I agree, the FCC's regulation of broadcast radio and TV content is based on two badly outdated cases, Pacifica and Red Lion. With the advent of the internet and cable, etc, the rationale for this stuff doesn't hold up anymore.
I mean, for chrissake, why does broadcast not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment because a way-outdated "scarity" excuse? Back in J-school, my professor told us that concept was as obsolete as the Model T with all of the new means of telecommunication.
Bush wouldn't have to call them. The HMFIC at Clear Channel and Bush have done some major bidness in the past. When the Iraq War started, Clear Channel organized marches and then sent reporters to cover the story as if the pro-war marches were actually news. So I wouldn't put anything past them. I'll stop using facts now because I'm just another left-wing conspiracy nut and facts won't make a difference anyway. And no, people aren't gonna tune out Stern when he bashes Dubya. Those that don't like it can switch him off. There are plenty of us out there who need voices out there that aren't milk-sops for the President. Any criticism he has been receiving in the mainstream media is light, very light, compared to what could be said. But they have to appear objective (so they will say: Monica's b.j.'s and cigar-strokes being made-for-TV fodder and the Iraq War being neat-o, I guess). Another thing that gets me is how pristine some of the Bush-supporters think he is. The guy's been involved in or assisted more shady business dealings than can be listed here (again, you'd just read past them) and yet he's still just an aw-shucks would-never-do-that kind of guy. Not that the politicians I'd vote for are completely clean either but at least I don't pretend they walk on water. And none of them have started major wars under transparent pretenses (well, Bosnia was wagging the dog after Monicagate; at least we didn't put many boots on the ground in that one).
I'm going to stop using facts now? You stopped using facts when you mentioned about Bush's "shady business dealings" and mentioned Clear Channel starting pro-war marches. Ridiculous.
Now, I know you live in a Snuffy Smith cartoon world, but you really ought to get out more, there, Pappy. Maybe then you'd learn something about the Bush family's business dealings and Clear Channel stations sponsoring pro-war rallies. I doubt that Fox News gives that sort of thing much coverage, and I know ESPN doesn't.
SpikeTV is turning bama into a cartoon character (literally) The show is called "This Just In" and the main character, Brian Newport, is a journalist described as: "Outspoken, opinionated, unabashedly politically conservative and quick to crack an inappropriate joke, Newport is both the center of the hurricane and the cause of it. A speak first, think second kind of guy, apologize eventually kind of guy... you can always count on Newport to either say what everybody's thinking, or what everybody wishes he wouldn't say at all." the show premieres tomorrow March 14 on SpikeTV 9:30 pm the show is drawn in Flash so it's able to be produced very quickly thus staying topically current.
It basically made me think my teacher was a dumbass. (or at least reinforced that already blossoming opinion)
Ridiculous. I make a point and you people demean me as being out of touch and ridiculous. But it is you that are the caricatures. I do enjoy jousting with you terminally weak-kneed lefties. It is so easy to bait you into showing what a lot of you guys really are: smug smartasses who only know what their poly-sci prof told them.
As a centrist, tell me what Clinton policy you could have possibly disagreed with. Clinton was a centrist's wet dream.
Drummer, that's exactly what I'm saying. Most Stern listeners did vote for Bush, if they voted at all. Stern listeners are Republicans and they are loyal to Stern. And if he can get a fraction of his people who did not vote before (or voted for Bush), that could make a HUGE difference come next year. He's doing more than preaching to the undecided. He's preaching to the voters who have never voted before but might this time. He's preaching to the millions of listeners who want to listen to him rant about anal sex and fake boobs. People who are afraid of the religious right taking away their favorite show. Yes, it helps me sleep at night. Howard Stern is giving me wet dreams.
Who else has noticed that there's a continual disconnect between Yosemite Slammer's posts and the posts to which he is ostensibly replying? Out of touch? Check! Worthy of ridicule? As I've said before, kinda like ganging up on the short bus, but yeah, check! The idea of you jousting with anyone around here sort of brings to mind the Monty Python bit where a combatant (warfighter?) gets each of his limbs violently removed and hastily declares a draw. Looking forward to the show, by the way. Nice work, outlaw. Sometimes the truth actually IS fiction.
I agree with you, he was definitely a centrist, which is what I liked about him in '92. By the end of the first term, it looked to me like he had fallen into complacency, which is the reason I didn't vote for him in '96. Most of his policies were very centrist, though.
You yellow b*stard, come back here and get what's coming to ya! I'll bite your legs off! (and it was the Black Knight...as in "The Black Knight ALWAYS triumphs, have at you!")
I'll reply here rather than in the other thread, since this is where it started. The funny thing about your statement is that Clinton was far more of a centrist leading up to 96 than he was in 92. This made perfect political sense since he didn't have to secure the nomination and didn't have to secure fresh support from Democrats. He never had to go left, only right. And he did. As such, as a centrist, it's hilarious that you backed him in 92 and backed off him in 96. It's very easy to say there should be another way. But it is silly to cite Clinton as an example of that. He represented the other way you call for. I didn't agree with it but I repeat it was the wet dream of anyone who was actually a centrist. That's why he won and that's why it's hilarious you didn't even back him when he did it. I'm not against your basic premise -- I'm only against the naivete of it. I wish there were five viable parties. There aren't. There are two. And they fight over the middle already. And that's all they do during the general election. When it comes time for the general, those on the left and on the right are almost always shut out in favor of the middle. And you first call for a middle party and then eschew the most middle candidate in the history of our modern politics? Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. It is the easiest thing in the world to say you're against both major guys, even while they beg the middle for votes and ignore their bases. And it amounts to absolutely nothing. Aside from GW Bush, we haven't had an extremist run for president as a major party candidate since Reagan. And GWB will be pretending toward the center again this year. Your call for a third party is akin to the people in the GARM saying we should trade our role players for various all-stars. An easy position amounting to nothing. Especially since you abandoned the biggest centrist in modern times. I did too, but I'm a liberal and I don't have any issues with that. You apparently do. BTW, I hope you don't take this bad. I'm a fan of most of your posts. Just not the middle party stuff. I think that's passing silly.
Stern has enough trouble getting guests on his radio show (well unless they are out of work p*rn stars), how in the world can he actually convince anyone to vote that wasn't going to vote anways. Like every other election it will be about which party can convince the people who weren't going to vote to get out to vote. No ovffense to Stern but he doesn't seem like the pied piper who will get people out to the voting booths. Sure he'll talk a big game but as soon as the out of work p*rn-star walks into the studio he'll be doing his usual stick (You're very hot, have you ever had a 3 some, etc).
Again, I made that statement as a way of saying that I have enough criticism for everybody, not just the people on the right. I agreed with you that Clinton was a centrist (that was what I liked about him in '92), but I still had plently of criticism for him, just not on the subject of the economy. The point about Clinton in '96 is that he appeared to me to have become more of a Washington and Democratic party insider when what attracted me to him in '92 was his outsider status along with his centrist views. BTW, there are only 2 viable parties TODAY, but that doesn't preclude another from becoming viable in the future.
You are obviously underestimating the draw he has. His listeners (I am not one, btw) are not out of work p*rn stars, he has those women ON the show to draw the 18-34 male demographic. That is the demographic that votes predominantly GOP and if Stern can influence 8 million 18-34 males to vote Democrat, it will be a long night for GWB in November.
Ok he has male listeners which are 18-34. I agree with that. Problem is according to polls 85% of people say they already know who they are going to vote far. So Stern is not going to change many opinions. All he can hope to do is to get the folks who listen to his show and who don't already vote to do so. Let me see him do it and I'll believe it. Again you may be right but I will only beleive Stern can deliver an election when I see it.
I am not saying that Stern alone can "deliver" this election, but this is yet one more in the trend of people who were either independant or conservative pre-GWB and have now changed their tunes and are actively stumping for Kerry (or anti-Bush, whichever). Stern was not a factor in 2000, but is shaping up to try to influence his listeners to vote this time. He will be a factor, we just don't know how big a factor.
Unfortunately, I believe someone like Stern can sway the vote, which is ridiculous...It's one person's view or opinion of how someone other than Bush can do a better job... The spin doctors affect how the people will vote, including the un-educated...
