Not to disagree with your basic point, but I think your numbers are a tad out of date as Clear Channel owns more than 1,200 stations (unless you meant that 1,200 was "well over 300" ), about 900 more than the next closest competitor.
My opinion is that one local station owner deciding he doesn't like some musician's political opinions and refusing to play them is no big deal. When that one owner is calling the shots for 300 radio stations we are talking borderline censorship. I don't care if they choose to spend their corporate money staging rallies, because that's their right. I know I'm not the only one who thinks that radio should stay local. Syndicated chats like Loveline are acceptable, but syndicated D.J.s and syndicated playlists should stick to Amplitude Modulated transmissions. I also dont' believe that corporations should be able to donate money to political campaigns. Most companies don't even care much for their own employees, and the laws that their lobbying gets passed reflect that pretty well onto the American public as a whole.
huh? ok...if they can't donate money to political campaigns...and can't be treated as individuals...then they can't be sued either...fair trade?
so why don't you qualify you're argument. but let me ask you this question what is the purpose of it? what if the son of the secrecraty of state set it up??? "no one factor alone get it, really" so you say? so list all the factors.
DoitDickau, Do us a favor then. Please don't post while drunk. At least not if you want to get into an argument with a respected bbser like MadMax. Now, if you were just being comical about yourself like Chance does, that's different .
okay, you're right i shouldn't. i like madmax. from what i've read. didn't mean anything, it's just as a 1/5 new jerseyian, i feel the need to stick up for bruce. but i dn't want to cause trouble. peace
Hey, if your side is going to moan and complain about commies and other nefarious ne'er-do-wells having something to do with the anti-war rallies while you try to diminish the hundreds of thousands that actually marched, we can slam sham "pro-troops" rallies hosted by an evil corporation and negate the mere thousands that participated.
04-24-2003 05:35 PM Quote: Originally posted by Heretic I also dont' believe that corporations should be able to donate money to political campaigns. Most companies don't even care much for their own employees, and the laws that their lobbying gets passed reflect that pretty well onto the American public as a whole. huh? ok...if they can't donate money to political campaigns...and can't be treated as individuals...then they can't be sued either...fair trade? Wrong. If corporations are so unhappy with American law then they can do business elsewhere. There's plenty of companies willing to work reasonable deals with local government if they leave. The key to containing corporations is to reverse the stranglehold they use on cities and states. My philosophy is that if a corporation threatens to move all of their operations to a foreign country then let them. Don't plead for them to stay. Just put an addendum on their move, tell them that they and their affiliates and subsidaries are no longer allowed to do business in the United States of America, ever. They'd change their ****ing tunes pretty fast if you actually lay down the law. Without political contributions, corporations have no power over the public. Not everyone has forgotten the sins of Enron and Worldcom and other disasters of our glorious economic system. The only people that paid the price for those companies collapses were the employees and stockholders. The executives suffered nothing other than the odd mandatory suicide. If you are willing to tell american citizens that are dissatisfied with the current paradigm to leave the country then you ******* better be willing to say the same to every halfass crook large business that threatens to move operations to some 3rd world ****hole so they can increase profit margins and enhance their profitability from flexible labor by decreasing american jobs. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy -Greg Palast read it, and even if you don't agree it will cause you think a bit more.
my problem is Clear Channel owns KTRH and probably a bunch of other news stations too. From a journalistic perspective, it seems like a conflict of interest since they are "making" the news instead of just reporting it. Sideshow Bob: Homer, think carefully. Of all the people you have known, who might have reason to do you ill? Homer: Hmm, well there's Mr. Burns, Fat Tony, the emperor of Japan, ex-president Bush..." Marge: ...the late Frank Grimes... Homer: ...PBS, Stephen Hawking, the fat little Dixie Chick... Marge: ...and the state of Florida.
i don't have all the factors...no one case from the supreme court has listed all the factors, that i'm aware of. it's treated on a case by case basis. again....there is no freaking way they are the government. they were set up to make a profit, doit...a very "private" enterprise indeed. complete with shareholders...ordinary people like you and me. this is getting ridiculous...
what the hell does this have to do with it?? you asked why i hadn't responded...like i was taking up your time...i told you where i was and why i couldn't respond. i went to university of houston law school...baylor undergrad. why in the world does that matter? but good luck in law school!
1. who the hell said i was willing to tell americans to leave the country if they disagreed with policy? where are you getting this? where did i say that? 2. absent you putting those words in my mouth, the rest of your argument falls on its face. i don't think american individuals should be told to leave if they disagree with policy....and since corporations are individuals under the law, they shouldn't either. 3. stranglehold?? so who the hell employs these people in the community without companies??? where do we get our jobs, professor? the government will employ us all at our own cost? great! 4. you should never forgive enron or worldcom...never...they should and will pay. but don't lump all corporations in with enron or worldcom...or else we'll all find ourselves out of work. hey, you'd love afghanistan..you could live a quiet agrarian lifestyle with no corporations to mess with you.
of course you can...but don't use it as evidence that Clear Channel is the government...i don't think you were doing that..but in the context of the argument, that was my response.
outlaw -- i totally agree...it can certainly make journalism suspect...as it has appeared to be for a long time now, to my eyes.
