TV or in double interviews in newspapers and magazines and so on.

Again, I'm not saying corruption is eliminated like that but at least it isn't there even from before the start.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 8 17:50:58 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Truth be told, I would wager that Bush doesn't even know who Howard Stern is.
>
>
>So what are you saying hif?

I'm simply saying that I'm willing to bet that Dubya has no idea who Howard Stern is. He's probably never heard of him.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 8 22:30:18 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Stern was removed the day after pulling his support from Bush. Yes, ClearChannel is a private organization that has its own rights of hiring and firing. It is, in my opinion, a very stupid move as he brings hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Also, he has a huge audience and a large loyal fan base.
ClearChannel has been given by Michael Powel an unregualted amount of communication power and has extreme politcal power, as they give ridiculous amounts of money to Bush-Cheney.


 
marsteller Posted: Mon Mar 8 23:07:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  eh, i don't watch howard....take him off the air, i don't give a fuck


 
simonvii Posted: Tue Mar 9 02:10:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Malik said:

>simonvii said:
>>i guess soon we'll see who has the real power - the people or the government
>
>The people have no direct power.

i disagree...on the one hand, your right - if the majority thinks one way and i think the other then i have no direct power, but if i, with the majority or even with the minority, decide to take action on an issue i feel passionately enough about, we could enforce direct power...sometimes i wonder what would have happened in the last election, where the vote was split like 52% to 48%, where it doesnt really matter who won because either way, half the country disagrees with the person placed in charge...so what if the one half were to say "fuck this" and set up their own government? sounds crazy but im a sucker for revolution...i believe we all have direct power, we just choose whether or not we want to exercise it...


 
FN Posted: Tue Mar 9 10:28:54 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Christophe said:
>>ifihadahif said:
>>>Truth be told, I would wager that Bush doesn't even know who Howard Stern is.
>>
>>
>>So what are you saying hif?
>
>I'm simply saying that I'm willing to bet that Dubya has no idea who Howard Stern is. He's probably never heard of him.


Hmm, the joke that you didn't get was that I meant that it isn't really surprising that bush doesn't know somebody's name...

I hate having to give away the clue.

Damn you hif!


 
FN Posted: Tue Mar 9 10:33:47 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>eh, i don't watch howard....take him off the air, i don't give a fuck


Sometimes you have to look further than your nose is long.

The point is that a program with a political undertone of some sort was taken off the air probably because of that reason.

Let's say the majority of the people don't watch any of the political debates on tv, and the government decides to take the programs where the opposition wins off the air and show only those who are pro-current government.

Propaganda anyone?

Who said anything about the existence of freedom of speech?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 9 11:29:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>marsteller said:
>>eh, i don't watch howard....take him off the air, i don't give a fuck
>
>
>Sometimes you have to look further than your nose is long.
>
>The point is that a program with a political undertone of some sort was taken off the air probably because of that reason.
>
political undertones ?
I don't think we're talking about the same Howard Stern. His show is mostly about sex.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Mar 9 11:56:29 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>political undertones ?
>I don't think we're talking about the same Howard Stern. His show is mostly about sex.

He was removed from the air after publically questioning the President and removing his support from him. While the show has sex as one of its themes, it's not all sex, and even if it were that's not a reason for broadcast removal. The First Amendment is an all or none article, though it specifically states it's not for the 'none'.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 9 13:57:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>He was removed from the air after publically questioning the President and removing his support from him. While the show has sex as one of its themes, it's not all sex, and even if it were that's not a reason for broadcast removal. The First Amendment is an all or none article, though it specifically states it's not for the 'none'.

It was my understanding that he was removed from the air for and ethnic slur that he didn't say, but allowed to be said on his show.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Mar 9 14:19:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It was my understanding that he was removed from the air for and ethnic slur that he didn't say, but allowed to be said on his show.

That's possible, but I read a bit of the transcript of that day before I posted that (it was on msnbc). He does use (to a degree slurs) for comedy and I know he has nothing against allowing them on the air. Why should he?


 
Christian Posted: Tue Mar 9 14:49:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ...funny isn't it? Saturday night live and Mad TV haven't been yanked and they do EXACTLY the same thing...and I don't even LIKE Howard Stern...so there's my 1 1/2 cents worth... :-) I get a "kick" out of Mad TV.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 9 14:56:08 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>That's possible, but I read a bit of the transcript of that day before I posted that (it was on msnbc). He does use (to a degree slurs) for comedy and I know he has nothing against allowing them on the air. Why should he?

Well, apparently he might have used a little discretion in this case if he wanted to stay on clear channel's stations. LOL
In this case, the word in question was "nigger", and you should know that using that word in public, in most contexts, will bring consequences.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 9 15:10:09 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christian said:
>...funny isn't it? Saturday night live and Mad TV haven't been yanked and they do EXACTLY the same thing...and I don't even LIKE Howard Stern...so there's my 1 1/2 cents worth... :-) I get a "kick" out of Mad TV.

SNL and Mad TV don't push the envelope to it's limits quite the way Stern does, and of course NBC and Fox apparently don't have quite the moral consciences that Clear Channel claims to have.It wasn't the govt, it was Clear Channel that did the yanking.
I don't care much for Stern either, but I do believe someone has to test our limits just so we know where they are.


 
Malik Posted: Tue Mar 9 15:27:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  simonvii said:

>i disagree...on the one hand, your right - if the majority thinks one way and i think the other then i have no direct power, but if i, with the majority or even with the minority, decide to take action on an issue i feel passionately enough about, we could enforce direct power...sometimes i wonder what would have happened in the last election, where the vote was split like 52% to 48%, where it doesnt really matter who won because either way, half the country disagrees with the person placed in charge...so what if the one half were to say "fuck this" and set up their own government?

They tried this, and it was called the Civil War (well, it really wasn't a civil war, but a war for succession). The South got pissed at the north because the federal government was doing stuff that they didn't like. And so they got really, really pissed, to the point of succession. Not even revolution, but just succession. And what happened? The North fought hard to keep the South in.

Sure, if 48% of the people didn't like the way the government was run, they could revolt, but they probably won't. If 48% of the state governments really didn't like they way the government was run, they could revolt or succede, but they won't. The reason is because the military rests in the hands of the federal government now. If a majority of the states wanted to fight with the feds, the feds would win. They've got control of the nukes, the army, the navy, the marines, and the coast guard. The states have the national guard. Who do you think is going to win?

Now, if the people wanted to revolt, they couldn't possibly have a chance.


 
FN Posted: Tue Mar 9 16:29:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Anybody got any views on my view on american elections?


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]