It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Howard Stern Blasts Bush, FCC

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I've been listening to Stern ever since I was a kid. So much for protecting children! *L*

Thing is... although some of the stuff might be considered offensive, it's a pretty good and funny show. I don't care about lesbians and such,and always thought it was kinda funny that men would call in and say something was so hot because a chick took her top off. It's radio! So all they did was HEAR about a chick taking her top off and that was enough to inspire them to call. I think they're beyond corruption by evil Stern.

I've seen some pretty graphic sexual discussions both on Oprah and on Springer... and think they go way beyond anything on radio. I'll take the FCC seriously when they start whacking the big tv personalities. If they were really serious about getting him, and it wasn't political, they'd have nailed him into oblivion already because as he's said himself, they've got 20+ years worth of material. They've had their shot again and again. They're just using this stupid Janet Jackson thing as a blanket excuse.




posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You have a good point. Stuff on Daytime TV like I have childrens with my brother, women who love men who love lesbians. Its not all that different. And have you ever seen the Spanish Soap Operas on telemundo? they often are like soft core porn. It does seem that Stern is being systematically targeted.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The problem as I see it is that everyone is anxious to point the finger of blame at everyone else and is unwilling to accept responsability on any kind of personal level. The demise of western civilization has it's roots in the protestant reformation. Henry VIII's refusal to accept marrige in it's then current form and instead foist upon everyone his new doctrine of transience.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I went into a store in Manhattan a few years ago with a fourteen year old male relative. We selected an item and went to the cash register. The sales lady was on the phone " Yeah so I went out with that black dude last night. you know what they say about black men. He was huge" At this point my teenage companion started squirming and asked if he could please leave. I said sure and left with him. I understand she had the right to speak like this - its "freedom of speech". How about a Robin Byrd talk show at prime time, once we work out what gender "she" is. The point still remains Howard Stern only sells porn and makes millions out of it. The man is a joke - has nothing to say that he hasn't said a million times before. He is like a pimp selling other peoples flesh. Why not have a show where he just discusses his boobs and genitals? Nobody would care. Yes we can change the channel but should he be allowed to sell smut on the air? or should we only keep his competition in the porn trade off the air ? The fact that this thread exists amazes me - we are having a debate about what a rather dim smut selling disc jockey thinks about the President??? Hmmm I can see why he has so many followers.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
OT : Mods, feel free to delete/move this

This may have been posted before, but Eric Idle recorded his take on the FCC here..

Worth a listen :-

3.1MB MP3


[edit on 2-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If smut is the problem, you'd have to take off every prime time show now on the air. It's all promiscuity, materialism and plenty of t&a. TV, radio, movies.... let's face it. Everything must go!


OR....


Make choices and take control of these mediums in your own home. When in public and exposed to inappropriate behavior, report it if there is a system in place for you to do so, and walk away if not. I've been in public places where the clerk/salesman was behaving in a very unprofessional manner and I spoke to the manager about it. I'm not going to go to another store just because someone doesn't know how to behave. They are being paid to perform a job function and a certain level of professionalism is implied in being a paid servant of the customer. If they don't live up to that, they get tagged for it. Nothing to do with free speech. Apples and oranges.

I also think it's possible to dislike something and express that dislike effectively without insulting the I.Q. or taste of those disagree with you.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned. That is why there is freedom of speech. There is also freedom of choice! You can choose to listen or choose to change the station. FCC thought Stern was a-ok with all the things he did but then one little bush bad, and he gets canceled. Bull#.

If we are going to ban what YOU don't like then letsd ban what I don't like. Monotheistic religons, teletubbies, republicans, bottled water, and of course rap. Wait a minute, I have something called choice and I use it! Idon't go to church, I don't watch teletubbies, I am a independent, and i drink Mountain Dew. Do the same, if you don't like it don't do/listen/drink/join it!



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Such aggression! I can see why you are indeed James the Lesser.I guess when I voice my opinion it doesn't fall under the Freedom of Speech amendment? Sorry to displease you so. However I have no problem with pornography when packaged away from access to kids, you know the way stores are suppose to keep dirty magazines away from plain sight. Howard Stern sells the product we insist others of his genre sell away from the public. And we pay him well for being outrageous??? How is he outrageous - is he saying anything different from what you can see in porn movies? Nope he just has a public platform and we can actually quote him. Stern's career died with the 90s a few months before Jerry Springers. This is my opinion, if you don't like it have another Mountain Dew, buy another radio and hear Stern in stereo.

Lots of love.



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
If we are going to ban what YOU don't like then letsd ban what I don't like. Monotheistic religons, teletubbies, republicans, bottled water, and of course rap.


Hey man back off the Telytubbies. Just because Jerry Falwell outed tinkie Winkie does'nt mean they don't deserve love too



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Tinkie Winkie is the purple one, right? Boo! Go La-La. La-La would go catholic preist all over Tinkie Winkie! Wait, he would like that.

And for the guy who used my post to say "Gee, I now realize why you are James the Lesser" The reason I am James the Lesser is because my dad is James the Greater.(Not on this board, or any board, but how you have Sr. and Jr. and so forth. Of course, I don' have James anywhere in my name)

You do have the right to freedom of speech, but when you use it to say things that aren't relevant it is a waste of a right. Just because you don't like Stern doesn't give you the right to slander him. I don't like his show either, but I will defend his right to say what he wants for that is his right! to the death. Well, maybe just injured, like a bullet to the arm or something, maybe a sprained ankle to. You can't ban something because you don't like it. Just like the FCC can't ban him because he tells the truth about Bush. Well, they can for the republicans have corrupted the FCC, it just isn't right.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join