The Howard Stern situation !!!

[ShadowTklr]

Re: Hi Shadow...

I think the guy spanking Howard is not Rush - it's the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell.

Button 😛

Thank you for that. I was wondering what was going on with that cartoon. ROFL! Thanks again. 🙂

 

[MrMacphisto]

Re: HOLD ON EVERYBODY !!!

If you take away sterns right to be an ass hole because you think it, whats to stop some one from censoring you because they think your an ass hole. Add to that the fact that clearchannels claime is that they booted Stern for the use of the "N word" on his show. Well it had been used lots of time on his show so why do they go and boot him now. Plus when they got rid of him they replaced him with this Savage guy who says that all homosexuals are sodomites who should get aids and die. In closing they replace an ass hole with an even bigger ass hole, explain that to me please.

It sounds like Mr. Savage is aptly named. Perhaps if he were to watch "Philadelphia," he'd get some much needed perspective on the AIDS issue.

 

[BigJim]

Ya see? The terrorists who hate us are now laughing because they're getting what they wanted, all because of our state of paranoia.

Flatty, if I ever meet you in person I'm gonna buy you a WHOLE crate of beer!



George W. Bush is the greatest threat to American freedom since General Cornwallis. (Or to be more exact, the force controlling him is.) More freedoms are taken away each month from the American people. But don't lump it all in a a fascist Republican trick, because it isn't. This trend was started by Bill "clunk-click and suck on this!" Clinton after Oklahoma when he gave the American military greater powers in domestic law enforecement. The sad thing is that a brain dead public cheer as their freedoms are destroyed, because they see it as a natural response to the atrocities that are largely manufactured by America's leaders to start off with.

Three words...


Problem

Reaction

Solution

 

[BigJim]

Um...could you please cite at least one piece of legislation introduced by democrats (specifically liberals), that might lend an ounce of credence to this statement?

I mean, if you're a republican, I don't blame you for trying to make it SEEM like liberals are impeding on the very rights they purport. I'm just wondering if there was something specific, or if you feel that the liberals are not doing enough to stop the fourth reich in Washington.

I just named the legislation in my previous post. Clinton forced it through on the nod because all the senators were too shit-scared of objecting. If they had they'd have been hystericly and publicly damned as "un-patriotic", "anti-American", "helping the terrorists" and so on. All untrue and all done purely for the motivation of a public that has long since given it's thinking brain away and had it replaced with a verbatim CNN report.

 

[MrMacphisto]

George W. Bush is the greatest threat to American freedom since General Cornwallis. (Or to be more exact, the force controlling him is.) More freedoms are taken away each month from the American people. But don't lump it all in a a fascist Republican trick, because it isn't. This trend was started by Bill "clunk-click and suck on this!" Clinton after Oklahoma when he gave the American military greater powers in domestic law enforecement.

Jim, I have to disagree with you on one point: the trend was not started by Clinton but by the Red Scare. Clinton is a more modern example of someone who sacrifices freedoms, but the beginning of this governmental behavior began with our fear of Communism. I'm not sure why people are so stupid as to think that sacrificing freedoms somehow equals security, but apparently, it's an easy sell with such an ignorant public. As demonstrated by "Bowling for Columbine" and "Dr. Strangelove," fear is quite a powerful tool for those that would oppress or destroy us. The media maintains its stranglehold on our societal consciousness by means of fear. Somehow, patriotism substitutes any real sense of security among humans, and then the government is free to do as it pleases. Perhaps, Nietzsche was right after all: the majority of people are simply untermenschen destined to be oppressed by the greedy ubermenschen. This trend does not seem alterable in the near future....

 

[BigJim]

Jim, I have to disagree with you on one point: the trend was not started by Clinton but by the Red Scare. Clinton is a more modern example of someone who sacrifices freedoms, but the beginning of this governmental behavior began with our fear of Communism. I'm not sure why people are so stupid as to think that sacrificing freedoms somehow equals security, but apparently, it's an easy sell with such an ignorant public. As demonstrated by "Bowling for Columbine" and "Dr. Strangelove," fear is quite a powerful tool for those that would oppress or destroy us. The media maintains its stranglehold on our societal consciousness by means of fear. Somehow, patriotism substitutes any real sense of security among humans, and then the government is free to do as it pleases. Perhaps, Nietzsche was right after all: the majority of people are simply untermenschen destined to be oppressed by the greedy ubermenschen. This trend does not seem alterable in the near future....

It's amazing the things I see in movies and suchlike that reflect exactly what is happening in real life. Like in Star Wars with Palpatine growing up inside the Republic and withering it from inside, our freedoms and liberties are being eroded and strangled by gits like Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Thatcher, Blair and soon to be, Michael Howard. Not from outside by terrorists and mental lunatics like Osama and Saddam.

Also like another movie, Monsters Inc, fear is the fuel that keeps this shit-clogged engine running. You remember how the ickle monsters would get into kids bedrooms, scare them and then bottle the fear for energy? Politicians and their best mates who own the allegedly "independant" media do exactly the same. Massively exaggerate crime figures, terrorists problems and the likelihood of rogue states nuking us within 45 minutes, then use our hysteria (largely induced by them to start with) to slice and dice our freedoms and have us thanking them for doing it.

However, fear not. A venomous snake is at it's most lethal and dangerous when it's been given a death wound and is flailing about spitting poison in all directions; spasming in its death throes. The suffering in the next decade or so is going to be worse than in any time previously in human history; but like the snake, the perpetrators are on their way out. It's the death rattle rattle of a terminally ill animal. So the trend is alterable and it is alterING. Qjakal pointed out in my Part 4 thread about 9/11 that public anger at the lying and mismanagement of the war by Dubya's administration, was making the prosecution of further invasions next to impossible. He was probably/possibly very surprised when I wholeheartedly agreed with him. In all the writings I've done, people tend to assume that I'm 100% doom and gloom, saying that an unbelievably powerful clique is in charge and manipulating us to do whatever they want, with no chance of us ever throwing it off. The opposite is true though. Not only is it coming down, but it's coming down soon and coming down with a resounding crash! I would guess that it'll happen within the next decade, probably the next eight or nine years. The amount of people (and especially the ever growing number of American people) who refuse to "take this shit lying down" is growing by the day. Every peaceful march and protest is a sign of it. Every refusal to swallow the shit humanity has for centuries, signifies the growing of something really special: mankind waking up and challenging the manipulators to put their money where their mouth is. The real war heroes are the ones like those guys and one gal who refused to go to Iraq because they considered the invasion, illegal, unecessary and immoral. They risked a possible death sentence for mutiny, and definate ruination of their careers and 99% of their friendships by doing so, but by God they stood up and did it! Personally I think that's why things are going to be so rough between now and the end of it all. They'll do anything to keep the people frightened and aquiescent to their domination; including organising jet-liners to be flown into prominent buildings. (They needed SOMETHING that'd frighten people enough to agree to the Patriot Act, the most draconian series of laws ever to be passed on American citizens since slavery.)

Contrary to common opinion, it's a wonderful time to be alive!

 

[Knox The Hatter]

So, Clear Channel replaced Stern with...

MICHAEL SAVAGE?

If this doesn't reflect on the kind of people who run Clear Channel, I don't know what possibly would...let's put it this way- Joseph Goebbels and the Ministry of Propaganda are alive and well. Michael Savage is, without a doubt, the biggest asshole I've ever had the misfortune of listening to, in my entire life, and this includes Anne Coulter.
I can only hope Jim's right. 'Cause if he ain't, we're in for a very bleak future.

 

[TickledToDeath]

I was never a fan of Howard Stern. Probably never will be and couldn't or wouldn't care less if he was pulled from the air, quit radio and was never heard from again.

TTD

 

[BigJim]

I was never a fan of Howard Stern. Probably never will be and couldn't or wouldn't care less if he was pulled from the air, quit radio and was never heard from again.

TTD

Not many people here are fans of anything of Stern's with the exception of his tickling the feet of gorgeous women. What do you think of the principle that was used to pull him TTD? Do you think it was moral just because he was an arse-wipe, or do you think the end can't justify the means?

 

[ShadowFyre]

While I sometimes listen to Howard Stern during the mornings when I have to work early, I would have to say that I am more of a fan of his older stuff. I think that he has become exactly what he used to ridicule back when he was younger. I also don't think that he should complain about anything as an employee of a radio station. While he does have the right to say anything at all that he wants, the radio stations that he is on also have the right not to air it. Also, he shouldn't whine about "free speech" and how he should be able to say anything, because Howard is notorious for putting gag orders on other DJ's in his own company that wouldn't let them talk about him at all, Opie and Anthony, for example. Howard would go whine to Mel Karamazin and the gag orders would be in place. Seems that Howard can expose other peoples' private lives, but his is off limits. He can dish it out but can't take it. Karma, anyone?

 

[SlaverTickler]

Well ya, I'd say Karma has cought up with him...

...but it's one thing to want your colleages (who probably copy his show bit for bit) to get off your ass, then it is for Nazi Bush, and the religoes Riech to do it. Howard dish's on himself as it is, maybe he felt that it was intruding on his gimik rather then just upseting him. Half of the Stern show is Howard beating up on himself. His looks and personality both come under self aflicted assault everymorning. For anus & Mandy to be biting the hand that feads them (because K-Rock was at the bottom befor they got Stern) is pretty dumb to begin with.

What everyone is forgeting is that Bush, or more so, his friends are the reason why Stern was booted form clear chanel. He chainged his veiws on the Presadent, and his actions, and that is why he was taken off 6 markets. The US of A is alway bosting about it's constaturion, the first rule is right to Expretion, unless what your expressing isn't what the Presadent wants you to say.

 

[BigJim]

Hmmm. That's the problem with thew concept of "freedom". Either every single person in the land has the right to express it, or nobody's free. Right now freedom of speech is freedom only from getting shot when you disagree with the Administration. It's not freedom from public hysteria burning your CDs and copies of movies you've been in, it's not freedom from false imprisonment thanks to the Patriot Act and it's not freedom full-stop. (A full-stop is what us Brits call a "period".)

You can only be a true supporter of personal freedoms if you extend that same privelledge to people who disagree with and perhaps even hate you.

 

[ShadowTklr]

You can only be a true supporter of personal freedoms if you extend that same privelledge to people who disagree with and perhaps even hate you.

This is the point that seems to elude so many Americans now. These are the "convenient Americans" I mentioned in an earlier post. It's easy to support the shutting up of someone with whom you disagree.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Let us not forget... there is hope...

Well, Jim and Shadow have brought up my spirits a bit. I'm glad you two have spoken up for the true freedom of speech. It's a voice not often heard these days. Maybe there really is hope for this country if more people than I suspect realize this. Perhaps, it's one of those silent majority things where most people realize what true freedom is, it's just that the idiots against it are particularly loud.

 

[ShadowFyre]

I agree that freedom of speech is absolute, as it should be. I also feel that Howard was taken off because of the way that he changed his political position, which isn't kosher. But, even in saying that, you also cannot force a privately-owned company to support something that the owner doesn't agree with. It's a double edged sword, since both have the same freedom of expression......

 

[BigJim]

Re: Let us not forget... there is hope...

Well, Jim and Shadow have brought up my spirits a bit. I'm glad you two have spoken up for the true freedom of speech. It's a voice not often heard these days. Maybe there really is hope for this country if more people than I suspect realize this. Perhaps, it's one of those silent majority things where most people realize what true freedom is, it's just that the idiots against it are particularly loud.

There's more people waking up than you'd believe my friend! Publicity is easiest for those who support the enemies of personal freedom though. Largely because their mates own the newspapers and the broadcasters. Bastards like Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black and Tony O'Reilly.

 

[ShadowFyre]

I am confused a bit here. Y'all are saying that someone that owns a radio station HAS to put on and support things that he personally finds offensive?

I am not saying that this happened with Stern, because I think it didn't at all. I also think that a private corporation can be run in any way that the owners see fit, as well.

 

[drew70]

I don't know why you guys are so shocked and appalled about this. You'd think it was the first time this happened. What about The Greaseman? What about Jimmy The Greek? No one batted an eye when they were removed from the public eye for making offensive comments. In my opinion, Stern is a whining crybaby who has yet to achieve any comedy whatsoever.

If it's okay to throw Anita Bryant off the air for her anti-homosexual remarks, then why wouldn't it be okay to throw Howard Stern off the air for being an asshole? It's got to work both ways, people.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Drew and Shadowfyre.... I agree that private corporations should be able to put who they want on their channels and take off who they don't want. The part of the freedom of speech that I was defending was Clear Channel's right to keep Stern on the air. They dumped Stern because the FCC put pressure on them to do so. Stern still brings in a lot of revenue from his shows, so it wouldn't have made sense for Clear Channel to have dumped him without pressure from the government.

 

[BigJim]

I don't know why you guys are so shocked and appalled about this. You'd think it was the first time this happened. What about The Greaseman? What about Jimmy The Greek? No one batted an eye when they were removed from the public eye for making offensive comments. In my opinion, Stern is a whining crybaby who has yet to achieve any comedy whatsoever.

If it's okay to throw Anita Bryant off the air for her anti-homosexual remarks, then why wouldn't it be okay to throw Howard Stern off the air for being an asshole? It's got to work both ways, people.

Personally Drew, I agree 100% with your assessment of Howard Stern. I can't fucking stand the man. How the hell Yaqi can look back on his moments with Howard with fondness is beyond me. (Apart from the fact that it hugely increased his sales.) I think any anger is due more to the reasoning behind Stern's removal. If it was done because the man is a Grade-A cock and the station doesn't want him fronting it, all well and good. Not the truth though, because Stern's idiocy has garnered some huge listening figures. If however it was done because of political reasons, then it stinks to high heaven.

Howard Sterns measly arse can rot in a skip for the next 50 years for all I care, but I do object to broadcasting owners acting as political censors.

 

[drew70]

Jim, I see your point and agree. But looking beyond the surface, the FCC is reacting to public outcry from "concerned citizens." It's an effort to appease the offended. I don't see the firing of Anita Bryant, Jimmy the Greek, or The Greaseman as any less political, merely less governmental.

It seems to me that many of those who are incensed at this violation of Howard Stern's free speech would be the first to laud the silencing of somebody expressing racist, anti-semetic, or anti-gay opinions. While I certainly don't subscribe to any of these schools of thought, I have to ask myself, Shouldn't those having such opinions be allowed to express them pubically?

The truth is, we don't really have free speech here in the US. If enough people don't like what you have to say, you will be silenced one way or another.

 

[BigJim]

I would comment on the other broadcasters you mentioned, but I've never heard of any of them previously, so I can't.


In my personal opinion the views that need to be most out in the open are the ones I dislike the greatest! For instance, if someone thinks it's okay to have sex with six year old children, I don't want the nutter slinking about in private, doing what he does. I want him to speak about it in the open. If he does, then anyone with kids that age can make sure they go nowhere near the git!


As I said earlier, either everyone is free, or no-one is. The moment someone's views (whatever they may be, although I'm specifically thinking right now of the anti-war lobbyists) cause them to get crapped on either by groups of people, or official bodies acting out of political interests, there is NO freedom of speech! Such a right is something that has never existed truly in any country ever on Earth. Not having it is not in the least bit unusual. But claiming to be the most free nation on Earth, when in personal freedoms America lags behind at least 6 of the Western European nations, is a glorious mixture of hypocrisy and fantastically well implemented brainwashing.

Classic example: I mention Madeline Albright saying on 60 minutes that American led sanctions on Iraq after the first Gulf War led to the deaths of around a million Iraqi children by the middle of 1995. Another member of the TMF who is fantastically well educated and very intelligent translates that as me saying I believe American citizens have killed a million Iraqi babies. Point one; I didn't say it, Madeline Albright did and I was quoting her. Point two; since when have the American public voted for the implementation of draconian economic sanctions in a binding referendum? Never, that's when. So how precisely are the American public responsible for the deaths? Answer: they aren't! Yet because this member was so fixated with the idea of a certain area of one continent, marked by imaginary lines drawn in the earth by men who didn't give a shit about people who pay the country's taxes, being their home (when it isn't at all, the WORLD is!), they took offence at me. Why? In my opinion (and you are all free to disagree with me), because they'd allowed themselves to have the suggestion implanted by people who like to swing people who would otherwise be thinking people, around by their patriotic dangly-bits. Brainwashing in other words. Get someone to identify something that you created to imprison their thinking minds as being something to defend at all costs, and you've got them. Nowhere on Earth oustide of regimes like the Taliban and Saddam's is this more prevalent and glaring than in America. It's the killer of free speech.

 

[SlaverTickler]

It wasn't the FCC

The FCC had nothing to do with Stern being tossed from 6 markets. I was listening last week, and a congressman was talking to the senit. He explained that the FCC hadn't raised a hand to Stern in many many years. Stern was tossed from Clear Chanel with in days of chainging his politacle veiws, and there is no justifacation for that. In any other line of work this would be called wrongfull dismisal, infact Stern is a member of a union, and has gathered enough evadence that he could go after Cleachanel for that if he wanted. Add to this the fact the the 6 Clearchanel station continued to use is voice over adds, even though they'd "had a chaing of heart" regarding there progtaming. Now Stern is seeking leagal action for the breaking of his (iron clad) contract with them.

Stern's FCC insider, has also informed him (and he us) that the FCC is waiting until after the election to go after him. Micheal Powel is concerned that he will make Howard into a Martor of the Airways, and eversince the clear chanel move Bush's popularity has dropped a fair bit. Nay sayers have vexed Stern his entire life. They told him a show like his couldn't last on Radio, it's been a long time sence he's joined K-Rock. They said he could never broad cast it from coast to coast, well he is. They also said he coulnd't broadcast as a TV show. Hmmm, isn't he the top raited show on the E! Chanel. What ever you might think of Stern's program, he is not a moron or an idiot. He might be a pig, but he is a very succesful one.

Mr Stern will go on to revolutionize pay radio, and we his loyal listeners will be there. Thats millions of people from the US and Canada. This will lead to him gaining a world wide audience (except for the french, but who cares). In closing, I like Stern, I don't like everything he says, but I agre with his right to say it.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Considering that Michael Powell is Colin Powell's son, I'm not a bit surprised to learn of this bullshit. The sad thing is that Clear Channel still has a right to dump Stern. However, Clear Channel is getting dangerously close to violating anti-trust laws. Perhaps, a massive anti-trust lawsuit will become their greatest concern in the coming years. Whatever the case, while I support their right to fire and hire who they please, they're still a bunch of corporate **********s...

 

[SlaverTickler]

Well...

... I beleave stern will sue them for breach of contract. not only did Clear Chanel drop him, they continued to use his voice adds during there morning broadcast. If they don't want Stern on the Radio, then they shouldn't be selling advertising spots using his voice. Whne they droped his show (under the contract) they lost all rights to use any of his material.

I would also like to coment on this Jimmy "the Greek" guy. I never listened to him before. The only reason I started this thread was because I am a fan of Howard Stern. I had heard of what was happening, and knowing that some others on here at the forum listen to him, I thought I would mention it. I heard Buhba the love sponge was also kicked of the radio too, and it was after he had bad mouthed Bush as well. I don't know what caused Jimmy to be tossed off the radio, but if it was for the same reason then I feel he was wronged as well.