The Howard Stern situation !!!

[SlaverTickler]

Howard stern is in alot of trouble, all because of that half ass Nazi George Bush. I was litening to his show today, and it is with out argument that his chainge of heart regarding the Bush adminastration is why he was taken off of 6 markets in the US. Not only is the owner of those stations a Bush supporter he is a very good
friend of the current prez. If your opinion on this is "Well I don't care I think Stern is a pig." think about this, how long is it before your presadent desides to tell you what your allowed to say.

I don't like everything Stern say either, but I do fined his show entertaining, when they took him off Q-107 here in Toronto I stoped listening to the station. I went out and bought a mini-system with a didgital tunner so I could pick up his show from Buffalo. In the 6 places Stern was taken off of, he was in the top 5, and in 2 markets he was the #1 morning show. I hope if stern does go off open air radio, that he can fined new life on satlite FM radio. If so I will have to look in to getting a satlite radio system.

 

[dskodj]

Well..like me and my friend always talk about..this is just proving our theory more and more. Bush is a Nazi and soon we are no longer gonna be a free country and it will be like those futuristic films from the late 80's/early 90's. Think they saw the future in making those..the future is here! Scary shit!

 

[The Sean Man]

Easy folks!

Remember Marv Albert. Give this some time to blow over, and Stern and Bubba will be back on the air just like usual.

The Sean Man

 

[Krokus]

wait, you mean Bush is slowly draining us of our freedoms? Get out...🙄 If he get's re-elected, we are in for some crazy shit, let me tell you.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Just want to thank you guys...

Thanks for not busting my balls on the spelling thing. You've got to admitt though even wiht my poor spelling what I write makes alot of nickles and dimes.

 

[Knox The Hatter]

It's true...the Clear Channel mob are very close to the President. Figures, doesn't it?
I heard second hand that Rush Limbaugh said yesterday, "hey, this could happen to me, hypothetically, one day from some left wing congress pressuring the FCC...what's happening to Stern isn't good at all"...or something like that.
The evil that is this hate-filled, awful administration is becoming more and more apparent each day to people who would've starved to death rather than admitting such a thing only a couple of months ago. Little by little, in the name of security against terrorism, the administration is whittling away more and more of our personal liberties. Frankly, I'm more frightened of John Ashcroft than I am Bin Laden, because the damage that Ashcroft can do will be far more lasting. Now, they're trying to silence the voices on the airwaves. None of you can be surprised, huh?

I'm not a Stern fan. Never was. To me, he committed the cardinal sin of not being funny to me. He never had a comic delivery...I just always thought that what he said was for gratuitous reasons, pure and simple, and all the sexist stuff got tiring really fast. I remember the first time I ever saw anyone get tickled on the show...on an extremely hot night back in the summer of '95. I never knew he was doing things like that, and I'm telling you, my jaw was on the floor, and it took a few hours before I thought of picking it up again.
I've always agreed with him, though, on some things...we both despise the same kind of people, and when he spouts his opinions about same, it's refreshing. He's the only one around with the guts to flay the puritans and the hypocritical, phony holy rollers they way they should be. I guess he's paying for it now.
I wish he'd find a way to stand and fight, because the naked truth is, you can't let these people win. If they do, our nation's finished.

 

[Mitchell]

I personally like Stern, for some things. I will listen to or watch his E show if he has tickling or a hot female. While some of the things he does are outrageous or crude, that is what's called "Freedom of the Press". If anyone saw "The People Vs Larry Flynt" they will recall that Mr Flynt said "If you dont like Hustler magazine, dont read it". It is the same for Stern. He has a right to be on the air, those who are offended simply should not tune in. A more scary issue here is how King George W Bush and his right wing buddies can have such influence over the airwaves. To me, were I Bush, I would concentrate more on my re-election campaign and worrying about how Iam going to get re-elected with a bad economy, a budget deficit and an unpopular war, and not try to control the airwaves by making waves for Stern. (Not that Iam voting for Bush anyway, no matter what he does, because as I stated on here, due to all these issues, and the fact that Iam a Democrat, and think Bush is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had, I would never vote for him) This issue is an important one, and goes to freedom of the press, and should make us all petrified of what will be if we have another term of this "President" who is in reality more of a dictator, using the sheild of "Democracy"

Mitch

 

[AphxA]

Wow! soon we will become a communist country. ::takes freedoms and flushes them down the toilet::

 

[The Sean Man]

Paranoia will destroy ya....

The Sean Man

 

[maniactickler]

its not just republicans that are doing this. liberals are equally at fault if not worse for taking away our freedoms. the government is getting completely out of control period!

 

[Murtagh]

Yeah, well that's it! I'm moving to Canada!

 

[The Sean Man]

Ya know, these tight-assed control freaks in our government could loosen up if they'd just legalize marijuana and prostitution.....

The Sean Man

 

[ShadowTklr]

its not just republicans that are doing this. liberals are equally at fault if not worse for taking away our freedoms. the government is getting completely out of control period!

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.

 

[asutickler]

*groan*


A privately owned business such as a radio station has the right to do with their own property as they see fit. This includes tailoring their programming to suit their own political views. "Freedom of speech" does not guarantee freedom from the potential consequences of your speech. If I owned Clear Channel Communications, I would have thrown Howard Stern off of the air simply for being an asshole who thrives on offending people and stirring up sh*t.


Oh, and btw... Rush Limbaugh's support for Stern in this matter only serves to (further) demonstrate that Limbaugh is a money-grubbing shill who would change his phony-ass political "beliefs" on a moment's notice if he thought it would increase his bottom line by even a tenth of a percent.

 

[maniactickler]

well, its pretty obvious liberals are known for continuously raising taxes not to mention breeding more and more welfare recipients so in turn more and more people are dependent on the government. which means less power for the people, and more power for an ever growing government. basically turning this country into a milder form of what russia used to be.

 

[ShadowTklr]

A privately owned business such as a radio station has the right to do with their own property as they see fit. This includes tailoring their programming to suit their own political views. "Freedom of speech" does not guarantee freedom from the potential consequences of your speech. If I owned Clear Channel Communications, I would have thrown Howard Stern off of the air simply for being an asshole who thrives on offending people and stirring up sh*t.


Oh, and btw... Rush Limbaugh's support for Stern in this matter only serves to (further) demonstrate that Limbaugh is a money-grubbing shill who would change his phony-ass political "beliefs" on a moment's notice if he thought it would increase his bottom line by even a tenth of a percent.

I understand what you're trying to say, but if you censor Stern's right to say things "simply for being an asshole," then where do your own personal rights terminate? You have to be prepared to limit your own personal freedoms to the same extent that you are willing to limit others; even more so, since you don't have any political clout or million dollar lobbyists of your own.

Rush Limbaugh is a spoonful of shit-meal to be sure, and he DID actually change his political beliefs to suit his own situation when it was HIS sorry drug-addicted ass in the hot seat. BUT, he happens to be right on this one rare ocassion. He understands that he walks the same slippery slope if Stern's brand of free speech is considered fodder for censorship.

If anyone doesn't understand the extent to which Bush is an Anti-American, they only need look at his track record for non-disclosure, manipulation, unlawful imprisonment, counter-constitutional rhetoric, and his willingness to send 530 American soldiers to their death under the pretext of a LIE. The fact that he wielded influence with Clear Channel in order to get Stern removed from those markets is a mere clink in the old spittoon. It is the worst kind of constitutional corruption and it needs to be recognized by us all; not just those who agree with Stern.

The Bush administration is attempting to condition American philosophy to believe that the sacrifice of our personal freedoms in this country should be considered an acceptable trade-off to security, decency, and family. Rather than helping to unite Americans at a time of cataclysm, he instead used the tragedy of 9/11 to infiltrate the state of mind of Americans and manipulate us all through fear for the sake of his own political gain.

Every time this Napoleanic little communist wanna-be opens his mouth, America stands to lose. So, even if you think Stern is an asshole (which as it stands is STILL your right to say out loud), you MUST defend his right to BE that asshole; for in his defense lies the defense of YOUR rights to say, and think, and do what you wish without fear of reprisal or governmental interference.

 

[venray]

My 2 cents.......🙄

 

[MrMacphisto]

*groan*


A privately owned business such as a radio station has the right to do with their own property as they see fit. This includes tailoring their programming to suit their own political views. "Freedom of speech" does not guarantee freedom from the potential consequences of your speech. If I owned Clear Channel Communications, I would have thrown Howard Stern off of the air simply for being an asshole who thrives on offending people and stirring up sh*t.


Oh, and btw... Rush Limbaugh's support for Stern in this matter only serves to (further) demonstrate that Limbaugh is a money-grubbing shill who would change his phony-ass political "beliefs" on a moment's notice if he thought it would increase his bottom line by even a tenth of a percent.

For once... I agree with this guy... I don't agree as to how he would use Clear Channel, but I agree that Clear Channel has a right to do what it wants to with its own stations. However, the issue is not Clear Channel's autonomy. The issue is that the FCC is the reason behind Clear Channel's choice. Stern obviously brings in a lot of revenue from his broadcasts. Perhaps, a lot of people are offended by his show, but apparently, enough people like his show to have kept him on the air this long. Clear Channel is just as much about the bottom line as Rush is, and they wouldn't dump Stern without pressure from the FCC.

The FCC's purpose is rather vague at times. In the beginning, it was a regulatory organization that monitored the use of radio and TV more from the technical side of things than the "ethical" and "decency" side of things. Certain codes were set into place as to what was acceptable and what wasn't, but for the last several decades, the FCC has become increasingly political. As an organization, they've become very conservative in the last few years, and apparently, they seem intent upon making laws concerning profanity and sexual content more restrictive. The question I have for them and these stuck-up activist groups is: ARE WE STILL FUCKING PURITANS?! For God's sake, you'd think this culture wouldn't be so fucking uptight about profanity, nudity, and sex if we've already embraced violence in our media. If I had children, I'd rather they see a naked person on TV than someone getting beat to death. I'd rather they hear someone say "fuck" than give them the impression that violence is a viable means of communication. In conclusion, lately, the FCC is only furthering the dysfunctionality of our culture by being very inconsistent in its censorship.

 

[grippedchimp]

Geez... I never thought Janet Jackson's mammory gland could do this much damage to a country, particularly a country as powerful as the USA. Kinda reminds me of the Taliban way of life...

 

[ShadowTklr]

My 2 cents.......🙄

Hey Venray. That cartoon is funny as shit. I don't know what perspective it represents, considering that limbaugh was defending Sterns right to be on the air, but its still funny! LOL

 

[ticklebutton]

Hi Shadow...

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

Button 😛

 

[venray]

Hey Venray. That cartoon is funny as shit. I don't know what perspective it represents, considering that limbaugh was defending Sterns right to be on the air, but its still funny! LOL

It represents the "this whole topic is goofy" perspective. It means nothing more than what it is.LOL

Ven

 

[fttickler]

My 2 cents... because I am over due for postings this month

I remembered something reading these posts. First I agree.. Except for the tickling, I am no Howard Stern Fan. I am also no Russ Limbaugh fan. I do have people I have worked with that work for Clear Channel here in NY. That said, Somewhere it says " By the People, For the People. Time for a rewrite. First reason. Marcone was not around when that was written, and neither was radio. Second, It should be rephrased to be more updated for the times. Now it should say " By a FEW people, for a FEW CHOSEN people.




fttickler😱

 

[lite]

I'm confused...

well, its pretty obvious liberals are known for continuously raising taxes not to mention breeding more and more welfare recipients so in turn more and more people are dependent on the government. which means less power for the people, and more power for an ever growing government. basically turning this country into a milder form of what russia used to be.

What legislation are you referring to here? I only ask because I assumed you were responding to the request to cite a piece of legislation that had been introduced by democrats.

😕

 

[SlaverTickler]

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.