Texsox

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

And that comes with being organized. A lot of groups are well organized and get a lot accomplished in thier sphere of interest. Look at the NAACP, NRA, AARP, MLB, etc. The ACLU will probably take up the cause at some point. Plus Stern and Co. have $millions to invest in a lobbying effort. And don't think they will not spend $millions. As a proud member of the Insane Coho Lips, owner of Pet Fishsticks, and a frequest visitor to Dahl's web site, I'm not always tuned into NPR, and the local rock station. I've enjoyed a lot of Stern's show. I also believe he crosses over the line of what should be available on the "free" public airwaves. He is smart enough and talented enough to deal with the line being moved in a couple degrees.

People blame Clinton for not responsing differently. They forget the tail wagging the dog criticism from Republicans. But I have a bigger beef. If it was so obvious, why wasn't all Americans waving flags and singing God Bless America after the first attack? Bush could have run ads showing him responding to the terror attack. Instead he showed footage of the tower. It wasn't an accident those images were shown. He had months and months to plan this strategy. Remember, this is for his personal gain. This wasn't a public service announcement. He is selling a product called President Bush. To use this to sell a product is wrong. And I would be saying the same thing if Kerry used the footage in his ads. Two weeks ago I was on the fence between Kerry and Bush. I was hoping W would dump Chaney. So far he is moving himself further and further to the conservative end of the spectrum. IMHO he should be moving closer to the moderate and picking up moderate Dems who believe Kerry may be too liberal for their taste.

And the point I am trying to make (and I guess not very well) is that we should not have an anything goes over the airwaves. Sterns argument is (at the minimum) my show is ok, it's the religious wackos coming after me. I believe from other discussion you would not describe yourself as a religious wacko. You have agreed that we should have some form of censorship. I believe every American should have a voice in where the line is drawn. To disregard someone because they attend a worship service, or live in the suburbs, or vote Republican, is wrong. For many Americans Stern's show crosses their boundry of decent and indecent. It is their right and I would add responsibility, to work towards regulations that they agree with. I also believe it is Sterns and others who would go further to work towards regulations they can live with. The healthy debate and discourse helps America to set standards and laws we all can live with. I'm defending Bush and his cronies in this thread, and ripping the boy in another. No wonder neither party wants me.

I don't buy into censorship too much - if you don't like it change the channel. There are several things I find offensive, so I don't buy them/look at them. It seems like a simple solution to me... If you don't like pornography change the channel. Or are you in favor of censoring X-rated material from WGN? So if you are in favor of some censoring does it not come down to where we will draw the line? I felt a certain feeling here that if someone draws the line stopping something that a person likes, they dismiss the person's opinion as a religious wacko. It would be like someone saying you live in the suburbs and we know how *those* people think. There is a difference between what is played over public airwaves and what is distributed via print or other private forms of communication. Society has an obligation to manage the public airwaves. This all comes down to where people want to draw the line. Some people would find it entertaining to hear people having sex during their afternoon drive time. They will say that anyone who objects can just turn the station.

Or Willie the Wimp by Stevie Ray Vaughn Could they get him a Caddilac to take him to the batters box?

Damn, they didn't mention the terrific job he did leading the Broncs of University of Texas - Pan American I'll bet he leaves that off his resume

So you would think it is ok for WGN's after school special to be X-rated pornography? Because you could just change the channel. Every American has a voice in what we allow on the airwaves. To say that everyone who thinks Stern's show oversteps the bounds is just part of some religious group so their opinion is somehow less important or wrong, is not any more valid than saying everyone who agrees that Stern's show is OK is a morally bankrupt athiest and their opinion does not matter. Most religious groups believe sex between and adult and a 10 year old is wrong. Some groups believe it is ok. Should we change consent laws because it's just a religious thing? How about murder or stealing? Every American has a right to their opinion. They do not give up that right because they walk into a Mosque, Temple, Church, or simply meditate each morning. To believe that everyone who is "religious" thinks the same way is simplistic at best.