The other shoe might be dropping.

[Tom]

Clearchannel Communications booted Howard Stern off of its radio stations today. The hidden reason is pressure from the government.
It was only a matter of time after the Patriot Act that the evil shadow would begin to take shape in the Dark Tower of Mordor DC. Sauron is taking shape and coming for more of our rights and freedoms. Wher is Gandalph when you need him?
Stern is not the important thing - some other channels will pick up his show soon and my mornings once again filled with sick humor.
The spectre of censorship and govnt control of our lives is the scary part.
Congress, as always, is FAR more of a threat to us than El Qeda ever could be. They may be using the War on Terror as a cover to sneak into our living rooms and bedrooms.
NRA might be getting a contribution from me this month. An armed populace is a free populace.

[Amazin]

Tom said"Congress, as always, is FAR more of a threat to us than El Qeda ever could be."

Last time I said that,I got deluged with hate responses. Is this board turning liberal or what?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Tom said"Congress, as always, is FAR more of a threat to us than El Qeda ever could be."

Last time I said that,I got deluged with hate responses. Is this board turning liberal or what?

I didn't sugggest we kill the president, and I've alway maintained a total disdain for congress. That is not a liberal viewpoint.
Congress screws liberal just as much as ti does conservatives.
We must never forget who the REAL enemy is.

[ljb]

Tom said
"It was only a matter of time after the Patriot Act that the evil shadow would begin to take shape in the Dark Tower of Mordor DC. Sauron is taking shape and coming for more of our rights and freedoms. Wher is Gandalph when you need him?
Amen Tom
ljb

[Suff]

You heard the State of the union right.. You heard Bush bring up the Prison Population. He snuck this in...

Parole'es and Convicted Criminals can shorthen Prison sentences by agreeing to "Faith Based" Counseling.


Having personally seen many guys turn thier life around with God I belive in this. I would even say that MOST people who have bottomed out turn it around spiritually more often than not.

Most people come to God by circumstance rather than Virtue.

But with that said.. Thats how it starts. No one has a Big problem with Prison (the State) funding and faciltating religous counseling to convicts. So Church and State mix. Thats the foot in the door.

[Amazin]

Tom said"I didn't sugggest we kill the president"

Neither did I. BTW,the Patriot Act was introduced by the Bush administration. Congress did not iniate it.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Amazin
Tom said"I didn't sugggest we kill the president"

Neither did I. BTW,the Patriot Act was introduced by the Bush administration. Congress did not iniate it.
the executive doens' directly introduce legislation. Bush may have bullied it to a vote, but he didn't intorduce it. Semantics. It is a bad bill and our congressional morons allowed it to pass both houses.
Remember who the real enemy is.

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Tom said
"It was only a matter of time after the Patriot Act that the evil shadow would begin to take shape in the Dark Tower of Mordor DC. Sauron is taking shape and coming for more of our rights and freedoms. Wher is Gandalph when you need him?
Amen Tom
ljb

If you don't mind, I'll expand the Lord of the Rings analogy one more time.
A US senator looking at the SS money in the General fund and rolling around one the capital floor, like Gollum, calling out "Precious, my prescious!"

[Suff]

The congressional hearing is on C-span right now if you have cable.

It was this afternoon. The guy that yanked Stern , (clear Channel) is getting fried. Turn it on if your near the Tube.

[Secretariat]

Once again we agree Tom. Personally, I hate Howard Stern, but to boot him off the radio because a caller used a racial slur is stretching it pretty far.

[Suff]

House Energy and commerce Committe.

The Broadcast Deceny Panel is its OFFICIAL name.

[Amazin]

Tom said regarding my allegation of the Bush Administrations introduction of the Patriot Act "the executive doens' directly introduce legislation.


Question: Who was a key author of the Patriot Act?

Answer:Viet Dinh

Question:Who did he work for?

Answer. John Ashcroft

Question:Who does John Ashcroft work for.

Answer: Hint:It aint the NYRA

[doophus]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Once again we agree Tom. Personally, I hate Howard Stern, but to boot him off the radio because a caller used a racial slur is stretching it pretty far.

Tom, Sec, and LIMBAUGH??

Too much! Too much! :confused:

Gotta fix another drink.


George

[Tom]

Amazin,
I am agreeing with you. Bush pushed it.
My point is that it took congress to pass it so he could sign it.
Congress let us down. That is what I am saying.

[PaceAdvantage]

This whole situation disturbs me greatly. How can we let the government dictate what we listen to, or watch?

What changed in the last few days that hasn't been going on over the last 20 years with Howard Stern? Why is this such a big freakin deal?

It's unreal that this and gay weddings are the issues of the day! The key is to search for what is being smokescreened here. What important issues are being thrown off the front page for this kind of crap?

Whatever happened to individuals setting their own standards and practices? For instance, I have set the standard of this website to the "NYPD Blue level" of language. No government agency has told me what I can or can't say on this website. This is how it should be everywhere.

If someone sets the standard too low, and people are offended, they STOP WATCHING OR LISTENING. Ratings drop, and the powers that be get the message and remove the unprofitable show.

This whole issue of "oh no, the kids might hear or see this" is basically moot in this day and age. What kids might see or hear on radio or TV is never worse that what they get right at home from Mom or Dad or older brother or sister. Not to mention what their friends are doing and saying in school....

Enough incoherent ranting on my part....

[JustRalph]

I keep hearing about Stern's show......but would someone please fill me in on what was said or happen........you don't have to quote it verbatim.......just give me the gist of it.


The best form of censorship is changing the friggin channel.....

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I keep hearing about Stern's show......but would someone please fill me in on what was said or happen........you don't have to quote it verbatim.......just give me the gist of it.


The best form of censorship is changing the friggin channel.....

Sketchy details from NPR:

A female reporter for some news organization asked to interview him and he said "Sure, if you will do it in your lingere."

A listener called in and discussed a sexual encounter with, presumably, a person of color, and used a politically incorrect or derogatory term in their description.

Like I said, sketchy.

[Derek2U]

HS was kicked outta shows cause He Said "Wheres VS"? + other
stuff but i'm not sure of that. Hope that helps. Oh BTW .. me &
my Solange are staying in manhattan this weekend ... woopieeee
2 weekends away & i need lights cause im part MoTH... my wings
nEED light .... also, please see THE movie "Passion of Christ"
i'm curious what U think ... djc

[Tom]

A caller refered to a woman's "puddy-cat"
Apparently, you can call a person a "puddy-cat" but you cannot talk about a real "puddy-cat."

On Survivor last night, they started flashing a warning about adult content (obviously becaseu Richard Hatch has been flashing).

Suddenly, everyone is scared about offending Big Brother.
It is OK to drop bunker buster bombs on cities but don't talk about "puddy-cats."

And they call ME ca-raz-Y!!!

[ljb]

Tom,
You keep blaming this on congress. Congress is a representative of the voters. The real culprit here are the voters who elected those fools. Going one step further you find the christian coalition is the driving force behind this type of action. They are also behind the drive to tell us who can marry who.
While i have no problem with anyones religious beliefs, I do take offense when they try to put their values on me using either force or legislation.
Currently the Republican party is in the hands of big business, the NRA and the christian coalition. If you prefer that these groups do not make decisions affecting your life, vote them out!

[Tom]

Ljb,
When will come to your senses.
Dem-Rep....it is the same people.
The dems want to take all my money and give it to the poor.
The repubs want to take all my money and keep it.
This two party system is a device they are using to keep the people seprated into groups that do not trust each other.
Meanwhile, Bush, Kerry, Chenney, Kennedy, they got theirs already and mean to keep it.
The sad fact is that the majority or Americans are pretty simnple minded, ignorant, lazy people that will not ever make an informed decision. They will never go beyond talk.
Great country, eh?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
This whole situation disturbs me greatly. How can we let the government dictate what we listen to, or watch?

What changed in the last few days that hasn't been going on over the last 20 years with Howard Stern? Why is this such a big freakin deal?

It's unreal that this and gay weddings are the issues of the day! The key is to search for what is being smokescreened here. What important issues are being thrown off the front page for this kind of crap?


I agree PA. But also I would add to "what improtant issues are being thrown off the front page for this kind of crap", but WHY are the important issues being thown off the front page for this kind of crap?

What is happening to our civil liberties in the name of "decency" or 'national security" is becoming quite disturbing.

[ljb]

Tom,
In the broadest sense I agree with you. Dems Reps both the same. However, when the dems give money to the poor it is more benificial to my well being. When the reps keep it, I see nothing.
I have to get off line as people are waiting but this is about more then just money. ie censorship etc.

[delayjf]

I'm not quite sure I understand why everbody is threatened by the Patriot Act.

Specifically, what rights are being taken away?

Am I to understand that all here would have no problem with absolutely no censorship at all. Broadcast what you want when you want it. What about hate speech shouldn't that be just as accessible.

I understand that the Gov is in a position with regard to their licensing to pressure broadcasters, but I seriously doubt that the hundreds of other stations who are still carrying Stern will now lose their licenses. I think we can all thank Hollywood for all this, its been a long time coming. Stern was an easy target.

We as a nation need to decide if Natrional Security is an important issue and if so how can we fight the terrorist that hide behind our Constitution. Perhaps if we were getting hit as often as Israel, we might have a different attitude.

With or without the Patriot Act, if the Feds want to stick a stethiscope up your butt, they can and will.

[ljb]

Delayjf said
"With or without the Patriot Act, if the Feds want to stick a stethiscope up your butt, they can and will."
And you are willing to accept this ?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Delayjf said
"With or without the Patriot Act, if the Feds want to stick a stethiscope up your butt, they can and will."
And you are willing to accept this ?


"....the government shall pass no law restricting the right to keep and bear arms."

Just try it.

:eek:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
I'm not quite sure I understand why everbody is threatened by the Patriot Act.

Specifically, what rights are being taken away?



There's a lot! One of which bothers me is the ability of the government to go into your house without benefit of a warrant. All they have to do is claim you may be a terrosist threat. It violates the spirit of the fourth amendment.

[Secretariat]

Here's a few more Patriot Act abuses along with a link to the provisions of the attempted Patriot Act II:

Patriot Act II link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1524.htm

Below is on Patriot Act I

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peek" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The legislation:

• minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

• expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

• gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

• grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

• leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.
Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards — that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

[Tom]

We do not need to give the guv more power to fight trerroism. the only reason 9-11 was allowed to happed was that multiple guv stiff FAILED to perform their jobs. Had any one several over-paid civil agencies been on the ball, the death pilots could not have succeeded. It was not the genius of Al Qeda that was at work the Tuesday morning, it was the laziness and incompetence of State and Federal employees.
New powers to fight terrorism are merely smoke and mirrors to cover the real root cause - failure to do your job at every level.
Now we have billions of dollars more lazy civil employees "protecting" our airports and we're no safer today than we were on 9-10.
I will take my chances with the terrorists anyday. It is our own guv that poses the real threat to our freedoms.

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:
]
This whole situation disturbs me greatly. How can we let the government dictate what we listen to, or watch?

So, just what is the alternative, PA? Anarchy? Should governments allow their societies to sink to the dark depths of hedonism and all forms of depravity? Don't you know that criminal law is grounded in God's moral law? If you don't want government making morality-based decisions, then I suppose it would be fine with you if people just went out into the streets, for example, and engaged openly in sex acts? After all, it would be between two (or more) consenting adults, wouldn't it? (Or would it? What about between "consenting kids"?) And if a passerby should be offended by this, we can recommend that they take a Tolerance 101 course, right? Let's just tolerate everything and anything! Is that what you want for this country? You so relish your "freedom" that you want to be free from any moral restraints.

In this day and age, it certainly isn't hip or suave or cool or rockin' to delve too much into World History. (After all, what relevance would World History have to this ever-so-cool and rockin' 21st Century?) But if you study world history from both the secular and bilblical perspectives, you'll learn that all the great world empires that fell had this one thing in common: They were all morally depraved to the hilt! And they fell because they incurred God's holy wrath and suffered his temporal judgment.

And if you still don't believe and aren't convinced that a nation's moral compass is the key element that determines that nation's place in the world (economically, politically and militarily), just look at some of the poorerst and most backward nations in the world and find out what that' nation's "religion" is. The general rule of thumb is that the more godless a nation is, the worse off it will be culturally, economically, politically and militarily.

Conversely, our nation is the greatest nation there ever was in all the above realms because back when this nation was founded, it was soldily grounded in Judeao-Christian principles. (Note carefully I said "was"!) But now we're rapidly becoming just as weak and medicore as the the E.U., for example.

Consider carefully the following biblical texts that address the inextricable link between a nation's righteousness and its prospertiy (blessings) or its unrighteousness and all the attendant curses:

Prov 14:34
4 Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a disgrace to any people.
NAS

While Moses was addressing Israel in this following passage, the principles contained therein still apply to any nation today:

Deut 28:1-14
28:1 "Now it shall be, if you will diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. 2 And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the LORD your God. 3 Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. 4 Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 5 Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 6 Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.

7 "The LORD will cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they shall come out against you one way and shall flee before you seven ways. 8 The LORD will command the blessing upon you in your barns and in all that you put your hand to, and He will bless you in the land which the LORD your God gives you. 9 The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you will keep the commandments of the LORD your God, and walk in His ways. 10 So all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of you. 11 And the LORD will make you abound in prosperity, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your beast and in the produce of your ground, in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers to give you. 12 The LORD will open for you His good storehouse, the heavens, to give rain to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hand; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow. 13 And the LORD shall make you the head and not the tail, and you only shall be above, and you shall not be underneath, if you will listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I charge you today, to observe them carefully, 14 and do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you today, to the right or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
NAS

Conversely, if a nation chooses to go down the path of unrightesouness, then it will suffer the same fate (curses) as the nation of Israel eventually did:

Deut 28:15-29:1
15 "But it shall come about, if you will not obey the LORD your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. 16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 18 Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20 "The LORD will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me. 21 The LORD will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you from the land, where you are entering to possess it. 22 The LORD will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they shall pursue you until you perish. 23 And the heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. 24 The LORD will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed. 25 The LORD will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out one way against them, but you shall flee seven ways before them, and you shall be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 And your carcasses shall be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there shall be no one to frighten them away.
27 "The LORD will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. 28 The LORD will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart; 29 and you shall grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you shall not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you. 30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man shall violate her; you shall build a house, but you shall not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you shall not use its fruit. 31 Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you shall not eat of it; your donkey shall be torn away from you, and shall not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you shall have none to save you. 32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes shall look on and yearn for them continually; but there shall be nothing you can do. 33 A people whom you do not know shall eat up the produce of your ground and all your labors, and you shall never be anything but oppressed and crushed continually. 34 And you shall be driven mad by the sight of what you see. 35 The LORD will strike you on the knees and legs with sore boils, from which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. 36 The LORD will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone. 37 And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a taunt among all the people where the LORD will drive you.
38 "You shall bring out much seed to the field but you shall gather in little, for the locust shall consume it. 39 You shall plant and cultivate vineyards, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, for the worm shall devour them. 40 You shall have olive trees throughout your territory but you shall not anoint yourself with the oil, for your olives shall drop off. 41 You shall have sons and daughters but they shall not be yours, for they shall go into captivity. 42 The cricket shall possess all your trees and the produce of your ground. 43 The alien who is among you shall rise above you higher and higher, but you shall go down lower and lower. 44 He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail. 45 So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the LORD your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. 46 And they shall become a sign and a wonder on you and your descendants forever. 47 Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you.
49 "The LORD will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand, 50 a nation of fierce countenance who shall have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young. 51 Moreover, it shall eat the offspring of your herd and the produce of your ground until you are destroyed, who also leaves you no grain, new wine, or oil, nor the increase of your herd or the young of your flock until they have caused you to perish. 52 And it shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the LORD your God has given you. 53 Then you shall eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the LORD your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you. 54 The man who is refined and very delicate among you shall be hostile toward his brother and toward the wife he cherishes and toward the rest of his children who remain, 55 so that he will not give even one of them any of the flesh of his children which he shall eat, since he has nothing else left, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you in all your towns. 56 The refined and delicate woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground for delicateness and refinement, shall be hostile toward the husband she cherishes and toward her son and daughter, 57 and toward her afterbirth which issues from between her legs and toward her children whom she bears; for she shall eat them secretly for lack of anything else, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy shall oppress you in your towns.
58 "If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome name, the LORD your God, 59 then the LORD will bring extraordinary plagues on you and your descendants, even severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses. 60 And He will bring back on you all the diseases of Egypt of which you were afraid, and they shall cling to you. 61 Also every sickness and every plague which, not written in the book of this law, the LORD will bring on you until you are destroyed. 62 Then you shall be left few in number, whereas you were as the stars of heaven for multitude, because you did not obey the LORD your God. 63 And it shall come about that as the LORD delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the LORD will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you; and you shall be torn from the land where you are entering to possess it. 64 Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. 65 And among those nations you shall find no rest, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul. 66 So your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall be in dread night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life. 67 In the morning you shall say, 'Would that it were evening!' And at evening you shall say, 'Would that it were morning!' because of the dread of your heart which you dread, and for the sight of your eyes which you shall see. 68 And the LORD will bring you back to Egypt in ships, by the way about which I spoke to you, 'You will never see it again!' And there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer."
NAS


This whole issue of "oh no, the kids might hear or see this" is basically moot in this day and age. What kids might see or hear on radio or TV is never worse that what they get right at home from Mom or Dad or older brother or sister. Not to mention what their friends are doing and saying in school....

I can't believe you said this! The underlying assumption is that dear ol' Mom and Dad and bro and sis are just as sleazy and slimy as SlimeBall Stern; therefore since the "kids" have to put up with all the sleaze and raw sewage within their own househould ot even within their own immediate circle of school friends, etc. this alone is sufficient reason to give the Sterns of this world a free pass. But I say to you that if you or any other adult are big Stern fans and you find some redeeming value to the garbabe that spews from his TrashMouth, then you should be willing to pay for it. He doesn't need to be on the public airwaves that anyone can listen to. Playboy Channel hasn't come to Broadcast TV, has it? Porno fans have to pay for that type of "entertainment", don't they? Then they should be willing to pay to listen to indeceny over the airwaves and be willing to keep the public airwaves as decent and wholesome as possible.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Since when does my desire for a less intrusive government imply that I am in favor of total freedom to legally do every depraved thing one can think of in the name of free speech and expression? How do you make this leap of logic? All I was saying was that I am tired of the growing restrictions placed upon free speech on radio and TV by government agencies.

Damn right I'm a Stern fan. He has a censor sitting in that building pressing the button whenever he goes overboard. Is that not enough? His show conforms to FCC standards and he's been doing it for over 20 years. He's still on the air, so I must assume his show is conforming to FCC guidelines.

Now, I also believe in the free market. If enough people are as disgusted and not entertained by his show as you proclaim to be, then his show will wither and die by pure economic force. That's the beauty of the free enterprise system.

On the other hand, of course there is a time and a place for government to step into the picture. I don't believe radio and TV is really such a place though, especially since the networks do a VERY GOOD JOB of policing themselves. Do you know why? THE FREE MARKET! They know they will lose advertising $$$ if they play TOO CLOSE to the EDGE!

Having Howard Stern on the air is NOT going to lead to anarchy. Showing a breast on TV is not going to lead to anarchy.

Having a government that smothers people's rights to the point of no return WILL lead to anarchy in the long run...you can bet your last dollar on that!

And as for kids and what they get at home:

Little Timmy is sitting at home watching his dad beat the crap out of his mom. Or he's watching his older brother get high on whatever drug might be in vogue today. Or he's watching his sister go through an unwanted pregnancy or having an abortion. Or he's watching his dad or mom cheat on each other, scream at each other day in and day out, and eventually divorce. You're telling me little Timmy would be worse off listening to Howard Stern talk about the size of his penis?

[raybo]

Well, I don't know why anyone is really surprised by all this. Wasn't it Bush sr. who made a big deal out of a "New world order"? The bottom line seems to be an ever increasing possibility for the emergence of a "One world government". People have fought political tyranny since day one and it will continue. My question is, when will the common man in this country finally say "that's enough" and then do something about it? Not anytime soon, I'm afraid. As long as our "leaders" are allowed to create laws that are unquestionably unconstitutional they will continue to do just that until they have completely disarmed the common man both figuratively and literally. It's in their interests to do so, after all. Our Constitution is fast becoming meaningless.

[delayjf]

I'm sorry, but I just don't share the apocolyptic big brother version of the Gov. If there a abuses that are unfounded then they can be addressed in court. As far as search warrents are concerned, with a no-knock warrent, they can come a calling without any notice. There may indeed be a day when they cross that line, thats when I would get worried.

Tom,
I'm down with the second admendment myself.

PA,
I agree with your example, but does choosing between the lesser of two evils doesn't make one of them right? And so far, it's not the FCC that has pulled any plug on Stern. I'm of the opinion that some types of speech are more relevant to the issue of Freedom of Speech than others. For example; your right to disagree with your elected officials as opposed to your right to be crude in public.

[Secretariat]

DelayJ,

As Tom says if people had done their job this wouldn't have happened in the first place. We've now spent billions and billions of dollars based on a couple of guys who got onto planes with box cutters, and eluded NORAD. Do you really think that if people want to destroy something or cross our borders, all the money in the world is going to stop them? We're going to have more Timothy McVeighs, and more Al-Quada actions. Giving up "our" personal liberties under the guise of "national security" is not going to stop any of it. You may feel better spending more, (and to an extent I'm OK with that), as there are probably more terrrorist probablities today than before 911. Morooco used to be 60% pro-American, now they're 25%. Saudi Arabia 45% pro-American, now 11%. Jordan 1% pro-America. And the list goes on.

Boxcar,

This crap about us being founded on Judeo-Christan values is divisive. Truth is two framers of the Declaration of Independence were Franklin and Jefferson, both Deists. And the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of mixing religion into goverment and hence the First amendment guarantees the right of seperation of church and state. Even in Iraq we're demanding that Islam not be written into their constitution. Religion gets us in more dang wars than anything. Keep the judeo-christian stuff to yourself, it is not a part of the government despite the Falwells and Robertson's trying to do otherwise.

[Lefty]

PA, what has changed is the Janet Jackson flap when she bared a right breast on the Superbowl broadcast. The hoopla from this caused the Fcc to crackdown and Clear Channel panicked and suspended Stern. They also had a controversy preceding Stern about some character calling himself the lovebug or somethin like that and it was all too much.
The govt should not censor but individual broadcast cos. certainly have the right to say who goes on and who dioesn't, but clearly, the FCC brought some pressure because of the flap over Jackson.
Govt should not be in the censoring business because who decides?
Remember in the Clinton days they tried to bring back some broasdcast act, the fair act(memory fails as to exact wording)so they could get rid of Limbaugh. Didn't work and should never work. Free speech must prevail.

[Lefty]

sec, please show me in the Constitution says anyt hing about separation of Church and State? Instead of having freedom of religion the constitution is being misquoted and misused to take away religion.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
This crap about us being founded on Judeo-Christan values is divisive. Truth is two framers of the Declaration of Independence were Franklin and Jefferson, both Deists. And the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of mixing religion into goverment and hence the First amendment guarantees the right of seperation of church and state. Even in Iraq we're demanding that Islam not be written into their constitution. Religion gets us in more dang wars than anything. Keep the judeo-christian stuff to yourself, it is not a part of the government despite the Falwells and Robertson's trying to do otherwise.

Great Thread..... many are right in here. Can you imagine these same debates being had in the 1770's. To qualify, I lean to being an agnostic. Maybe even an atheist. But I can tell you that my values and moral compass is rooted in basic christian values. It's a funny thing......I somehow figured out that they seem to "WORK!"

Sec: Judeo Christian values is what this country was founded on and your point above, about it being divisive is a regular tactic from the left. Oh yeah.....on your two guys who were framers, deists, can you name them and what percentage of the "framers" were they? I am interested.

Your point about the first amendment is jumping the gun a little. I see not one spot in the first amendment where there is any mention of "church and state seperation" you lefties tend to want to read into the document sometimes. Just my opine. It is amazing how you guys jump to the constitution when it benefits your cause but when it comes to the 2nd amendment you want to edit the document. Interesting thread though......fill me in.

[Secretariat]

The Supreme Court has affirmed the first amendment time and again as a speration of church and state. But if you don't like that read Article VI, Section III of the Constitution, and tons of decisions below:

Amendment I
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.

Article VI, Section III

Question:Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or can it be found in the Constitution?

Answer: Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III

" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

May 29, 1787,
constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, Penna.
Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a plan of government, to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of America:-

ART. VI . . . .The Legislature of the United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion, nor touching or abridging the liberty of the press [n]or shall the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ever be suspended, except in case of rebellion or invasion.

When the wording of the new constitution began to be published and read by the public, a conflict arose over what many perceived as a rejection of religion. They saw the no religious test clause and the lack of any references to God, Jesus, Christianity, etc. as dangerous, a threat to what many felt was a necessary union between government and religion

The following are excerpts from James E. Wood, Jr.'s very fine article that appeared in the Journal of Church and State 29 (Spring 1987), which sums this up quite nicely.

The only reference to religion in the original Constitution, Article VI is written in the form of an unequivocal denial of any place to be given to religious considerations in determining qualifications for public office. The prohibition applied at this time, of course only to federal office, not state or local. The adoption of this proposal in effect, precluded the possibility of any church-state union or the establishment of a state church in the absence of any religious test for public office.

The elimination of religious tests for public office by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 represented a major achievement for the future course of American church-state relations. Article VI not only removed the basis for any preferential treatment of one religion over another for holding public office, but also denied the right of any preferential status of religion over nonreligion in matters of one's political participation in the life of the Republic. William Lee Miller appropriately noted in his recent historical review of religion and the Constitution, The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic, that "in the framing of Article VI ...the new nation was electing to be nonreligious in its civil life." On the subject of religion, Miller finds "more striking than what the Federal Constitution did include is what it did not." Unlike other legal documents of the period and throughout history, there art no references in the Constitution to the Deity, to God, to "Providence." or even to the word Creator, as in the case of the Declaration of Independence, written primarily be Deist Thomas Jefferson, which, unlike the Constitution, was not a formal legal document.

There are many Supreme Court Decisions as well affirming the separation of church and state as well.

Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

[raybo]

I guess the reason I get so upset about all this mess is that the Federal Government has over reached its bounds. It seems that they are openly attacking the Constirution and Bill of Rights daily. Both those documents have stood the test of time and express exactly what many of us feel a governing body should be allowed to do but most of us could have never put into words so accurately. There is no doubt that we need an entity that looks after the defense of our country from "foreign" agressors, conducts foreign policy, and declares war when it is appropriate, but all the other stuff needs to be left in the hands of local goernment where the people have a little more clout and control over the process.

[ljb]

Very interesting arguments here. My take on this event, censorship of Stern is:
Just like the NRA fights any and all attempts at gun control we must fight any and all government attempts at speech control. This leads to thought control. Look at the big picture here. If the christian coalition gains this foothold what is their next step? Movies ? Books? Public speech? The possibilities are endless.
The networks etc. publish/produce this stuff because that is what the listeners/viewers want. No other reason. It all boils down to the bottom line. They are reacting to the big blowup over Jackson's boob but they are really trying to avoid any type of gubmnt controls. How can the public networks compete with the cable channels if they are restricted by gubmnt folks.
I am telling you this coalition is trying to gain even more control of our lives we must stop their charge before it is too late.

[Secretariat]

I think this issue of religion and the founding fathers is interesting because it goes to the heart of a lot of matters. What did they intend? I found this link, and this treaty was signed near the end of George Washington's term as first president. I think it gives an excellent view of the role of religion and the government DIRECTLY in the signed treaty by Washington.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/23/1/55

[raybo]

Good article, Secretariat. The founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that the people of the United States remained free from political abuse of all kinds. Whether one believes in God, Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Buddha or the or any other Deity is beside the point. The point is that a free people should remain free from their own government as well. A government should not restrict the actions, thoughts, or words of it's citizens based on any group's beliefs when held by the minority of those citizens.

[delayjf]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Exactly, congress shall make no law. Therefore any ruling concerning religion and law should come from the states, not the Federal Gov nor the Supreme Court.

Question
Does making Christmas a Federal Holiday amount to respecting an establishment of religion??? If so, then it must be abolished.

Could not help but notice that most of these cases come from the last 70 years of so. More progressive thinking I presume.

Don't be too sure Franklin and Jefferson are on your side on this issue. To put this whole thing into context you have to study the reasons behind this admendment and the impact the English Monarchy and the Church of England had on the Colonies.

The other issue I have is the replacement of american traditions and customs with ideas that are not neutral and in fact support morals in opposition to religion.

Perhaps we need some Christian Social disobedience. I can just hear the left screeming for the National Guard if Christians conducted a prayer before a football game.

[Lefty]

actually, the first amendment was put in the constitution to protect political speech and not smut. But who's to say what's smut? Networks must be more discriminating in what they broadcast before the govt does step in. Nobody wants that.

[Lefty]

delay, case in point: Look at how the left is ranting against Mel Gibson's movie? They want a complete secular society, or so it seems.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Just curious, who on the left is railing against the movie? I have tickets to see it tommorow and will have a better opinion then. Last night I saw mystic river. I thought the movie was a little overloaded with violence and profanity but overall a good movie.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
Exactly, congress shall make no law. Therefore any ruling concerning religion and law should come from the states, not the Federal Gov nor the Supreme Court.

Question
Does making Christmas a Federal Holiday amount to respecting an establishment of religion??? If so, then it must be abolished.

Could not help but notice that most of these cases come from the last 70 years of so. More progressive thinking I presume.

Don't be too sure Franklin and Jefferson are on your side on this issue. To put this whole thing into context you have to study the reasons behind this admendment and the impact the English Monarchy and the Church of England had on the Colonies.

The other issue I have is the replacement of american traditions and customs with ideas that are not neutral and in fact support morals in opposition to religion.

Perhaps we need some Christian Social disobedience. I can just hear the left screeming for the National Guard if Christians conducted a prayer before a football game.

[ljb]

Delayjf,
Is christmas a religious holiday ? I thought it was a department store holiday. Only 203 days until Xmas you better hurry!

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
Don't be too sure Franklin and Jefferson are on your side on this issue. To put this whole thing into context you have to study the reasons behind this admendment and the impact the English Monarchy and the Church of England had on the Colonies.

....

Perhaps we need some Christian Social disobedience. I can just hear the left screeming for the National Guard if Christians conducted a prayer before a football game.

Perhaps you need to read the WHOLE article on what our framers not only intended, but what they DID. There's no refernce to Christianity in the Constitution.

I'm putting the link back up here again so you can read it and acquaint yourself with founding father history, not just the last 70 years of Supreme Court decisions. I think the parts about Jefferson, and Franklin were quite clear.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/23/1/55

A few excerpts form the article:

May 1789 Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."8 After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."9 Few would consider Thomas Jefferson a Christian in the usual sense. Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

Benjamin Franklin revealed his perspective on matters of faith in his autobiography when, after mentioning his rejection of early religious training, he writes, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands . . . . In short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin's, wrote of him: "It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's autobiography).11

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and state, and whom many refer to as the Father of the Constitution, also held similar views, which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822: "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
There were some who wished a connection between church and state. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and others did not agree. In 1777 Jefferson drafted the Statute for Religious Freedom, which became Virginia law in 1786. Jefferson designed this statute to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or the U.S. Government's law.
Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892, did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the pledge. The words "In God We Trust" did not appear on our currency until after the Civil War. And too many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the framers' deist context.

Treaty of Tripoli – 1797 signed by John Adams and approved by Washington and the Congress.

Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11 it states: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered in any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."1

[Lefty]

lbj, all I've been hearing from the left is the movie is ant-semitic. The NY times, among others. Andy Rooney really raked Gibson over the coals and he hasn't seen the movie. Imus asked him if he was going to see it and he said why should he spend $9 for a few laughs.
The man thinks the Crucifixion is supposed to be funny?

[Tom]

Article Clearly states that the government shall not deny the right to practice ones own religion, so how can the court prohibit students from assembling in a private room on school property for the purpose of praying together? If they assembled to play chess, there would be no issue. Meanwhile, colleges are requring the study of islamic drivel - a direct violation of the contsitution.
Clearly, the court system is polluted and off topic in the area of religion.

[raybo]

Re: lbj, all I've been hearing from the left is the movie is ant-semitic. The NY times, among others. Andy Rooney really raked Gibson over the coals and he hasn't seen the movie. Imus asked him if he was going to see it and he said why should he spend $9 for a few laughs.
The man thinks the Crucifixion is supposed to be funny?


Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson

Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to
a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read
all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and
owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply
held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form
of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC
and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian,
with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having
an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without
fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the
Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly
ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way
of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross,
until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it
was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph,
"The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction
within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my
children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this
invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were
shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry
eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was
now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate.
We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that
m akes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized,
wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His
mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she
flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road
outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she
was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with
intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the
screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from
the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the
purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film
had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His
body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily
for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question
and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather
diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The
questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even
though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by
some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not
"view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to
answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand
and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can
insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It
doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I
agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in
this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it.
It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive
and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either
not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations.

This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to
those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply
human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a
profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully
has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable
behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful
to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe
that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men
and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which
"The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a
Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the
world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and
used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the
message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's
filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people
as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is
the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."

Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about
this film so that all go see it when it comes out.

P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned at her church
Youth Group that Mel Gibson stated he did not appear in his own movie, by
his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to
the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own
hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)

[Secretariat]

This thread was initially about Howard Stern getting booted off the air. I was surprised by this link below. Haven't listened to Stern for years as I think he's a jerk, but he deserves the right not to be censored.

http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/04/stern/index_np.html

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
This thread was initially about Howard Stern getting booted off the air. I was surprised by this link below. Haven't listened to Stern for years as I think he's a jerk, but he deserves the right not to be censored.
http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/04/stern/index_np.html

you do work for the Democratic National Committee don't you

[Lefty]

sec, the article is drivel, not a proven fact in it. But for the sake of argument let's say that's the case. The govt censors, private organizations can fire who they please. But as I say, it's liberal, subjective drivel; in a word, libberish.

[Secretariat]

It's always liberal drivel with you isn't it Lefty. Even when the man Stern says it in quotes. These are Stern's own words, not mine, as reported in the NY Post (a conservative paper generally supportive of Bush). Kudos to them for at least reporting what Stern said.

Stern had generally been supportive of Bush during 2000. I guess he changed his mind and paid for it. Frankly, I don't have much sympathy for him and never liked his show, but he should certainly be allowed to voice his opinions.

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/19206.htm

[JustRalph]

Like Bush picked up a phone and called Randy Micheals at Clear channel and told him to fire Stern. Right....?

[Secretariat]

JR,

That isn't what NY Post article said.

[Lefty]

No doubt Stern said he wasn't voting for Bush, but that's not proof that's why he was fired. Keep spinning, Sec. And yes, libs are big on lies excuses and just plain drivel.

[Secretariat]

Thanks you Lefty. You at least admitted Stern said what he said.

And I must confess there is no proof that Stern was fired for his comments about Bush. However, it is interesting that he feels this way.

"This week, Stern himself went on the warpath, weaving in among his familiar monologues about breasts and porn actresses accusations that Texas-based Clear Channel -- whose Republican CEO, Lowry Mays, is extremely close to both George W. Bush and Bush's father -- canned him because he deviated from the company's pro-Bush line. "I gotta tell you something," Stern told his listeners. "There's a lot of people saying that the second that I started saying, 'I think we gotta get Bush out of the presidency,' that's when Clear Channel banged my ass outta here."

[Lefty]

And it's not censorship when a private co. decides to fire an employee. That's Clear Channels right. They also fired the nut known as the "love sponge" or some crazy name like that.
Is Imus on Clear Channel? He's intimated he's going to vote for Kerry.

[ljb]

Lefty,
OK I saw the movie. I am a liberal and thought the movie was "good". Good is in quotes because I don't really think the story was good. I also was somewhat offended by the massive amount of brutality in the movie. But I saw nothing I would consider anti-jewish.
As for Andy Rooney, I believe we still live in a free country and he has the right to express his views. Didn't know he was/is a left winger. When i have seen him he picks on everybody and everything.
As for a private corp firing an employee not being censorship. Come on Lefty, You are the one who says "connect the dots". And if you think this action was not taken without pressure from the gubmnt, I have some wmds in Iraq I'd like to sell you. ;)

[delayjf]

Sec,
I've read your threads, but all I get from them is that the Government will not establish a religion. I see nothing to keep religious thought from affecting Governmental Policy. If that were the case, not religious person in this country could be elected to office, after all is it not reasonable to expect those individuals to be influenced by their faith?

Pehaps you don't see Christmas as a religious holiday, but that doesn't change the reality that for 90% of this nation, it indeed is. Americans have been celebrating the Birth and death of Christ long before Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. My question is why do Secularist celebrate Christmas at all. Perhaps they don't want to feel left out so they play along so as not to be scorned by society.


The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. Today in fact, so does Congress. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?

In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?

The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by delayjf
Sec,
I've read your threads, but all I get from them is that the Government will not establish a religion. I see nothing to keep religious thought from affecting Governmental Policy. If that were the case, not religious person in this country could be elected to office, after all is it not reasonable to expect those individuals to be influenced by their faith?

Pehaps you don't see Christmas as a religious holiday, but that doesn't change the reality that for 90% of this nation, it indeed is. Americans have been celebrating the Birth and death of Christ long before Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. My question is why do Secularist celebrate Christmas at all. Perhaps they don't want to feel left out so they play along so as not to be scorned by society.


The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.

For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. Today in fact, so does Congress. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?

In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools?

The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There are so many things you've addressed here it would take a long time to address each point so I'll tackle a few in this response.

First, I'm supplying a link to a wonderful article by a pastor who speaks to the issue of prayer in school. Very worthwhile read. Speaks for itself on your last few points.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/view/45

Your interpretation of the First Amendment differs dramatically from the list of supreme Court decisions I posted earlier.

I have no idea how you derived that 52 of the 55 signers of the Consitution were evangelical Chirstians, but James Madison, whom many refer to as the Father of the Constitution, he expressed in a letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822: "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Jefferson drafted the 1777 statute Statute for Religions Freedom in Virgina completely seperating religion from government.

But assuming your 52 of 55 is correct, isn'tit interesting that with som many Christians, that they went to such lengths to avoid any mention of Christianity or God in the Consitution. Even such divisisve issues as the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was not in the original 1880 version by the author, but added in the 1950's during the Eisenhower administration.

As to the chaplain saying a prayer before congress, one must remember that attendance at that prayer is OPTIONAL, not mandatory, and generally very few representatives are in the room during that time. As the pastor who wrote the liberty magazine article says, there is no restriction about people praying, the restriction is required prayer or government sanctioned prayer.

As to the secular humanism issue, I'll refer to a site on that and let that speak for itself:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

Lastly, your issue of Christmas as a holiday. This was not a Founding Father issue, but began in alabama in 1836 and by 1906 all states celebrated it.

The US Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Christmas holiday, although lower courts have. The most recent case, METZL v. LEININGER (1995), acknowledged that while Christmas was indeed religion in its origins, it and Thanksgiving had "lost their religious connotation in the eyes of the general public that government measures to promote them, as by making them holidays or even by having the government itself celebrate them, have only a trivial effect in promoting religion." That same reasoning is often cited in cases involving nativity creches or other religious icons or symbols which are displayed on public property; when blended with other "secular" symbols, their religious appeal is supposedly diluted.

The atheists have been trying to raise this issue.

Now my own personal beleifs in this regard.

1. I'm Christian, and celebrate Christmas, but wouldn't want to have to celebrate Yom Kippur as a federal holiday, or any religion forced down my neck, like those Jehovah Witness guys who show up on my doorstep every few months. However, I respect their right to do that, but I don't want it in my goverment.

2. I don't think SAT scores have gone down because of removing prayer in the schools.

3. Humanism seems to get a bad rap. Da Vinci, Michelangelo are classified as humanists. I don't think its a religion, but don't generally concern myself to much with it. Personally, I think there should be taught an introduction to religion taught in schools, so all students can become familar with the basic tenets of a variety of religions. Maybe we would be a bit more tolerant.

4. I agree religious people should be in government, as should non-religious. That's the beauty of freedom. I just agree with Madison that "the less they are mixed together, the better."

I understand you disagree, but this has been an issue since the birth of our nation. The early preachers of our nation, even the head of Yale, were outraged with the new constitution as it did not place a big enough role for religion in our government. Interesting this is one of the big issues in the formation of the Iraqi constitution at present with Paul Bremer insisting that their be no Islamic mandate in their constitution or he would veto it. Now there's democracy and freedom at work.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
And it's not censorship when a private co. decides to fire an employee. That's Clear Channels right. They also fired the nut known as the "love sponge" or some crazy name like that.
Is Imus on Clear Channel? He's intimated he's going to vote for Kerry.

The problem I have with all this is that, yes, private companies have the right to fire their employees. But don't forget that, as the people of this country, WE own the airwaves and when you start allowing large corporate conglomerates to own so many multiple meadia outlets, the freedom of our airwaves is compromised. Today, it is Howard Stern, tomorrow, it might be Lou Dobbs, it might be 60 Minutes, it might be.........
Lefty, I am all for free enterprize, but you jsut cannot expect any good to come from allowing rich and powerful groups to control the property of the masses. I see no reason to believe that Clear Channel is not being influenced by the Bush clan if the there is indeed a personal conneciton between them and the CC owners.
It's just natural.
If Amazin was a DJ on a station YOU owned and spouted off his normal PA Post toasties, wouldn' t YOU be tempted to fire him?
Heck, I admitt I would.

[Lefty]

Hey, guys, there I think Bush got more important things to do than worry about what an idiot like Howard Stern says. And they also got ride of the "lovesponge" guy. This was brght on by the outcry of the public over the J. Jackson fiasco and nothing more. To think otherwise is to connect "phanton dots"
Yes Rooney can say anything he wants but to say bad things about Gibson without even seeing the mobvie is crap and I hope he loses his audience. He has the right to spout his nonsense but hew doesn't have the right to be heard.

[Derek2U]

Quiet, Please or ask 43 to marry you. The Martha Stewart case
is theTop Case of this Century. Now, common guys are ranting!
I just hate that ... of corse, MS herself made a biGGG error: .....
ShE played a weak hand ... when asked by Feds ANY Question,
there are only 4 ansers; #1, ... KEEP MOUTH ZIPPED. ... #2, Say,
"NO HABLA INGLES" .... #3, GET LARANGITIS & HAND THE DA YOUR
LAWYERS BUSINESS CARD .... #4, TELL THE DA THE ~99% TRUTH.
So its DONT TALK vs SAY THE TRUTH. /// MS Violated that but
should this Case every gone Criminal? yikes, I'm getting to Fear
our Government's Power. Young Guys like me (especially) just
are hittin our Peaks & most of these Feds are way Past it.
And there kinda DeadEnds anyway, at birth probably. But that
BillionAirESS dint play Her power right. Our Feds will only get
Happy when on National TV some AsianBabe (u pick the country)
is Adored by ALL & SIGNS OFF HER TV SHOW, "sigh-a-NARA'.
oUR govt wanted 2 cripple our own USA treasure Microsoft for
how many years in court, state after state? Now another USA
icon ... why cant these low level FEDS discern right?

[Lefty]

Derek, you addressed your commentsd to me and I haven't commented on Martha's case. And, you're in the wrong thread, again.

[Derek2U]

You didnt comment on the martha issue but thanks for saying it.
Now VOTE ......... what are WE allowing to happen here? I dont
like scarifices and I think our DA's should have fined her & not
alienated (once again) so many just great usa citizens. dont kid
yourself, this verdict will NOT improve our society AT all. Its
another devisive issue ... gay marriages , disney , martha stewart.
a lot of divisions and is that good? I know most guys on WS
hate SS benefits so if any privatization happens their ready 2 pounce. hehe ...

[Lefty]

Derek, why don't you just stick this...in the right thread.

[Derek2U]

any thread I POST IN IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THREAD. If you had
any real money I'd charge you even to read my posts let alone
comment 2 them. You're lucky

[Lefty]

Derek, I have real money, and would only pay to read your posts if they came translated. I'll comment on the MS case if you'd meander over to the right thread. Despite your delusions of grandeur, this isn't it.

[ljb]

Lefty said:
"Hey, guys, there I think Bush got more important things to do than worry about what an idiot like Howard Stern says. "
Lefty.....
Like you always say...
Connect the dots. Shut down Stern, christian coalition cheers. Ban gay marriages, christian coalition votes.
Bush can be had for votes or money your choice.

[ljb]

Lefty's words:
"He has the right to spout his nonsense but hew doesn't have the right to be heard."
Huh?

[Lefty]

lbj, I figured you wouldn't understand, so let me simplify: If Rooney spouts his nonsense from a soapbox, passerbys have no requirement to stop and listen and can, yell back, if they want. By the same token we can change the tv channel, which i've done. Also we, who do not agree with his stupidity, have a right to say so.

[PaceAdvantage]

First off, Stern wasn't fired. He was taken off of a whopping six stations. I'm not sure any of them were even major markets.

Infinity Broadcasting is who pays Stern's check, and he is still very much on the air with all of their stations....

Second, (and this may come as a shock to the Amazins of the world), I think Stern may have a very valid point when he thinks they kicked him off of those stations for political reasons.

Absolutely NOTHING new or different was said on his show leading up to him being taken off of Clear Channel stations....so there must be another reason. The Bush connection makes sense.

Stern does have a huge radio audience, and many of them are young, undecided voters.

[Lefty]

Bush connection makes no sense. What about the "lovesponge " guy? It's all fallout from the J. Jackson Superbowl thing. To say there's a Bush connection is to go off on a tangent with no proof and a mind that likes to "fondle" a conspiracy.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Almost all media likes to throw in raunchy stuff, even rightist ones, and then try to claim it as news. Businesses know what sells and why so they go to the edge.

[Tom]

If the Wheel of Benjie didn't get him fired, nothing will.
FREE HOWARD!:rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Bush connection makes no sense. What about the "lovesponge " guy? It's all fallout from the J. Jackson Superbowl thing. To say there's a Bush connection is to go off on a tangent with no proof and a mind that likes to "fondle" a conspiracy.

Oh really Lefty. First there was the NY Post, then the NY Daily News, now Newsday. These are mainstream papers for god's sake, and Sterns's onw words. Stern obviously blames Bush and the religious right. Read Newsday.

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-etrad0306,0,1274765.story?coll=ny-business-headlines

[ljb]

Sec.
You are wasting your time posting links for Lefty to read. He believes nothing but Rush and Faux news.
However it is interesting to see Stern has millions of listeners. I remember Lefty claiming power based on Rush's millions of listeners. Wonder if they are the same group? Would be kind of ironic hey! The Rush listeners are closet kinko's.

[Secretariat]

I know ljb, but somehow I beleive underneath that conservative front Lefty's really a liberal at heart. Maybe it's his name.

[Derek2U]

Guys ... i think all of you political guys should Examine the MS case
(How many of you guys know a 70's band "10CC" ? I got a cd
called "Original Soundtrack" --- hehe --- solange likes the title
track "1 Night in Paris" -- but anyways the Martha thingy got me
all juiced up. i just cant beleive they wanna jail HeR --- a great
piece of Americana -- born & raised in Nutley, New Jersey --- where i got some pals. F*** why cant TheY just Fine HER say
$4 MIL ... & say , hey "U F'D up" --- cause we dont understand
science --- it would Be far more EFFECTIVE to $$$ her. What
good can come from jailing MARTHA STEWART? now think b4 u
type ..plz.... shes NOT some 401K robbinG bitch but how would
YOU have reacted? it was Fast, It wAS hUMAN, IT WAS just re-
active just playing 2 WIN not make $$. So why does our own
USA agencies go after stuff thats USA --- martha + microsoft?
2 uniquely american, very successful companys? YES, WHY DO
THEY? i think YES ms shoud have told the truth or just shut up;
but what now? --- what GOOD can come of this?

[Lefty]

Sec, just cause Stern blves it, doesn't make it true. And I wouldn't line my birdcage with the socalled mainstream rags you mentioned. But let's say you're right and the owner of ClearChannel suspended Stern cause he said he wouldn't vote for Bush. He has the absolute right to do it. But they fired ol "lovesponge" for obscenities and he said nothing about Bush. So try as you might, to contrive a conspiracy, you come up woefully short.
A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

[Lefty]

Derek, get this, the prosecuters said this was a victory for "the little people." If her corp suffers, and it will, a whole bunch of socalled "little people" gonna be out of work. Some victory, huh?

[bill]

its a victory because she hurt the little people up front but no victory till lay and cheney get put down

[JustRalph]

Somebody bought the stock that she dumped and then lost their ass the next day. That means somebody was hurt by her illegal activity. She was found guilty of lying to the FEDS...... it will set an example.

[Lefty]

bill, if your stockbroker called you and told you to sell your stock, i guess you wouldn't huh? The stckmkt supposed to be a game for growniups. If they want to go after a real inside trader that hurt countless more people than MS did, I suggest they set their sights on Terry Mccauliff(spelling prob not right, but he's the head of the DNC) Made millions just before Global Crossing tanked.
And how many people, old people at that, did the Whitewater Scandall hurt?

[bill]

nothing you can post will equal lay and enron

[Tom]

Dereck....10CC - I'm Not in Love - is that one on your CD?
BIG make out tune in the 70's.....play that at last call, pour in the last few brewskys and va va voooooom.


JR....regarding your new avatar. Have you become a liberal? :D

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by bill
nothing you can post will equal lay and enron

Bill, we agree on that one.


No....I just hate Ohio Congressman who have their heads up their asses..............I thought I would celebrate Dennis this weekend.

[Lefty]

Enron, a bad thing. The press likes to forget that they were helped by the Clinton Adm and turned dn for help by the Bush adm. But the Mcauliff and Global Crossing deal stinks to high heaven and as far as I know this crook gets off without so much as an investigation or an upturned eyebrow by prosecutors or the press.
And i'm still waiting for that shrewd investor, Hillary Clinton to write her book, "How I Turned $5000 into $100, 000 In Cattle Futures"

[PaceAdvantage]

The crap stinks high and far from both sides of the aisle in Washington. We all know this deep down inside.

There are but a handful of really decent caring people in Washington. The rest are 80-90% of the time looking out for themselves and that's it....

Remember that poll some of the more vocal folks in these parts posted recently....you know, the one that had Kerry beating Bush if the election were held today....

Well, another poll came out a couple of days ago that had them now tied 50/50 if the election were held today....how come those vocal folks didn't post a link to that poll?

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmmm"

[JustRalph]

In " I'm not in love" by 10cc what were they whispering in the bridge?

I remember trying to figure that out when the song first came out. I think we settled on something like:

"Big Boys Don't Cry"

I was reading through this thread and remembered when I decided to stop watching Howard Sterns show on E-TV.

We don't get stern on Radio here. Actually we do, but he changes stations every 3 months because of complaints and it isn't worth following.

I stopped watching the Stern TV show after he did an in studio stunt where he took a Naked Woman and bent her over a table and one of Howards team beat her ass with a Dead Mackeral (sp) you know, the fish. They slapped her ass until the scales from the fish had basically ripped her cheeks like sandpaper (but worse) and she was crying for them to stop. Blood was running down her legs and then he didn't even give her the booby prize for the stunt. That was some high brow stuff.......... but I have to admit I have laughed at some of his other stuff. Personally I think he has the talent of the mackerel.....he just pushes the envelope a little more than most. But it can be entertaining. Sometimes.........sans the fish........

[delayjf]

I simply see Howard Stern as "entertainment" and less as "Speech". I just don't think it's relevant to the free speech issue. I've heard others say that the market should decide, and that once corporations can no longer make money Stern is gone. But you could say the same thing for pornography, does anybody think porno should be available on public TV 24/7? Our society has clearly said no on this issue (porno) and I see nothing wrong with putting limits on Howard Stern.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where do you start drawing the line on "limits"

We all agree porn should not be on "regular" TV where it is easily accesible to children.

There is little correlation between hardcore sex depicted on TV and Howard Stern talking on the radio...in my opinion...others I'm sure will disagree.

[Tom]

I think Benjie's tea bag is probably pushing the line. :eek:

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
I think Benjie's tea bag is probably pushing the line. :eek:

tom...send me an email and fill me in.

I am not aware of this one..........

[PaceAdvantage]

Words that have been played around with to form different meanings are a world apart from graphic uncensored images of adults engaged in hardcore sex acts.....ain't even close....

[delayjf]

PA
I agree with you, Stern is not the equivalent to Porno. My point is that Society through decency laws have a right to limit, as with porno, access to some material deemed inappropriate. I agree that there is a fine line here, but I don't feel they have crossed it, yet. When they do, hammer time.

Now, I have watched and listened to Stern over the years. But I must confess, Lately, I have a bit of an attitude toward Stern. He's been flipping the middle finger at the FCC for a long time. Again, I don't think the founding fathers intended the First Admendment to protect volgarity or promotion of perversion no matter how funny you or I may find it.

[Secretariat]

DJ,

I actually agree somewhat with you. I don't like Stern. I think he plays to the worst aspects of our society as does Larry Flynt. But just as I belive Neo Nazis have the right to march peacefully I beleive Stern or Limbaugh for that matter have the right to be heard even if I don't agree with his language or message.

I think this "the employer has the right to get rid of anyone for any reason" will be used over and over in the future as a way of stifling free speech over the airwaves, and it becomes a problem when there are more and more limited media opportunities due to the FCC allowing giant media monopolies and stopping media competition.

So I'm in a bind. I believe Stern should be on the air despite hating his messages (except for the anti Bush stuff of course) because of his right to free speech..

[Lefty]

Sec, everyone has the right to free speech but no one has the right to be heard. If Rush Limbaugh's audience left him and he was no longer a commercial success, his radio affiliates would drop him like a hot rock, and it would be their right.
Jimmy The Greek and others were fired from their jobs for making supposedly inappropiate remarks about blacks some years ago.
No one has the right to be heard.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Tom-"The spectre of censorship and govt is the scary part"- that is what the thread is! Just as scary as censoring chicks who want 15 minutes of fame by exposing their boobs is undue pressure from radical special (communist) binterest groups like the ACLU. Their founders were admitted communists. /

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Sec, everyone has the right to free speech but no one has the right to be heard. If Rush Limbaugh's audience left him and he was no longer a commercial success, his radio affiliates would drop him like a hot rock, and it would be their right.


Well, Stern wasn't dumped because "he was no longer a commerical success". He was dropped because all of a sudden the CEO of Clear Channel felt that Stern had suddenly become profane. Something he had managed to ignore for the last decade. Now Stern criticizes Bush and he is taken off the air. Stern openly criticizes bush on the air as reported in ALL NY papers.

So its not about his popularity waning, it's about censorship. The issue is what has Stern done differently than what he had done for this employer previously which would justify the employer action. The answer is nothing different. If it is based on a caller phoning in then is that justificable. I imagine this may end up in court.

The problem with you Lefty is the employer is never wrong whether its Clear Channel, or Enron, or Kraft.

See below:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/06/news/companies/kraft_ceos.reut/index.htm

[Lefty]

Only the government can be guilty of censorship. What you, like most liberals, don't understand is that employers have rights too.
The same people also fired that "lovesponge" character and he said nothing about Bush. It's about theJanet Jackson fiasco and not Bush, but you Bush haters are loathe to pass up an opportunity.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Only the government can be guilty of censorship. What you, like most liberals, don't understand is that employers have rights too.
The same people also fired that "lovesponge" character and he said nothing about Bush. It's about theJanet Jackson fiasco and not Bush, but you Bush haters are loathe to pass up an opportunity.

Well, I just looked up censorship in the dictionary. I saw nothing about it only being applicable to our government. Also saw nothing indicating an employer couldn't be guilty of censorship. One who condemns or suppresses for what is considered morally, politically or otherwise objectionable is censoring.

The government did not ask for Stern to be removed from the air waves. Clear Channel made that decision. The question is why, and why now? Why did Clear Channel stand behind Stern's behavior all these years with no censuring, and now he criticizes Bush and he is gone. Did he expose himself as Janet Jackson? No, he was blamed for a caller making a racial slur. How can he control the words of someone calling into a live radio show?

btw..it was Stern who made tohse comments about Bush, not me. Again, I never liked Stern, I just respect his right of free speech. The fact that Clear Channel showed no discrimination or no notice previously about his on line behavior, and that Clear Channel based their action on the phone call of someone calling in and not Stern's that will probably put this case into a court room.

[Lefty]

Well, it's commonsense isn't it? I'm a writer. If I submit a book to a publisher and he rejects it, is that censorship or a private co. deciding they didn't like it and deemed it not worthy of publication? However, if the do publish it and it's banned in Boston, then that's govt. censorship. Glad I could help.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Well, it's commonsense isn't it? I'm a writer. If I submit a book to a publisher and he rejects it, is that censorship or a private co. deciding they didn't like it and deemed it not worthy of publication? However, if the do publish it and it's banned in Boston, then that's govt. censorship. Glad I could help.

Your example is quite different than the Stern one as he is not a writer hawking his wares to a publisher for the first time.

The problem with Stern (as an employee) is that Clear Channel did not invalidate his previous on-line behavior. In fact he was one of the TOP radio personalties on the air waves. Clear Channel gave Stern no warnings, no notice, just took action without informing him that his previous behaviour would no longer be tolerated. Behaviour that Clear Channel had materially profited from previously. Additionally, they acted against Stern based on an action taken by a caller rather than Stern's according to their own testimony. Yes, there is government censorship, but censorship takes lots of forms.

The problem with the "deemed it worthy" argument, is that Clear Channel has shown by its previous silent acceptance of Stern without complaint that they in fact "deemed it worthy" enough to leave it on the air in a prime time. Had they informed Stern in a timely manner that inappropriate remarks made spontaneously by callers in could result in his being taken off the air, then maybe they would have had a leg to stand on, but Clear Channel acted without regard to their previous acceptance of the content of Stern's show.

My question is not whether it is censorship. It clearly is. My question is why Clear Channel permitted Stern's previous content and then threw him off the air based on a caller's remark. btw.. In the Jimmy the Greek incident cited earlier, it was the Greek's comment that got him into trouble, not a caller in.

Again I am not defending Stern's content, simply his right to free speech, and Clear Channel's responsiblity to provide an answer why he was not give notice that caller's remarks could result in his dismissal. Employee's have some rights too, and one is understanding what limits are acceptable when they have been deemed acceptable in the past.

[Lefty]

Damn, I get tired of explaining to people who don't want any answer but their own. I give an analagy, but you dismiss it in your obstinence. The landscape changed with Janet Jackson fiasco. And Stern not the only one let go by the same Clear Channel. What is it that you don't get? Most employees who are not protected by some union are "at will" emplyees. That means they are hired and fired at the employers discretion. And that's the way it should be.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
Damn, I get tired of explaining to people who don't want any answer but their own. I give an analagy, but you dismiss it in your obstinence. The landscape changed with Janet Jackson fiasco. And Stern not the only one let go by the same Clear Channel. What is it that you don't get? Most employees who are not protected by some union are "at will" emplyees. That means they are hired and fired at the employers discretion. And that's the way it should be.

Not quite Lefty. There are protections of the law for wrpngful dismissal of an employee. Here's info from Legal Line.

What is cause for firing an employee?
An employee can be fired without proper notice if there was 'cause'. Cause for firing an employee may include:

an illegal act at the workplace, such as stealing or damaging property, or violent behaviour;

misrepresentation of important qualifications, such as saying you have a degree that you have not earned;

insubordination, such as refusing to do work assigned to you;

sexually harassing other employees;

constantly being late for work; and

fraud.

What is not cause for firing an employee?

Sometimes an employee does something wrong, but it is not a good legal reason to be fired without notice or pay. Reasons for firing an employee that are not cause under the law include:

if an employee does something minor and corrects the mistake;

if an employee's work is not up to standard and the employer does nothing to address the problem;

if your employer does not like you;

if your employer discriminates against you because of your sex, race, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation, unless permitted by law.

Claims for wrongful dismissal can involve substantial amounts of money. If you think you were wrongfully dismissed you should consult a lawyer.

I'm sure Stern is doing just that. (btw..the reason i dismissed your analogy was because it in no way was analgous to the Stern situation.) And as to people who don't want any answer but their own, well Lefty, take a good look in the mirror.

As to the landscape changing with Janet Jackson, where is that written, or is that your new interpretation. Has new legislation been passed since then? Has the courts found Stern somehow connected to Janet Jackson's breasts? Apolgize, Bad analogy, Stern might have.

[Secretariat]

One last point Lefty. Please explain why Stern was fired. For what action.

[JustRalph]

some states have different rules.........

Ohio has some laws that are weird compared to other states. It basically means that an employee can be let go anytime, for any reason. There is supposedly no right to work........

I have heard of businesses just letting people go because they can get a lesser paid replacement. And this was upheld by courts as long as the employer called the original employee in and asked them to take a pay cut. If the employee responds "no" they can be immediatly let go. I saw it happen with a company I used to work for. But they must first ask the first employee to take the pay cut.

Ohio also has some law that says you can eliminate a certain job and lay off the person doing that job. After 30 days you can re-establish that position and hire someone new. I have seen that happen too.

[JustRalph]

Sec has some points in his post, but they do not apply in some states. At least not all of them.

In Ohio, you can get rid of someone pretty easy. The above examples I cite had to do with some positions getting paid way over what they were worth. Both situations are used here in Ohio as a legal form of age discrimination. Happens all the time. The guy making too much money is almost always in his 40's or 50's and been around a long time. They are replaced by a young person making 30-40% less.

These laws were supposedly driven by the GM workers in Dayton and Columbus (at least that is what I am told, not sure though) who were making 95-105k a year working the line at GM factories (I believe this number included health benefits etc) in the early 80's and covered by the UAW. Once these laws were passed the companies went out-sourcing to small companies in the area of the plants (dashboards, gauges etc) and just eliminated positions in the plants and let the attrition of the older workers eventually take over. These laws allow the outsourced labor rates to stay low. When a model run ends after a few years etc, they lay everybody off and re-hire new younger, lower paid employees. And they don't have a union, so it keeps the labor cheap. You have to remember these jobs once cost 95k and now they cost the out sourcing company 25-30k....the price of the dashboard or the gauges for your new car just got cut in half or more.

Honda Motor Corp here in Ohio does this all the time. They have a very incestious relationship with the companies they out source their labor to. Sometimes a Honda Exec will leave Honda after his 3 years here in the States and go back to Japan for a year or so. Then he shows up back in the U.S. as the President of one of the companies that are building the small parts for Honda. It is a strange relationship, but apparently provides tax and other advantages.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm no Bush hater, but my conspiracy riddled brain tells me there may be something to the Stern Bush bashing and the convenient Bush connection to Clear Channel top management....

[Lefty]

Nev is an "at will" state, and there are others.
Probably another reason why people loathe going into business because too many other people tell you how to run your business. Employers have rights too. I know you libs hate it, but guess what, when you leftists run everyone out of business who's gonna hire you, hmmm?
Sec, why do you keep harping on Stern and completely ignore the "lovesponge" guy? Guess it doesn't fit with your agenda.
Like I say, the landscape changed dramatically with the Superbowl fiasco and Clear Channel got rid of the foul mouthed Stern. AND the "LOVESPONGE" Evidently, despite your protestations, they had the right to do it.
But tell you what, elect Kerry and guys like him and one day soon, you'll all have jobs working for the STATE. They won't pay much, but by god you'll have a back breaking job. And then you can long for the good old days of freedom and capitalism.

[Lefty]

PA, yes, you're right. I'm quite sure that taking Stern off 6 stations will go a long way towards getting GW reelected. Why didn't I see it?

[Secretariat]

You know what Lefty. I'm done defending Stern or whoever this love sponge character is. I never liked Stern a bit. He's certainly no liberal or democrat. Defending him is like defending Limbaugh and its just not worth the effort. I do think he was unjustifiably left go, but so be it. I think it shows how far the right will go, and that speaks volumes.

[delayjf]

Actaully, we'll go a lot further than that, anybody seen Hoffa lately??:D

[Lefty]

sec, you make me laugh? How far the right will go? Clear Channel is a private organization.
Last election NAACP ran ads against Bush using that poor black man that was dragged to death in Texas. They said something to the effect that electing Bush was tantamount to the man being dragged to death all over again. Never mind that the perps got the maximum sentences.
Just shows you how hateful and disengenous the left is.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I'm no Bush hater, but my conspiracy riddled brain tells me there may be something to the Stern Bush bashing and the convenient Bush connection to Clear Channel top management....

I think maybe the 750k fines might have something to do with it, and lets face it, no matter who the big wigs at Clear channel want to see in office, the money is what gets their attention. I have a feeling that Bubba the Love Sponge is just as responsible for Stern being removed. 750k is a bunch of money for a bullshit fine. the ultimate censor is me.....and my ability to change the dial.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Words that have been played around with to form different meanings are a world apart from graphic uncensored images of adults engaged in hardcore sex acts.....ain't even close....

I saw it on E censored and believe me, I could "see" what was happening!
Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you! :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Originally posted by delayjf
Actaully, we'll go a lot further than that, anybody seen Hoffa lately??:D

He was last seen in Iraq, but now they can't find him.
Go figure. :)

[Lefty]

JR, you got it. I've been talking about the Lovesponge guy in conjunction with Stern but the ol lovesponge has been ignored by sec and others because his dismissal doesn't fit with their agenda.

[delayjf]

The problem with the "deemed it worthy" argument, is that Clear Channel has shown by its previous silent acceptance of Stern without complaint that they in fact "deemed it worthy" enough to leave it on the air in a prime time

Perhaps the problem is they should have been addressed long before now, or the industry should do a better job of Policing itself. Obviously Clear Channel will take a financial hit on this due to the popularity of Stern. But prior tolerance of Stern does not preclude them from dropping him now. I don't know, but perhaps management has changed hands and along with it, it's attitude concerning Stern. And I seriously doubt that Stern would voluntarily tone down his show.

I will say this, when I used to listen to Stern, in the early 90s, he was not a vulgar as he is now, rather more political.

I would not lump together Limbaugh and Stern in this case. Limbaugh's show is political, and just like the soon to be Al Frankin show would be covered by the 1st Admendment.

I hate to keep harping on this but Feedom of Speech is not an absolute right. If it were, Cross Burning would be legal.

[ljb]

delayjf said:
"I hate to keep harping on this but Feedom of Speech is not an absolute right. If it were, Cross Burning would be legal."
I hope you are not comparing Stern to Cross Burning.

[delayjf]

In as much as cross burning / Sterns radio show is a form of "speech", yes I am.

[ljb]

So am I correct in assuming you want Stern banned?

[delayjf]

No, my point is that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and that I believe that the Government on behalf of the people can and should regulate when indecent material is broadcast. I also don't think Sterns show is relevant to the "free speech issue".

IMHO, the founding fathers were more concerned about protecting political speech and the ability to voice opposition against the Government. But, there are limits there as well, For example, you can't advocate the overthrow of the Government.

[ljb]

Delayjf,
I think you are splitting the hair to thin here. There are millions of listeners that think Stern's show is ok. (I personally think it stinks). I agree with you that even free speech has it's limits. "Yelling fire in a crowded theater." However if we are going to start limiting speech based on content I would nominate the Rush Limbaugh show and it's hate mongering for elimination. Others here may not agree and that is where the problem begins.

[Secretariat]

I won't defend Stern. I'll let him do it himself.

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20860

[Lefty]

lbj, could you give us an example of hate mongering on Rush Limbaugh's show and not just your opinion?

[Lefty]

Stern proves himself to be the pompous jerk he really is. Free speech is not under assault but since the public airwaves belong to the pipples the govt has the right to demand and regulate standards. If Stern wants to continue spouting the "N" word and the "F" word he can go to cable and satellite.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Others may not agree and THAT is where the Problem begins." Really? No problem if everybody agrees with YOU? The only problem with someone disagreeing with you is thet it is Your problem, not theirs!!LOL!! FYI, freedom of assembly and of speech means whoever is civil can write on this forum, even if you are in the minority on issues and totally wrong that disagreement with you is a problem. / I am 3rd party, but a strong pet peeve of mine is liberals who always deny freedom of speech by interupting!

[PaceAdvantage]

a) Stern doesn't say the "F" word. Even if he did, it would never get out over the air.

b) The "N" word, to my knowledge, is not prohibited from being said over the airways.

Why are you in favor of a more censored radio and television environment? It's already heavily policed by the industry itself as well as the FCC

[Lefty]

Blve me, the "N" word is what got him in trble. A caller used it and Stern didn't use the 7 second delay. These are our airwaves, if they want to spew filth let em go to satellite and cable. That goes for the vile rap music too. The FCC and the industry has pitifully fallen dn on the job. I don't think demanding certain standards is the same as censorship.

[Tom]

Damn right the airwaves belong to the people.
And millions of people vote everyday that they want to listen to Stern. Unlike our governement, where we elect people to represent what they think we want, TV and radio are pure democracies.
Whether or not it is crap is not the point. The point is people like it and want it.
This thing is phase II of the master plan - Phase I was to allow corporate conglomerates to gain control of large shares of the public aiwaves. Phase II is the governement taking control of the airwaves and thus controlling the free flow of information. This is the hallmark of dictatorships. Look at the nations of the world where people have no rights and are slaves to madmen dictators.
A common thread amoung them is that there is no free media.
Couple this with the Patriot Act and big brother is looking more and more like he though Orwell said 2004 instead 1984.
There is a serious threat to our freedom at work here, and it is not Al Qeda.

[JustRalph]

If Stern and these guys would just shut up ...... it would have blown over. He and others are challenging Congress to act, in my opine. I agree that changing the dial is the ultimate manner in which to rein this crap in a little. I don't like Stern and think he lacks talent. But....if 50 million Wingnuts want to listen to him....good for them and they should be able to . But I think that this crap about public airways is just that. But there is a line. Pay radio may be the answer. Sat. Radio and Cable TV will probably benefit from all of this. I think there is a line between "pay for" services and public airways. Personally I think anybody who wants a radio license should be able to get one. The only problem is we are running out of bandwidth and expanding it would cost a zillion dollars, so those little numbers on your radio dial have to be regulated by someone............too bad,,,,,,,

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Tom
I think Benjie's tea bag is probably pushing the line. :eek:

http://www.ainews.com/Archives/Story5906.phtml

Benjy Info (http://www.tcf.net/benjy_bronk.html)

click on Benjy's picture and check out the look on Benjy's girlfriends face.............

[Lefty]

I don't see how imposing decency standards is in any way threatening freedom when Stern and other purveyors of crap can go to satellite and cable. Pay tv and pay radio is already here. How would you like to listen to Nazi radio? No standards of any kind and that or worse is what you can get. I agree with ol Bill O'Reilly on this issue.
And the Patriot act is working. We're reeling in bad guys and there has been little misuse of the act. This ain't the 50's. Sometimes I wish it was.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Lefty
How would you like to listen to Nazi radio? No standards of any kind and that or worse is what you can get. I agree with ol Bill O'Reilly on this issue. And the Patriot act is working. We're reeling in bad guys and there has been little misuse of the act. This ain't the 50's. Sometimes I wish it was.

I don't buy the Nazi radio analogy. Nazi radio would probably not be around long because it wouldn't make any money. Unless it started recruiting users who would support it directly (kind of like public televison, pledges etc) and I don't think that would happen. If I am drawn to Nazi radio, I can find it online or in the local KKK chapter, I don't have to pledge money to a radio show to get my fill of hate.

I agree the Patriot act is working, and I was leery of it before, but so far no real abuses of any merit. As long as it stays that way....ok.

I also sometimes wish it was the fifties again.........the cars were very cool! Looking anyway........

I got to ride in some new Infiniti model today while out working on a customers network. The owner of the business took me to lunch in his new car. This thing had a v-6 that would flat haul living ass. The techno stuff in todays cars (the infiniti was a 60k car) is awesome but I miss those 50's cars. They just had real style........the kind you can't dream up in a wind tunnel.

[Tom]

You have to allow Nazi radio.
The alternative is to live under Nazi's.
I am not afraid nor am I threatened by views I do not agree with nor with filth and porn. A well raised person from a solid family will not be turned into a monster by seeing a boob or two or hearing a few ripe words.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
I agree the Patriot act is working, and I was leery of it before, but so far no real abuses of any merit. As long as it stays that way....ok.



As James Madison said -- arguably the father of the U.S. Constitution -- knew better and so sought to limit federal power. Madison’s 18th century warning rings true for our generation, too: “There are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Here's a couple of the Patriot Act, a supposed anti-terrorism act which is already in the Courts being challenged as violating the Fourth amendment among others.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partnerID=565

Those are just a few of the non-Muslim related ones. Here's the one which was reported on the consevative news channels last year.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml

[delayjf]

After reading the treads, I doubt I'll be donating to the ACLU. In fact I question whether this incident even occurred. Even if it did, big deal.

I was detained once in Las Vegas on suspesion of armed robbery. It was at night and I had just filled up with gas. Becasue Vegas can get bright, I failed to turn my lights back on as I crossed the street into a strip mall parking lot. Unknown to me there had been a number of robberies in that strip mall. The Police saw me with no lights on and got suspecious, so they pulled me over guns drawn. To make matters worse, as I was planning to do some hunting back in Nebraska, I had a unloaded shotgun in the back seat, the shells were in the truck. After being cuffed and searched and detained for about 30 minutes, they ran their checks and let me go. I personally had no problem with their detaining me, and I appreciate the job they do.

Anybody care to make a donation to the Christian Coalition.

[Secretariat]

Delay,

You're amazing. You're always posting about what would our founding fathers think, and then when you have a direct violation of the Bill of Rights, you're OK with that.

It's Ok with me if you want to give away your own liberties, but I prefer to keep mine.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Delay,
You're amazing. You're always posting about what would our founding fathers think, and then when you have a direct violation of the Bill of Rights, you're OK with that.
It's Ok with me if you want to give away your own liberties, but I prefer to keep mine.

What the hell are you talking about Sec? A direct Violation of who's rights? I assume that you are referring to Delay and his night time, lights out, shotgun incident. Come on? If you think that was a violation of his rights, you are off the reservation. He was detained for 30 minutes . What is the big deal. Sometimes a traffic stop can last 20 minutes. depending on the violation etc.

Let's debate this one Sec. Tell me what part of the scenario you think violates his rights and we can discuss this. Because you are way off if you think his rights were violated.

[Lefty]

sec, this are much diff times than the founding fathers ever imagined. So far, the score weighs heavily in favor of the Patriot act doing its job with a minimum of disturbance to the pipples. Besides, the Patriot Act was a product of a Bi-Partisan vote and has to be renewed; it doesn't, without Congress go on into perpetuity unlike some of these godawful social prgms that don't work that we continually get "soaked" for.

[Tom]

I sometimes think that if the founding fathers were alive today, they would pack up and go back to England.
At least, they would re-think the Supreme court thing. :D

[Lefty]

Tom, I agree about the Supremes

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Let's debate this one Sec. Tell me what part of the scenario you think violates his rights and we can discuss this. Because you are way off if you think his rights were violated.

My reference was his dismissal of an incident I posted. Personally I don't care if Delayj wants to give up his rights that were established in the Bill of Rights, but I choose not to.

What rights?

Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional

Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:

• Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

• Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.

• Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.

• Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Now the government has the power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:

• The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.

• The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.

• Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

• Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.

• A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers

There are so many indidents of violation that the ACLU has filed suit against the DOJ and it will decided in the courts. The Patriot Act II did not pass, but portions of it have already been added onto other legislation as amendments.

I'm kind of amazed that so many people scream about their firearms being taken away and cite the Bill of Rights (and I do too), but when it is another civil liberty in the Bill of Rights, then they are not equally indignant.

I agree with dealyj on one thing. Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Franklin and Madison were very wise men about many things and the Bill of Rights guarantees were one of them. Let's not let idiots like Ashcroft and Bush usurp those rights.

__________________________________________________

“There are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison

[Lefty]

sec, we are in a war on terror. The stakes are high. Not only that but but corporate fraud abounded and flourished during the Clinton adm. Ashcroft building cases against the crooks one by one. To call Bush and Ashcoft idiots proves that you don't know what the hell's going on and it is you that might be the idiot. Not only that but hard core democrats could find nothing wrong with the Patriot act. Maybe you will just have to vote for a guy like Nader who really has no clue either.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Lefty
Tom, I agree about the Supremes

Martha and the Vandella's were better

[Tom]

So sec.....why do you suppose the Supremes Courts has not gotten into this?

[Secretariat]

Tom,

A case won't make it to the Supreme Court until its been appealed there. The ACLU case was just filed this past December so the court moves very slowly to get to the Surpremes level. Also I wouldn't expect anything this politically charged to occur prior to the 2004 election. I think a challenge to the Patriot Act's constitutionality will eventually reach the Supremes (possibly the ACLU case), but it's a long way off.

Lefty,

Our founding fathers faced an actual war on this continent with lots and lots of British sympathisizers, and it was still real i ntheir current memories, yet they stil lwrote these protections into the constitution. We interred Japanese-Americans during WW II, and even Nixon's buddy Gerald Ford made a formal apology decades later stating this was a poor American policy. I refuse to give up my civil liberties quietly because a couple of Saudis got onto some planes with box cutters and hijacked some planes and hit the WTC. If people had done their job that day, it could have been avoided and I hope the 911 commission reveals that information in their report. Spending all the money in the world and taking away people's constitutional civil liberties is not going to stop a terrorist attack. Look at Isreal today. 11 dead with a gian wall between Israel and Palestine. Look at Spain. If you think you can stop someone from going into a subway in NYC and deciding to blow themselves up you've never lived in NYC.

Yes, we must be vigilant, and I agree our intelligence must be better, and those responsible should be punished, and those who were derelict in their duty to defending America on 911 should be held accountable, but removing two hundred plus years of rights in the Constituion to hundreds of millions of law abiding US citizens because a handful of nut case non-citizens got away with the WTC is not the way to go.

[ljb]

Originally posted by Tom
"You have to allow Nazi radio.
The alternative is to live under Nazi's."
See Tom, you and I can agree on many things.
:)

[kenwoodallpromos]

I thinjk Tom is talking about FM that has a broadcast radius of 2 miles or else a 5,000 watt AM!

[ljb]

Kenwoodallproms,
You wouldn't happen to be related to derek2u would you?

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm relaated to a lot of radical liberals! My 4th great uncle, John Nelson Patterson, was censored by the Feds- He was sent to Folsom Prison for 5 months for writing a letter to his congressman!- He thought he was only expressing his free speech rights by threatening to kill Governor Leland Stanford but the jury decided it was prohibited speech! At least Stearn nor Janet has been jailed yet!!LOL!!

[Lefty]

Stern is now negotiating with satellite radio. Hey, if you want obscenity, pay for it!

[Secretariat]

Soeaking of paying for it Lefty. Get your pocket book out.

U.S. moves to expand online surveillance

The Justice Department wants to significantly expand the government's ability to monitor online traffic, proposing that Internet service providers should be forced to grant easier access for FBI wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, say government officials.

A petition filed this week with the Federal Communications Commission suggests consumers should be required to pay the bill.

Law enforcement agencies have been concerned that telephone service over the Internet could be a way for terrorists and criminals to evade surveillance. But the petition moves beyond Internet telephony, leading some to warn Friday that many types of online communication could be covered.

[Lefty]

sec, not gonna happen and what's it got to do with smut on radio and tv?