Texsox

yes steve has an avatar and the tattoo is from the same person . . .

So who is paying taxes on this money? Remember we are trying to figure out how that $100 taken away from the treasury becomes $110 without anyone paying more in taxes? That is the question.

Of course to bring in more money to banks they increase their savings rates and the consumer earns more interest. Any I thought that was a good thing. Plus, how does that increase the $100 to generate more tax revenue to pay for all the new programs?

She may wish to practice polishing off a fifth of vodka here's a fun tip, bring cigarettes to jail to trade for favors . . . . . . it's a good thing

Sorry CW, I put Clinton's lies at the top of the pile of political lies. The moment he looked into the camera and said he did not have sex with that women, then started challenging what sex "is", he fell far in my eyes. And I voted for him twice. To paraphrase a Christmas Story "this was the mother of all lies"

Sorry, I didn't realize people were waiting in line for deposits so they could borrow money. Has anyone else been turned down because the bank loaned all their money out and needed to get some more?

He should have started looking for WMD

Are you saying there are less rapes now then 40 years ago?

What I am saying is either statement cannot be proven. OK, I will amend my statement to read More people are reporting rapes and more rapist are being convicted now then before. Does that sound better?

At least you recognize it as a fact. How would we prove that they get reported more today? Perhaps even more people today are not reporting it.

Kerry doesn't have to be the incumbant to use it. Bush was the president when it happened. I would be seriously outraged if he used it. Actually I would be even more outraged if he used it.

I was replying to multiple posts at the same time. Not just one person. Since the comment Steff tossed out there concerned Stern I appologize but thought she was trying to make a point. Violent rape has increased every decade since 1960 in every state.

winodj, well said and thank you. I've had that same conversation with a local radio station owner who now has syndicated programming almost all day. They own a news talk station (local in the morning and drive times but Rush, Hannity (was O'Reilly), and others everytime else. On the other hand their Sports talk station cut the Dan Patrick show short for local people to talk about HS football and make uneducated, silly statements. So eventually they dropped the local show and increased rating 2X by airing the syndicated product. Money vs. public trust

You said two weeks ago Stern supported Bush. You said then Stern gets pulled from 6 markets and investigated by the FCC and Bush comes out for an amendment restricting gay marriage. Now Howard will call for his voters to not support Bush. I guess then those two issues caused Stern to change his mind on Bush and all his loyal Republican listeners will vote Kerry. Steff, you said Bush was screwed if Howard tells his listeners to vote against Bush. You said most of his listeners are Republican. Do you seriously believe they listen to a radio entertainer in deciding what candidate to vote for?

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I never thought Stern had an uneducated following. Why did you mention it? What bearing does it have on a decency standard? Again, I stand for societies responsibility to formulate a standard. Sterns show may or may not fall within that standard. But to say, like Murcie, that the government cannot say what you hear over the public airwaves is a knee jerk reaction and wrong.

So now Stern has flip flopped because of the FCC issues. I thought this wasn't a single issue thing. And no, his show was on for about 3 months here and finished 6 out of 7 English language stations. I and about 6 other people were the only ones listening. My position is not dependent on Stern. I do not believe he is the arbitrator of taste for all of us. The government has a responsibility for what goes over our airwaves. Some one has to define what that standard is. Anyone who thinks that there should not be a standard and that anything should be aired, at any time, for any reason, is wrong. If they want to draw the line at Stern, then lobby to have that done. If they think Stern is too tame, set the standard further that way, if the think Stern goes to far, then lobby to draw it in tighter. That is how we do things here in America.

I'm not certain what that has to do with anything. So we should only listen to people who make $75,000? Does that make their opinion superior? Steff, Do you believe the government should censor what goes over the public airwaves? Or should anything be allowed. If you do believe there needs to be some censorship, who decides? ONly people who make $75,000 per year and between the ages of 30-45?

So it isn't just censorship about his show or he would have encouraged his listeners to vote Bush?! Seriously, did you really think, under any conditions, Howard would have encouraged voters to vote for Bush?

Yes there is an agenda. And the ACLUs agenda is for anything to go. And the AARP's agenda is to fight for Senior Citizens, and the NRA's agenda is to fight against any gun legislature, and Infinities Agenda is to spend millions getting Howard's show as free as they can get it. Of course there is an agenda. Jim gets an award from the GOP, they have an agenda. Stern has an agenda. He just got his listeners to talk about his show. How much free advertising will that get? Hooters begs women's groups to boycott their restaurants and gives free wings to the reporters who show up. Both groups have agendas. Why is it if you agree with the agenda it is good and if you disagree it is wrong to have agendas? In Stern's case he has $$$Millions in this fight. And money always wins in US politics.

Dude Nothing is greater than God Nothing is more evil than the devil The rich need nothing the poor already have nothing and if you eat nothing, you will die

And for single issue voters whose only care is making certain they can hear Howard every morning, they should. Wow I didn't know Bush had had strong support among Stern's listeners already. I hear Rush will ask his listeners to not support Kerry. Kerry may be screwed.

And we both know, he will not be fined for things that were correct at the time. The courts are very good at that. I do not know what the statute of limitations is on FCC violations. I imagine they cannot be longer than a few years. My beef is people who think we should allow everything and anything because we can change the channel. No! I own these airwaves and as long as I can convince enough Americans my standard is right, we will follow my standard. I also 100% support the statements: No! Steff owns these airwaves and as long as she can convince enough Americans her standard is right, we will follow her standard. No! Stern owns these airwaves and as long as he can convince enough Americans his standard is right, we will follow his standard. That is the American way.

Are we suppose to add his major league saves and his minor league saves or do you want them split out?

Murcie, So you believe that anything can be said over the airwaves? Zero censorship? Or just what you believe is appropriate? For example a new DJ decides to push the envelope with an opening: Hey dumb motherf***ers, it's after school time, how was kindergarten, I hear that new teacher has some great tits. lets' all f***ing kick back, get our dicks sucked, or suck dick, maybe get raped up the ass! Man look at that lesbian suck that cock? No way the Government should be allowed to stop something like that. Perhaps we could have a nice racist start every morning with a rant about Italians, of gays, or heterosexuals, or blacks. because quote: In no way shape or form, does the government have the right to tell me what I can and cant listen to..... This sucks Of course the government can, and should regulate what goes out over the public airwaves.

Nothing