Bush and the FCC - it all amounts to a crock of s___

[camoor]

Under the newly passed Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, signed by President Bush on June 15, individual broadcasters can be fined $325,000 for using an "excretory" remark on television during daytime hours. While I'm on government fines, it's worth noting the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant is $250 per worker.

But you know, at least the GOP's big government apparatus is going after guys who talk about poop on television...
Like President Bush, who said the word "shit" on CNN today.

...

So may I suggest that -- for the sake of the children -- President Bush be the first person to be penalized under the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005? $325,000 in the government swear jar to set a good example because profanity on television is a bad trend, a bad sign. In addition, Senators Brownback and Stevens along with Rep. Upton get to wash his mouth out with soap. Perhaps spank him, like a good traditional parent. Because President Bush, a role model for children all across this flat Earth, said "shit" on television.
Or... He could ask Congress to repeal this ridiculous law which only succeeds in shitting on the First Amendment and furthering the president's caricature as a major league asshole.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/thatll-be-325000-in-th_b_25194.html

I'm betting that rules against swearing only apply to the "little people".

[Kayden]

O_o.... woa

[Kaijufan]

Bush needs to stop signing everything that comes across his desk.

[Quillion]

So wouldn't that make the news organizations who aired the remark responsible for the fines?

Under the newly passed Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, signed by President Bush on June 15, individual broadcasters can be fined $325,000 for using an "excretory" remark on television during daytime hours.

That was a private conversation that happened to get picked up by a microphone, then aired/discussed over and over.

I think a far more telling story is how rude Bush was to Blair in that video. Talking with his mouth full, interrupting constantly. Blair must have extraordinary patience to deal with that.

[CocheseUGA]

So wouldn't that make the news organizations who aired the remark responsible for the fines?



Exactly. Just like CBS had to pay for the SB fiasco.

[Liquid 2]

Bush needs to stop signing everything that comes across his desk.that would require reading:roll:

[Kayden]

So wouldn't that make the news organizations who aired the remark responsible for the fines?



That was a private conversation that happened to get picked up by a microphone, then aired/discussed over and over.

I think a far more telling story is how rude Bush was to Blair in that video. Talking with his mouth full, interrupting constantly. Blair must have extraordinary patience to deal with that.

He is Brittish. :lol:

[Quackzilla]

I think a far more telling story is how rude Bush was to Blair in that video. Talking with his mouth full, interrupting constantly. Blair must have extraordinary patience to deal with that.
He deals with it bcause he actually cares abou tthe people who are dieing...

[CappyCobra]

Bush needs to stop signing everything that comes across his desk.
He still uses a pen? I could have sworn he switched to rubber stamps long ago... :lol:

[GuilewasNK]

It was played unedited several times on CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News. At least he didn't say he wanted Iran wiped off the map like they did about Israel.

About the cursing and talking with a full mouth, he's just keepin' it real dog. :roll:

Also, in regards to CNN and the other cable programs that aired the unedited s-bomb, I'm pretty sure FCC rules only apply to over-the-air broadcasts. I saw more nudity on PBS than the Super Bowl. But millions don't watch PBS when Masterpiece Theater is on either. Much ado about nothing either way you look at it.

[CocheseUGA]

It was played unedited several times on CNN, MSNBC, and Headline News. At least he didn't say he wanted Iran wiped off the map like they did about Israel.

About the cursing and talking with a full mouth, he's just keepin' it real dog. :roll:

Also, in regards to CNN and the other cable programs that aired the unedited s-bomb, I'm pretty sure FCC rules only apply to over-the-air broadcasts. I saw more nudity on PBS than the Super Bowl. But millions don't watch PBS when Masterpiece Theater is on either. Much ado about nothing either way you look at it.

Not true. You should have seen the look on Craig Sager's face when Shaq dropped an F-bomb on TNT.

[GuilewasNK]

Not true. You should have seen the look on Craig Sager's face when Shaq dropped an F-bomb on TNT.

I could have sworn the FCC doesn't have the power to fine cable networks. Sager just know advertisers don't want any part of the colorful language.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/index.html

The government does not regulate shows distributed over cable or satellite television for indecency.

[CocheseUGA]

I could have sworn the FCC doesn't have the power to fine cable networks. Sager just know advertisers don't want any part of the colorful language.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/index.html

Heh. I figured when Stevens ("Billions and Billions of Tubes!") pushed for his law, it would have went through.

But Sager had a look on his face like, 'Oh fuck, there goes the Xmas bonus money.'

[camoor]

I heard Bush's S-bomb on CSpan and NPR, both on traditional radio. I don't know if any of the gutless networks played it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fox ignored the expletive (kind of reminds me of Richard "Expletive-Deleted" Nixon)

[mykevermin]

Oh noes, the bad word was said!!!

Seriously, who the fuck cares that the president said one naughty word? There's enough fodder proving him to be a lying, incapable buffoon; you don't need to pick on everything the poor dumb bastard does. I fuckin' swear, you guys would have a thirty page thread about his goddamn hangnail if DailyKos mentioned it.

[camoor]

Oh noes, the bad word was said!!!

Seriously, who the fuck cares that the president said one naughty word? There's enough fodder proving him to be a lying, incapable buffoon; you don't need to pick on everything the poor dumb bastard does. I fuckin' swear, you guys would have a thirty page thread about his goddamn hangnail if DailyKos mentioned it.

I'm not the one who signed a bill into law stating that expletives over the air was a 1/3 million dollar mistake, effectively 1200x worse then hiring an illegal immigrant in the eyes of the Feds.

Of course most of this board disagrees with the Bush policy, however we would at least like to see some consistency. Besides - if people can't understand the larger actions by which the executive branch is accumulating unconstitutionally large power, maybe they can be woken up by the small shit.

[Kayden]

Do you think he signed this to keep people from airing him swearing? As it says, the fine is for the broadcaster, not the actual speaker of the word.

[camoor]

Do you think he signed this to keep people from airing him swearing? As it says, the fine is for the broadcaster, not the actual speaker of the word.

If the airing of an expletive on the air is such a damaging act that Bush has confirmed it of deserving a $300,000+ fine, a reasonable person would expect Bush to refrain from swearing with a microphone in his face.

It's the equivelent signing a bill that endorses jailtime for prostitutes, and then going out to hire a pro.

[Metal Boss]

He is such a fucking ape

smacking his lips and eating while talking at the same time while throwing around swear words, It's great insight into how he actually talks with people and conducts himself, although it's not shocking. It's alot more about his actual demeanor and the sheer stupidity of offering the advice "they should stop doing this shit".

[mykevermin]

talking with his mouth open

Aw hell naw.

[Metal Boss]

meh it's early for me, quiet you.

[Kayden]

In order to keep from looking bad by having it rebroadcast, they put a fine on it. Don't you fin it odd that theres only a punishment for "excrement" and not swearing in general?

If he gets caught saying fuck they'll probably make something simular for talking of copulation.

If the airing of an expletive on the air is such a damaging act that Bush has confirmed it of deserving a $300,000+ fine, a reasonable person would expect Bush to refrain from swearing with a microphone in his face.

It's the equivelent signing a bill that endorses jailtime for prostitutes, and then going out to hire a pro.

[GuilewasNK]

Do you think he signed this to keep people from airing him swearing? As it says, the fine is for the broadcaster, not the actual speaker of the word.

I have always had a problem with that. Janet Jackson should have had to pay a "per titty" fine, not CBS.

He is such a fucking ape

smacking his lips and eating while talking at the same time while throwing around swear words, It's great insight into how he actually talks with people and conducts himself, although it's not shocking. It's alot more about his actual demeanor and the sheer stupidity of offering the advice "they should stop doing this shit".

He said shit. The situation is shit. I wouldn't be surprised if Blair privately wished Hezbollah would "bugger off". They all just have to be wary of the mic. Yes, a higher standard must be held and all that but lets face it, like myke said it was one bad word. Whether people like Bush or not, that incident was barely newsworthy. It was amusing though.

Perhaps we can introduce him to fuck instead? :lol:

[camoor]

I have always had a problem with that. Janet Jackson should have had to pay a "per titty" fine, not CBS.

Don't worry - through legales the corporations have insulated themselves, now the star journalist, producer, and/or sound editor will pay the bulk of a fine if an expletive is aired (or else they will get fired).

He said shit. The situation is shit. I wouldn't be surprised if Blair privately wished Hezbollah would "bugger off". They all just have to be wary of the mic. Yes, a higher standard must be held and all that but lets face it, like myke said it was one bad word. Whether people like Bush or not, that incident was barely newsworthy. It was amusing though.

Perhaps we can introduce him to fuck instead? :lol:

This is that whole "why are cops catching me speeding when they should be catching murderers" line of BS. Just because it isn't as big a deal as WMDs, it doesn't mean that we should ignore one more instance of the two-tiered system of rules (one for the ruling elite, the other for the little people)

[CocheseUGA]

Don't worry - through legales the corporations have insulated themselves, now the star journalist, producer, and/or sound editor will pay the bulk of a fine if an expletive is aired (or else they will get fired).



This is that whole "why are cops catching me speeding when they should be catching murderers" line of BS. Just because it isn't as big a deal as WMDs, it doesn't mean that we should ignore one more instance of the two-tiered system of rules (one for the ruling elite, the other for the little people)

Perhaps he was showing everyone how it worked? :D

[GuilewasNK]

This is that whole "why are cops catching me speeding when they should be catching murderers" line of BS. Just because it isn't as big a deal as WMDs, it doesn't mean that we should ignore one more instance of the two-tiered system of rules (one for the ruling elite, the other for the little people)

?

I don't follow.

[Quillion]

Don't worry - through legales the corporations have insulated themselves, now the star journalist, producer, and/or sound editor will pay the bulk of a fine if an expletive is aired (or else they will get fired).

This is that whole "why are cops catching me speeding when they should be catching murderers" line of BS. Just because it isn't as big a deal as WMDs, it doesn't mean that we should ignore one more instance of the two-tiered system of rules (one for the ruling elite, the other for the little people)

Talk about blowing this shit out of proportion. It is barely newsworthy, you're just looking for any justification to hate the man.

Hate him for the incompetence, the cronyism, the violations of the constitution, the profiteering, the ignorance, the inability to admit mistakes, the religious mandate, not for saying one dirty word.

[CocheseUGA]

It really should be the CAG's "vs. Bush" forum.

[Ace-Of-War]

It really should be the CAG's "vs. Bush" forum.

Hey, it's not CAG's fault that everything wrong with the world is because of the President.

I also like how camoor said that the rules of swearing only apply to the "little people." Yeah, the little people like Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney, News Corp... You'd think they'd want to take lots of money from these corporations.

[Msut77]

Hey, it's not CAG's fault that everything wrong with the world is because of the President.

I pity you.

[elprincipe]

It really should be the CAG's "vs. Bush" forum.

It seems that way sometimes around here, doesn't it? What really astounds me whenever I read posts on this board is how I, as someone who doesn't really like a lot of Bush policies, not to mention a lot of other things about him, end up coming off as his supporter as often as not due to the incessant bashing for literally everything wrong in this country and the world.

[alonzomourning23]

Ok, I can see putting this in the news. It's a nice light article, a little chuckle, then move on. I mean really, this is a non story, definately shouldn't be around longer than the first day. I mean he really shouldn't be sitting there eating and talking with his mouth full, but (considering he's supposed to be a world leader) I found that more amusing than this whole "shit thing".

[CocheseUGA]

I found that more amusing than this whole "shit thing".

You want a good chuckle, watch the House of Commons when Blair or any PM is there.

[alonzomourning23]

I've only seen that once or twice, but I used to love watching the canadian parliament. It was nothing like watching the senate or house in the u.s., it seemed like I was watching action politics. I watched that whenever I had the time. I'd love to see that here, Bush starts giving a speech and gets into a shouting match with democrats.

[camoor]

Hey, it's not CAG's fault that everything wrong with the world is because of the President.

I also like how camoor said that the rules of swearing only apply to the "little people." Yeah, the little people like Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney, News Corp... You'd think they'd want to take lots of money from these corporations.

You think that Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney, News Corp... are going to end up paying that fine, and that it won't be passed on to the producer/sound engineer/reporter who slipped for a microsecond?

Are you still holding out hope that they'll find WMDS in Iraq too?

[Brak]

Using this as ammo, in way of claiming Bush is a bad president, is petty, and hypocritical, to say the least.

Why? If you're a "free-thinker", by any means, you know feel there's nothing wrong with cussing, and everything wrong with censorship. Now, that only leaves the option of thinking Bush is irresponsible for cussing on live television, when there are FCC standards and practices in way of doing so... even though he didn't voluntarily cuss on television, as it was picked up on accident.

Scrounging for complaints: rendered useless.

Air my talking head on CNN so's I can tell you to "get fucked."

[CocheseUGA]

Using this as ammo, in way of claiming Bush is a bad president, is petty, and hypocritical, to say the least.


I think that's pretty much my line of thinking as well. It's really petty to use this to pile on, so to speak. Want to hate on the President at every opportunity? Fine. Pick better arguements. I'm sure it would be easy.


BTW, for those interested, I did vote for Bush. I'm on the conservative side of libertarian. It was pretty much a given that I'd kill myself soon as see Gore or Kerry occupy the White House. If you want to ask me why, that's another thread.

[Ace-Of-War]

You think that Clear Channel, Viacom, Disney, News Corp... are going to end up paying that fine, and that it won't be passed on to the producer/sound engineer/reporter who slipped for a microsecond?

I guess that's why Howard Stern's ass was kicked to the curb? Clear Channel kicked him off instead of "passing on" the fines. Why would they kill arguably the most recognized and popular man in radio when they could just make him pay for his offensive bs?

[camoor]

I guess that's why Howard Stern's ass was kicked to the curb? Clear Channel kicked him off instead of "passing on" the fines. Why would they kill arguably the most recognized and popular man in radio when they could just make him pay for his offensive bs?

Howard Stern quit - he wasn't "kicked to the curb".


Further, Clear Channel — the industry’s largest radio chain with more than 1,200 stations — has reworked its talent contracts to include “indemnification language,” said Andy Levin, executive vice president for government affairs. Translation: If a Clear Channel host says anything that prompts an FCC fine, that host — not Clear Channel — is responsible for paying.


http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=296926&Category=20

[CocheseUGA]

Howard Stern quit - he wasn't "kicked to the curb".



http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=296926&Category=20

Please don't use Clear Channel as an example. Everytime I see their name I want to vomit for the utter shit they trot out as formats.

And don't get me started on Beasley. So craptastic, they have to air Lex and Terry to lower themselves further.

[camoor]

Please don't use Clear Channel as an example. Everytime I see their name I want to vomit for the utter shit they trot out as formats.

And don't get me started on Beasley. So craptastic, they have to air Lex and Terry to lower themselves further.

You should really address this to Ace-of-War, I was just factually refuting him about a point that he was 100% incorrect on.

Although I have no idea what "formats" have to do with any of this.

[CocheseUGA]

You should really address this to Ace-of-War, I was just factually refuting him about a point that he was 100% incorrect on.

Although I have no idea what "formats" have to do with any of this.

Clear Channel make Hulk angry.

[mykevermin]

How is one who describes themselves as "the conservative side of libertarian" bothered by a highly successful corporation? Forgive me if I would like more of an explanation than "Hulk angry."

I'm deliberately threadcrapping because this topic is silly and demonstrative of people's Pavlovian reactions to Bush's actions. To criticize him for saying shit makes you look like a fool. Criticize him for vetoing a bill that 70-75% of Americans supported, criticize him for the phony logic in "preserving life" that he purports to background his feelings on the issue. But for saying "shit"?!?! Yinz would criticize him for breathing if you could.

[CocheseUGA]

How is one who describes themselves as "the conservative side of libertarian" bothered by a highly successful corporation? Forgive me if I would like more of an explanation than "Hulk angry."


It's not the business, it's the type of music and format they push. They continue to throw shit music on the air, and try to buy up every single station they can. While I support business, I don't support an oligopoly. Especially one that pushes pop punk feces.

And on a personal note, they've destroyed one of my favorite stations in Atlanta (AM). Fired almost everyone, and I wouldn't put it past them to fire the one reason I have left to listen.

[Ace-Of-War]

Howard Stern quit - he wasn't "kicked to the curb".

Right, let's just call it forced retirement.

http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=296926&Category=20 (http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=296926&Category=20)

Do you have an example of them actually shifting the fine to the person rather than the corporation? The rules I know of at Clear Channel invoke firing the person instead. I read your article but I don't see any examples of the policy in action. I have seen many places fire people for a breach of decency though.

[camoor]

Right, let's just call it forced retirement.


Or we could look in the facts.




Do you have an example of them actually shifting the fine to the person rather than the corporation? The rules I know of at Clear Channel invoke firing the person instead. I read your article but I don't see any examples of the policy in action. I have seen many places fire people for a breach of decency though.

When a corporation gets it's lawyers to protect it from paying a fine by shifting the fine to an employee, do you think that they will act like "nice guys" and go ahead and just pony up the dough if a mistake is made?

Hint: It's a [URL="http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rhetorical"]rhetorical (http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=296926&Category=20)question.

[CocheseUGA]

Or we could look in the facts.





He quit, but he really didn't have a choice. I think this is one of those gray area situations. If he stays, he has to change his show. He does that, he's gonna get fired eventually because of low ratings.

[camoor]

He quit, but he really didn't have a choice. I think this is one of those gray area situations. If he stays, he has to change his show. He does that, he's gonna get fired eventually because of low ratings.

There's no way he's going to be fired. They might lower his pay to a rate that he finds unacceptable or scale down the markets that he would operate in, but he would have still been too popular to fire outright - IE it would have been a bad business decision, and Howard has enough business saavy that he could have used the firing to his advantage in business negotiations and marketing for future ventures.

[CocheseUGA]

There's no way he's going to be fired. They might lower his pay to a rate that he finds unacceptable or scale down the markets that he would operate in, but he would have still been too popular to fire outright - IE it would have been a bad business decision, and Howard has enough business saavy that he could have used the firing to his advantage in business negotiations and marketing for future ventures.

That's the point. That's why Sirius hired him, he's popular. He brought (some) listeners to Sirius. You make him water down his show to comply with FCC rules, he's not going to attract near as many listeners. Once it reaches a point where they see the profits disappear (big contract, little ad revenue), he's gone. He can only broadcast one way, much like those hackjobs Lex and Terry (no talent assclowns).

[Ace-Of-War]

Or we could look in the facts.

He was a liability towards the end of last year, always talking about how he's going to move to Satellite. How Sirius is great, how the FCC sucks... blah blah blah. I think it's safe to say that if he hadn't have gotten the contract with Sirius, they would've pulled the plug. Especially with these new increased fines that this thread is talking about.

When a corporation gets it's lawyers to protect it from paying a fine by shifting the fine to an employee, do you think that they will act like "nice guys" and go ahead and just pony up the dough if a mistake is made?

Hint: It's a rhetorical (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rhetorical)question.

No shit. I asked you to point out an example, which you obviously can't seeing as how you're trying to change the subject. Give me one big, or even moderately big, radio personality that was forced to pay these fines.

[camoor]

No shit. I asked you to point out an example, which you obviously can't seeing as how you're trying to change the subject. Give me one big, or even moderately big, radio personality that was forced to pay these fines.

So wait - you agree that when these fines do hit, Clear Channel will dodge them. Yet you want an example of the fines being paid when they were just instituted less then a year ago, and can be tied in litigation for years before a payment must be made?

I'd continue pointing out your misstatements, but I can't figure out why I should care.

[Ace-Of-War]

So wait - you agree that when these fines do hit, Clear Channel will dodge them. Yet you want an example of the fines being paid when they were just instituted less then a year ago, and can be tied in litigation for years before a payment must be made?

I'd continue pointing out your misstatements, but I can't figure out why I should care.

It's not a misstatement when you can't read:

Do you have an example of them actually shifting the fine to the person rather than the corporation? The rules I know of at Clear Channel invoke firing the person instead.

Any example, throughout the history of the earth. Local radio DJ pays the FCC x amount of dollars as per his contractual requirements. The way I've known it always worked is that the person just gets fired or suspended, and I can provide examples of that. I've never heard of the personality actually paying the fine, as you claim, and I would like to see if you can show me anyone who has. Can you or can you not do that?

[mykevermin]

It's not the business, it's the type of music and format they push. They continue to throw shit music on the air, and try to buy up every single station they can. While I support business, I don't support an oligopoly. Especially one that pushes pop punk feces.

And on a personal note, they've destroyed one of my favorite stations in Atlanta (AM). Fired almost everyone, and I wouldn't put it past them to fire the one reason I have left to listen.

Well, them's the breaks in a free market, no? I do sympathize, but, hey, I'm a big ol' "break up the monopolies" liberal, so of course I sympathize.

[camoor]

Any example, throughout the history of the earth. Local radio DJ pays the FCC x amount of dollars as per his contractual requirements. The way I've known it always worked is that the person just gets fired or suspended, and I can provide examples of that. I've never heard of the personality actually paying the fine, as you claim, and I would like to see if you can show me anyone who has. Can you or can you not do that?

This is (legally speaking) new legislation, the legalese by which corporations are leaving their broadcasters swinging in the wind in regards to these fines is even newer, and I know of no case (which would have to be started after the corporations protected themselves, mind you) in which all appeal attempts were exhausted and the accused obscenity speaker (or host of the show thereof) was forced to pay the fine. There will probably be one in 3 years, if the obscenity laws don't get striken because they are unconstitutional.

It's more complicated then you believe (or pretend to believe, anyway). I don't know of any way to simplify it any further so that you can understand.

[Ace-Of-War]

...I know of no case...

This is really all you needed to say. Your first post is misleading because none of these "little people" have or will ever be fined ridiculous amounts. You'll never be able to find an example of some radio engineer in Hicksville, Mississippi who is fined 325K dollars when he makes around 22K a year. That's just empty rhetoric you dish out because you hate the President and everything he stands for. It's not as though you have much of a choice when Adrianna Huffington is your source for news. :roll:

[schuerm26]

Bush is responsible for all our problems just like Alex Rodriguez is responsible for all of the Yankees problems.

[GuilewasNK]

I'd rather an Independent take the reins one day. I know I am in the minority in that regard, but Republicans and Democrats have had their shot and this country needs a breath of fresh air.

Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.

[elprincipe]

Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.

It's impossible anyway, since there are plenty of issues where people have directly contradicting views.

[camoor]

This is really all you needed to say. Your first post is misleading because none of these "little people" have or will ever be fined ridiculous amounts. You'll never be able to find an example of some radio engineer in Hicksville, Mississippi who is fined 325K dollars when he makes around 22K a year. That's just empty rhetoric you dish out because you hate the President and everything he stands for. It's not as though you have much of a choice when Adrianna Huffington is your source for news. :roll:

I knew I couldn't get you to understand. I don't possess the near-infinite patience to sit here and dumb down the legal system until you get it, and I don't have the time to simplify my points into a snappy youtube video with cartoon characters that sing the lesson in a way that even you can understand.

Stay the course, Ace, stay the course!

[camoor]

Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.

Who are you, Abe Lincoln? ;)

[CocheseUGA]

I knew I couldn't get you to understand. I don't possess the near-infinite patience to sit here and dumb down the legal system until you get it, and I don't have the time to simplify my points into a snappy youtube video with cartoon characters that sing the lesson in a way that even you can understand.

Stay the course, Ace, stay the course!

It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.

[camoor]

It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.

Ace-of-war MichaelMoore'd my post with his selective quoting, so I had a little fun razzing him.

Calm down dude, that vein in your head is going to burst ;) .

[Ace-Of-War]

It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.

I don't particularly care if he insults me, that's what liberals do. I just hope someone else who might have otherwise taken his post as truth would see his rant for what it really is: scare tactics. The FCC isn't a tool to put people in the poor house as camoor would suggest, it's just an entity to help defend the freedom of choice for millions of Americans. The V-Chip would be a better example, coupled with appropriate rating guides, people can choose what they want to watch based on the rating it gets. They don't have to follow it, but it's just a helpful tool that provides you with information about a particular show. You can keep it strictly familiy-oriented, or you can go the whole nine and pick up the Playboy channel. The point is that you should be the one who has the power over what you want to see.

[camoor]

I don't particularly care if he insults me, that's what liberals do. I just hope someone else who might have otherwise taken his post as truth would see his rant for what it really is: scare tactics. The FCC isn't a tool to put people in the poor house as camoor would suggest, it's just an entity to help defend the freedom of choice for millions of Americans. The V-Chip would be a better example, coupled with appropriate rating guides, people can choose what they want to watch based on the rating it gets. They don't have to follow it, but it's just a helpful tool that provides you with information about a particular show. You can keep it strictly familiy-oriented, or you can go the whole nine and pick up the Playboy channel. The point is that you should be the one who has the power over what you want to see.

The hypocrisy in your first three sentences is mind-boggling, to say the least.

1. Insults are what "liberals do"? So you are saying that "conservatives" never deign to, say, issue legislative slaps in the face to religions other then christianity, or call into question the patriotic virtues of veterans when they dare to challenge leadership. Please tell me you were joking.
2. Scare tactics? From someone who supports war against an entire people because less then .1% decided to launch a terrorist act. Clean out the terrorist bogeyman hiding under your bed before accusing others of scare tactics.
3. FCC defending freedom. Is that why they bowed down in front of the parent groups and gave into pressure to limit free speech and ban the exploration of adult themes at an appropriate hour- while selling the farm to 2 multi-conglomerates who now run a virtual monopoly of the radio business? What if you can't afford the playboy channel, shouldn't the government stay out of regulating what you see on broadcast TV - oh yeah I forgot that freedom is now a pay-to-play business in the new Amerika.

[Ace-Of-War]

1. Insults are what "liberals do"? So you are saying that "conservatives" never deign to, say, issue legislative slaps in the face to religions other then christianity, or call into question the patriotic virtues of veterans when they dare to challenge leadership. Please tell me you were joking.

No, I'm not joking. We could get into a little bitchfest quoting individuals who represent both sides of the aisle, but as is apparent from your hostility and overall elitism, I was just generalizing you and your kind.

2. Scare tactics? From someone who supports war against an entire people because less then .1% decided to launch a terrorist act. Clean out the terrorist bogeyman hiding under your bed before accusing others of scare tactics.

Way to dodge the issue, it's what's called a red herring in the world of logical fallacies. If you want to debate terrorism, maybe you should be in a thread designed for that.

Scare tactics is an apt description because you're claiming that all of the "little people" are getting to get hurt by this legislation when you have nothing to back up these claims. You know damn well the government isn't going to enforce fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at people who will never make make that much money in a lifetime, but you ignore your own common sense to make a swipe at the President. Rest assured it's not the first time it's happened, but it's still intellectually dishonest nonetheless. Hence the term, scare tactics.

3. FCC defending freedom. Is that why they bowed down in front of the parent groups and gave into pressure to limit free speech and ban the exploration of adult themes at an appropriate hour- while selling the farm to 2 multi-conglomerates who now run a virtual monopoly of the radio business? What if you can't afford the playboy channel, shouldn't the government stay out of regulating what you see on broadcast TV - oh yeah I forgot that freedom is now a pay-to-play business in the new Amerika.

Limit free speech? I want you to watch The Sopranos with me and tell me how much limitations they have. The problem is you aren't looking at this the right way. First of all, if you can't afford 15 dollars a month, porn shouldn't be your number one priority to begin with. Second of all, I love how you're this big supporter of the free market system when it comes to censorship of your precious pornography, but I'll bet if the FDA didn't step in to make sure companies were abiding by U.S. government regulations when selling you produce you'd be all in an uproar.

All the FCC does is let's you know what you're going to see/hear before you see/hear it. What's wrong with choice? What's wrong with being informed? Nothing, nothing is wrong about either of those. People have a right to know what they will and will not see, because after all, we still live in a free society, camoor.

[camoor]

No, I'm not joking. We could get into a little bitchfest quoting individuals who represent both sides of the aisle, but as is apparent from your hostility and overall elitism, I was just generalizing you and your kind.
Way to dodge the issue, it's what's called a red herring in the world of logical fallacies. If you want to debate terrorism, maybe you should be in a thread designed for that.
Scare tactics is an apt description because you're claiming that all of the "little people" are getting to get hurt by this legislation when you have nothing to back up these claims. You know damn well the government isn't going to enforce fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at people who will never make make that much money in a lifetime, but you ignore your own common sense to make a swipe at the President. Rest assured it's not the first time it's happened, but it's still intellectually dishonest nonetheless. Hence the term, scare tactics.


You read that into my posts. I was talking about people like Howard Stern or Bubba being hit by fines - millionares who can afford even the astronomical fines that the FCC are leveling at them. It limits free speech (who wants to be hit by huge fines - be they poor or rich) and it doesn't make it right even though they can pay.

Limit free speech? I want you to watch The Sopranos with me and tell me how much limitations they have. The problem is you aren't looking at this the right way. First of all, if you can't afford 15 dollars a month, porn shouldn't be your number one priority to begin with. Second of all, I love how you're this big supporter of the free market system when it comes to censorship of your precious pornography, but I'll bet if the FDA didn't step in to make sure companies were abiding by U.S. government regulations when selling you produce you'd be all in an uproar.

All the FCC does is let's you know what you're going to see/hear before you see/hear it. What's wrong with choice? What's wrong with being informed? Nothing, nothing is wrong about either of those. People have a right to know what they will and will not see, because after all, we still live in a free society, camoor.

Wow - you can get the Sopranos for $15 a month - thats a great deal - in my area cable tv costs 60 a month and the premium channels like HBO are on top of that - you may be rich but that's alot of money for the average American.

The porn comparison to produce - where does that come from - you're looking at cucumbers and melons a bit too closely - seriously though, bad produce can kill you, but the most that bad porn can do is waste the time it takes to eject it from your VCR. Of course there is some porn which is downright inhumane for the participants, but I'm talking about your garden-variety bowchicawowow porn. Porn is protected as free speech, produce is not. Thomas Paine never said "Give me poisoned apples or give me death!"

Can I watch a serious and tasteful exploration of sexual themes late at night on network TV in the privacy of my own home without having the language and visual content edited down to a bunch of innane innuendo, bleeps, and fade-outs? Maybe if I'm in Europe, but not in the land of the "free". Informed is one thing, even V-chip (with all it's big brother trappings) is not yet being used in an overly abusive way, but censorship without regard to the hour (kids shouldn't be up so late) or the type of content (IE serious treatment vs complete exploitation) is indefensible. I'd like to see the government stay out of it entirely, but I'm willing to make a reasonable compromise for the "think of the children" crowd.

[CocheseUGA]

Some people exist just to argue.

[Ace-Of-War]

You read that into my posts. I was talking about people like Howard Stern or Bubba being hit by fines - millionares who can afford even the astronomical fines that the FCC are leveling at them. It limits free speech (who wants to be hit by huge fines - be they poor or rich) and it doesn't make it right even though they can pay.

At least tell it like it is. Howard Stern isn't "little people," and no one should assume such from the term.

Wow - you can get the Sopranos for $15 a month - thats a great deal - in my area cable tv costs 60 a month and the premium channels like HBO are on top of that - you may be rich but that's alot of money for the average American.

The porn comparison to produce - where does that come from - you're looking at cucumbers and melons a bit too closely - seriously though, bad produce can kill you, but the most that bad porn can do is waste the time it takes to eject it from your VCR. Of course there is some porn which is downright inhumane for the participants, but I'm talking about your garden-variety bowchicawowow porn. Porn is protected as free speech, produce is not. Thomas Paine never said "Give me poisoned apples or give me death!"

Can I watch a serious and tasteful exploration of sexual themes late at night on network TV in the privacy of my own home without having the language and visual content edited down to a bunch of innane innuendo, bleeps, and fade-outs? Maybe if I'm in Europe, but not in the land of the "free". Informed is one thing, even V-chip (with all it's big brother trappings) is not yet being used in an overly abusive way, but censorship without regard to the hour (kids shouldn't be up so late) or the type of content (IE serious treatment vs complete exploitation) is indefensible. I'd like to see the government stay out of it entirely, but I'm willing to make a reasonable compromise for the "think of the children" crowd.

I didn't include the fees associated with a cable box or a satellite dish service because those aren't affilated with the Playboy channel, but the Playboy channel costs 15 dollars a month. So if 15 dollars a month is rich in your neck of the woods, I'd imagine you were the one who's out of touch. Even still, you can find just about any kind of pornography you want on the internet, which is of course free in just about every spot on the planet now with the technology that wireless provides us.

I was simply pointing out here that while you deem it fit for "the government to stay out of it entirely," refering to cable companies and network television, you'd be up in arms if they weren't pushing FDA regulations, or perhaps if they did away with a minimum wage.

Finally, yes, you have every right to watch smut in your own home, but you don't have the right for it to be provided. The fact of the matter is, you have every resource at your fingertips to access this kind of entertainment, and should you choose to use them then that's your choice. You can't choose, however, to take away the controls that the public has over television to the degree that they can regulate it, individually. Although you yourself might prefer to watch pornography and violent videos often, everyone is different and others might not enjoy that same programming. When we establish a firm guideline we have a level of control so that we may choose what we want to see based on the content that we can expect to be on the show.

You do not have the right to take away knowledge, freedom, and choice from the American public because you're too lazy to pick up the Playboy Channel, get on the internet, or go buy a magazine.

[Msut77]

Hmmm, Using the word "Elitism" (which doesnt really mean much of anything) and the phrase "Your Kind" in one go?

Where can one start at that level of idiocy?

[camoor]

I was simply pointing out here that while you deem it fit for "the government to stay out of it entirely," refering to cable companies and network television, you'd be up in arms if they weren't pushing FDA regulations, or perhaps if they did away with a minimum wage.

In terms of the FDA - bad produce or meat can kill you. The minimum wage affects someone's entire livelihood, and IMO paying a fair wage is the humane thing to do.

If someone hears an f-word or sees a woman's breast late at night - can you really say that is as serious or as in need of government regulation as denying someone a fair wage or eliminating the government regulated impediments against roadside diners dumping salmonella-infested chicken on an unsuspecting public?

[CocheseUGA]

In terms of the FDA - bad produce or meat can kill you. The minimum wage affects someone's entire livelihood, and IMO paying a fair wage is the humane thing to do.

If someone hears an f-word or sees a woman's breast late at night - can you really say that is as serious or as in need of government regulation as denying someone a fair wage or eliminating the government regulated impediments against roadside diners dumping salmonella-infested chicken on an unsuspecting public?

Thought I'd let you know the FDA doesn't have anything to do with meat. DoA handles all meats and poultry, and local health departments are the sole provider and regulator of food safety in restuarants and groceries.

[camoor]

Thought I'd let you know the FDA doesn't have anything to do with meat. DoA handles all meats and poultry, and local health departments are the sole provider and regulator of food safety in restuarants and groceries.

Good call. It's ironic that Ace mentions the FDA because I'm a big proponent of greatly limiting the FDA's power to dictate which non-pharmaceutical drugs people can and can't take. We've all seen that the conservatives who speak loudest on this topic don't have any credibility (take Rush Limbaugh, for example...)

[Ace-Of-War]

All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to advocate ignorance for the American public just because you don't hear enough f-bombs on network television. I value knowledge and understanding more than seeing some televised boobs.

[Msut77]

All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to advocate ignorance for the American public just because you don't hear enough f-bombs on network television. I value knowledge and understanding more than seeing some televised boobs.


I think we can add knowledge and comprehension (along with honesty) to the list of things you dont value.

[camoor]

I think we can add knowledge and comprehension (along with honesty) to the list of things you dont value.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's talking about. Ratings are fine - I totally agree with telling the consumer what is going to be shown and what age it's appropriate for (even as determined by some detatched out-of-touch government body) - what I don't agree with is flat out censorship to the point that a gritty war movie about American sacrifice for freedom such as "Saving Private Ryan" needs to censor out the f word, or a late-night show such as ER can't show an educational medical diagnosis featuring a visual of a 60 year old woman's saggy breast.

[Ace-Of-War]

But you're the adult, camoor, the millions of children that watch television everyday in America are not. You have every resource at your disposal to easily watch any form of entertainment without corrupting network television. You can rent a DVD, use the digital cable/movie package, order a movie channel, go to the theater, go to a friend's house, etc etc... you can do a number of different things to satisfy your lust for pornography or cursing. Why is it that you want to bring down network television to those same depths? Is it too much to ask to have one small bastion of moderation and control in this country? I don't think so, I think it's fair, just, and it helps this entire country function a little easier knowing they can turn on a television and not have to watch "Horny Potter."

I honestly don't get your agenda. You have literally hundreds upon hundreds of channels on cable or satellite, that's not enough. You have adult megaplexes littering our streets, many open 24/7/365, that's not enough. You have a thriving, which would be an understatement, pornography industry online, where you can basically order or download just about any XXX movie ever made, that's not enough. You have violent and adult films being packaged into DVDs faster than ever before, that's not enough. Let me guess, you won't rest until every conceivable electronic media has some sort of boob on it?

[camoor]

But you're the adult, camoor, the millions of children that watch television everyday in America are not. You have every resource at your disposal to easily watch any form of entertainment without corrupting network television. You can rent a DVD, use the digital cable/movie package, order a movie channel, go to the theater, go to a friend's house, etc etc... you can do a number of different things to satisfy your lust for pornography or cursing. Why is it that you want to bring down network television to those same depths? Is it too much to ask to have one small bastion of moderation and control in this country? I don't think so, I think it's fair, just, and it helps this entire country function a little easier knowing they can turn on a television and not have to watch "Horny Potter."

I honestly don't get your agenda. You have literally hundreds upon hundreds of channels on cable or satellite, that's not enough. You have adult megaplexes littering our streets, many open 24/7/365, that's not enough. You have a thriving, which would be an understatement, pornography industry online, where you can basically order or download just about any XXX movie ever made, that's not enough. You have violent and adult films being packaged into DVDs faster than ever before, that's not enough. Let me guess, you won't rest until every conceivable electronic media has some sort of boob on it?

Oh the horror! Oh the vile curse of a woman's breast - that it is so round and fat - oh the children just couldn't take it! We must be ever vigilant - not even in the daytime - but late into the night as well - for children who aren't parented well may sneak out past an early bedtime to watch TV, and think of the scarring when they see a female's naked breast - O the humanity - please save us oh wise and noble government with sanctions and regulations that will defy the evil and lustful nature of the will of the common people and restore our network television back up upon the pedestal of morality and family values where it rightfully belongs. Down with the common denominator, up with the bastions of morality, the select group of public servants that speak out against the evil liberals who exist simply to insult and infuriate conservatives.

[Ace-Of-War]

Oh the horror! Oh the vile curse of a woman's breast - that it is so round and fat - oh the children just couldn't take it! We must be ever vigilant - not even in the daytime - but late into the night as well - for children who aren't parented well may sneak out past an early bedtime to watch TV, and think of the scarring when they see a female's naked breast - O the humanity - please save us oh wise and noble government with sanctions and regulations that will defy the evil and lustful nature of the will of the common people and restore our network television back up upon the pedestal of morality and family values where it rightfully belongs. Down with the common denominator, up with the bastions of morality, the select group of public servants that speak out against the evil liberals who exist simply to insult and infuriate conservatives.

Such elitist bullshit, there's no need for any of it.

It's unbelievable that you are so unwilling to compromise, that you feel as though the only way to live is the way you live. The only way to raise children is how you would do it. Let me clue you in, we live in a free society, and that means we don't have to bow before yours, or anyone elses, way of living. That's why it's necessary to start from a completely neutral point that encourages safeguards and promotes knowledge rather than indoctrinate people into a submission of accepting a culture of naked women, extensive drug use, extremely brutal violence, and disgusting language. No, I'm glad we have barriers to keep people like you at bay. People like you who are too lazy to get there own porn that they would rather force it to come into the living rooms of tens of millions of American families across the country.

No, I will not live by the same parameters you do because I choose not to. No one else has to live like you either, that's what makes this country so great. We can choose not to accept that lifestyle and we can choose to make our own. With a little help, it gives us all a nice starting point to map our own lives rather than just everyone conform to your lifestyle.

[camoor]

Such elitist bullshit, there's no need for any of it.

It's unbelievable that you are so unwilling to compromise, that you feel as though the only way to live is the way you live. The only way to raise children is how you would do it. Let me clue you in, we live in a free society, and that means we don't have to bow before yours, or anyone elses, way of living. That's why it's necessary to start from a completely neutral point that encourages safeguards and promotes knowledge rather than indoctrinate people into a submission of accepting a culture of naked women, extensive drug use, extremely brutal violence, and disgusting language. No, I'm glad we have barriers to keep people like you at bay. People like you who are too lazy to get there own porn that they would rather force it to come into the living rooms of tens of millions of American families across the country.

No, I will not live by the same parameters you do because I choose not to. No one else has to live like you either, that's what makes this country so great. We can choose not to accept that lifestyle and we can choose to make our own. With a little help, it gives us all a nice starting point to map our own lives rather than just everyone conform to your lifestyle.

Keep thinking that you and the christian right are going to win the culture wars.

As long as America isn't hijacked by a Fascist Militaristic Regime, time is on our side.

[Msut77]

Stop using the word elitist Ace, it is for own good.

All it does expose you to the world as the mindless soulless drone you know yourself to be.

[Ace-Of-War]

Keep thinking that you and the christian right are going to win the culture wars.

Oh brother you know we are. Look at the Supreme Court and tell me how long do you think it's going to take before Roe v. Wade is overturned? Look at that flag burning amendment that was just one vote shy of passing. You think you've seent he last of gay marriage banning too?

You better get used to it buddy, because the conservatives are just getting started. What are you going to do when you wake up that fine Novemeber morning to hear that Newt Gingrich is our next President? :D

Liberals are dead, at least for the forseeable future. Hell, ya'll will be lucky to get Ned Lamont into the Senate, much less change the direction of this country.

We can have all the arguments we want, but in your heart you know which side is winning. That's what really counts.

[Msut77]

Oh brother you know we are. Look at the Supreme Court and tell me how long do you think it's going to take before Roe v. Wade is overturned? Look at that flag burning amendment that was just one vote shy of passing. You think you've seent he last of gay marriage banning too?

You better get used to it buddy, because the conservatives are just getting started. What are you going to do when you wake up that fine Novemeber morning to hear that Newt Gingrich is our next President? :D

Liberals are dead, at least for the forseeable future. Hell, ya'll will be lucky to get Ned Lamont into the Senate, much less change the direction of this country.

We can have all the arguments we want, but in your heart you know which side is winning. That's what really counts.


Not to Godwin but this is Nazi style talk.