Would a Kerry Presidency mean the end of the War on Terror?

[Dr. Love]

No article here.

I'm just curious what you guys think, because I've always had this feeling that if Kerry (or any other Democrat, really) were elected, the War on Terror would effectively be over, unless we were attacked again on a large scale (and even then, I dunno).

There's a lot of things I do/don't like about Bush, and even though I've posted that I didn't think we should have went to war in Iraq (based on the reasons stated), I'm willing to admit that the outcome was beneficial and that it was in essence a good thing that it happened.

The thing I like about Bush is that he has a plan. Sure, it may not be what some people like, but I haven't heard any plan from John Kerry (or really anyone else).

Plus, I know a lot about Bush. You guys have ranted back and forth for several years about him. I don't know much about Kerry.

So would it mean the end of the War on Terror?

[ELVIS]

Kerry doesn't know much about Kerry.. He might fight terrorism.. he might not...

Kerry is a follower not a leader...

[John Ashcroft]

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself Elvis. I guess that's why you're the King...

[ELVIS]

You got me wrong.. I'm usually in awe of you're conservative views...

Learning is awesome...:)

[Seshmeister]

What we need is a president tough enough to wipe out every fucking heathen in the world. If you're not with Christ then you need to be wiped out asap.

I'm not sure Kerry is up to the job...

[ELVIS]

If you're referring to Kerry's faith.. I agree...

[ELVIS]

But I forgive your drunken hypocricy...:)

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
What we need is a president tough enough to wipe out every fucking heathen in the world. If you're not with Christ then you need to be wiped out asap.

I'm not sure Kerry is up to the job...

So where'd it go wrong for Great Britain? Please, educate us so we can get it right.

Oh, and Thanks Elvis. I try to speak from the mind, and my heart always follows. I'm just glad I'm not alone.

[FORD]

Though I'm not exactly Judas' biggest fan, let me put it this way....

He's actually been to war. Junior hasn't.

Who do you think could do a better job?

Now the real question is whether Kerry would focus on actual terrorists, or continue the global fascist agenda of PNAC.

Unfortunately, the answer looks it would be Same old PNAC in a shiny new wrapper. (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252144&subsecid=900020&knlgAreaID=450004) :(

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
So where'd it go wrong for Great Britain? Please, educate us so we can get it right.

Oh, and Thanks Elvis. I try to speak from the mind, and my heart always follows. I'm just glad I'm not alone.

Blair is your poodle at the moment and you know it.

A reach around every so often would be nice but whatever...

Cheers!!

:gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Blair is your poodle at the moment and you know it.

A reach around every so often would be nice but whatever...

Cheers!!

:gulp:

Is this what it's all about??? Recognition? Hell, why didn't you say so?!? You'll have to see Ford for that reach-around though...;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Though I'm not exactly Judas' biggest fan, let me put it this way....

He's actually been to war. Junior hasn't.

Who do you think could do a better job?



Kerry did a pretty damn good job of getting himself shot at, just like Max Cleland blew himself up. Case Closed. :gulp:

[EAST COAST]

of course it would mean and end to the war against terrorism and terrorists. it would be the most disasterous change of the oval office in history. this is a new type of war , BUSH like every previous president has good points and bad. i believe the current president has many more ggod points than bad. and he is doing what needs to be done to show the world that this country will no longer turn the other cheek. hope it makes the terrorists think better of attacking our land or our people abroad. he is perfect for this presidency, and he should and will be allowed to see this through... cant wait till he brings in osama in cuffs.................

[FORD]

Yeah, and you're so goddamned pathetically stupid that you'll believe it actually took them 3 1/2 years to catch Osama when they drag his ass out the last week of October :rolleyes:

God, sometimes I wish I could be a brainless fucking sheep and believe what FAUX News and hate radio told me. Life would be so much easier without reality....

[ELVIS]

That's not gonna happen. If they catch Osama today you would say it was PNAC agenda...

[John Ashcroft]

Am I equally as stupid? :confused:

I guess the military should ask Howard Dean supporters for advice on just how to catch that sneeky Osama, right?

[ELVIS]

What exactly is hate radio ??

[John Ashcroft]

Any radio that doesn't spout DNC talking points.

[Jesus Christ]

Radio that is not allowed in Heaven, of that ye can be sure, My son.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Any radio that doesn't spout DNC talking points.

Exactly.

[High Life Man]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
Radio that is not allowed in Heaven, of that ye can be sure, My son.

Did you enjoy "Passion"?

[steve]

Well, if Kerry is elected Howard Stern will get to stay on the radio.
If Kerry is elected, Stem Cell research will get funding.
If Kerry is elected, GW Bush's faith-based initiative will get a fine tooth comb run through it.

I am not sure if that answers your question. Wait - it does not.
Go to John Kerry's website and read all his plans.
www.johnkerry.com

Then, make your choice. Don't listen to us boobs here.
DLR rules.

[John Ashcroft]

You think Bush is forcing Stern off???

Let me clue you in on something... Howard's not going anywhere. He hasn't lost any sponsors, and money talks. This fight's between him and his bosses, not him and the White House. And when stations start losing sponsors because of this spat, all troubles will magically be solved (and probably to Howards fiscal advantage).

Oh, so nice try. Thank you, drive around.

[steve]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
You think Bush is forcing Stern off???


To a degree. Bush is a very conservative Christian man - and those are the organiations that are petitioning the FCC right now to raise fines on indecency.

However, I think it is less of a political issue for the powers that be than Howard seems to believe. GW believes everything he does is rightious because of his religion - and this case I beleive would be no different.

However; Howard being the most listened to talk show host in America after Oprah...is making it a political issue being that he is on the cusp of being fined close to 30 million dollars by the FCC - a move by the federal government that would effectively negate the profits of his show (in its current form).

Anyway, I have been listening to Stern quite a bit the last couple of weeks. I have a more pragmatic view of the whole thing, I believe.

[Ally_Kat]

you didn't know that johnny? That's all anyone over here is talking about - Bush is forcing Stern off the air. Remember - everything is Bush's fault. Why, you should see some of the stuff being talked over here (http://www.musicradio77.com/wwwboard//nyboard1.html)

specifically, this (http://musicradio.computer.net/wwwboard/messages/228534.html) thread.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by steve


Anyway, I have been listening to Stern quite a bit the last couple of weeks. I have a more pragmatic view of the whole thing, I believe.

to his view of things.


And even when the whole O&A thing went down, they ended up being fined almost nothing. Tacking on only one extra commercial for the entire show, which would be no problem to do with O&A, would cure the fine problem. But Infinity are a bunch of spineless pussies and just yanked them off the air. Now they've lost a whole slew of advertizers for the station O&A were on and went thru 5 format changes.

I think the fines should be raised slighty. What are fines but a punishment for not following the rules, right? Tacking on only one commercial to solve the problem really doesn't punish or make you fear anything.


But there were other factors with my boys. Inaccurate reporting for one and a bunch of people jumping on the protester's bandwagon without knowing or listening to what happened. Power of stupid people in large numbers...

[steve]

The FCC is proposing to congress raising indecency fines from 5000 per incident max to 500,000 per incident, per station max. If you think the fines should be raised SLIGHTLY...then you are in a major disagreement with the FCC.

The FCC has 2 "indecency" charges on the table right now against Stern - no one else. They are holding these charges until after the House and Senate vote on the measure.

The House and Senate are scheduled to vote in a couple of weeks.

All that said, I beleive the FCC is run by a bunch of religious extremist sympathizers and that is why these charges are being proposed against Stern. They think they are rightious - it is not simply an effort to "shut up" an opponent. That said, either premise is pretty damn scary.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by steve
The FCC is proposing to congress raising indecency fines from 5000 per incident max to 500,000 per incident, per station max. If you think the fines should be raised SLIGHTLY...then you are in a major disagreement with the FCC.

500 grand per incident? 2 incidents only? Howard makes HOW much? HOW much is made from his name? There are companies involved sweetie. I guess if al lgoes down, he'll just hafta take a pay-cut.


The FCC has 2 "indecency" charges on the table right now against Stern - no one else. They are holding these charges until after the House and Senate vote on the measure.

The House and Senate are scheduled to vote in a couple of weeks.

The charges are only on the table. And 500 grand is the max, not the falt rate.

ClearChannel paid a $755,000 fine for Bubba the LoveSponge. Just cuz Howard is the only one with charges on the table now, or more likely the only one you hear about having charges cuz he doesnothing but whine and is a big name in radio, doesn't mean he's the only one this affects or the only one who will get slapped on the wrist. Howard would have you think that cuz he's all about turning himself into a victim.


All that said, I beleive the FCC is run by a bunch of religious extremist sympathizers and that is why these charges are being proposed against Stern. They think they are rightious - it is not simply an effort to "shut up" an opponent. That said, either premise is pretty damn scary.

Well, you can believe all you want, but if they were a "bunch of religious extremist sympathizers", then they would have slapped Infinity's wrists harder and gone with the license revokation idea that was being thrown around with the whole St Pat's incident. They didn't and you want to know why they didn't? There wasn't anything there to justify it. Knowing Howard and how his show is, there probably isn't anything and I highly doubt he'll be fined the max for either or both incidents. I highly doubt he'll be pulled completely off the air. Hell, after this all calms down, he'll be put on those stations he was pulled off from.

Howie can whine all he wants and get people to follow (;)) that it's the religious reich and the current President who is sparking this. He's making himself a victim. It's what he does best. And if he wants to bitch and complain that he is being singled out he should stop and think. It doesn't matter if Bush is in office or if Kerry was. The mood now with the whole Janet's tit thing is weird. There are a bunch of people who got upset and now it's the mood to clean up broadcast. He's the biggest, most visible target and he made himself that way. He can cry and whine all he wants. This is the risk you wager when you push the line.

And it's not censorship nor is it bullying. There are rules and standards the FCC have laid out. They don't have people listening to every show around the clock. The way these charges get brought up are by crowds of people complaining to the FCC. Then there are hearings and all that.

Do groups, like oh say the Catholic league, get involve and try to pool together? Yeah, people like to fight in crowds. But do groups like that always have the last word? Not unless there's something in the transcript that goes against the FCC's rules and regulations. Howard is on the table. People musta bitched, the mood is to clean up radio, the FCC is going to entertain it now. Howard is a pretty damn big fish. I'm willing to bet that there are numerous complaints to the FCC about him daily, and I'm sure most are thrown out because either not enough people are complaining or they are just absolutely ridiculious. Howard would never bring that side of the story in his victim rant, though.

When you go into the business, you need to have an understanding of the rules and regulations and it is your responsibility to uphold those for your sake as well as your station's and the company that owns that station. Howard, I'm sure by now, knows the law. He also knows the way around the law. He knows what he's doing when he does it.

I highly doubt he'll be hit with 500 grand max each incident for each station. He'll rant and rave about it though to make it seem worse than it is. And yea, he can say his goodbyes and how he's being forced off the air. Hell, he does that everytime his contract is up. He does it for attention half the time. I won't believe his talking that way until I read it in the paper that he's off and go check it on the radio dial.

[ELVIS]

Ally for president!

Howard Stern is yesterday's news...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Ally for president!


my luck people would see Hilary for President and think of

http://www.hillary.org/hillary/hill.announce.president.jpg

and then i'd be screwed :(

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
my luck people would see Hilary for President and think of

http://www.hillary.org/hillary/hill.announce.president.jpg

and then i'd be screwed :(

It's an "L" thing. :D

[steve]

Hmm...
I agree with you to a degree, Ally. Yes, Howard Stern is the King of making himself into a victim (I would argue though - it is mostly for comic value; however, it's beside the point). And yes these companies such as Clear Channel and Infinity/CBS are about making profits - no doubt.

But where I see a fault in your logic is where you say that "Howard's rich, he can pay the fine". It's irrelevant, really. What's at stake is the FCC raising fines to such a level that stations (who are the ones that pay the fines) cannot afford (in a profitable way - after all these are profit based enterprises) to keep certain personalities on the air - not to mention, for the few smaller stations that are actually left, the fines are being raised to a level at which they can be bankrupted. Is it right for the FCC, a federal agency with absolutely no accountability, to be able to bankrupt companies at their own discretion in terms that by its own admission are not even defined? The point is accountability and the FCC doesn't have to answer to anyone save the President who appoints the chair. And nwo they are being given a power beyond teh bully pulpit and slapping folks on the wrist - that of making it economically infeasible for companies to keep certain personalities on the air - based on arbitrary rulings of the FCC with no recourse for said companies.

That said, you're also underestimating the effect of raising fines to a level such as 500,000 - fines that are the byproduct of rules which are created on the wisps of an FCC chairman's fart (aka: totally arbitrary) - will have. For instance, in this particular Stern case, he broke no written rule - FCC, actual law, or other. The techinical laws that are on the books are specifically limited to the "7 Dirty Words" - which did not apply in what the FCC is "charging" Stern with. Also, once you add up 2 X 500K X the 30-40 stations HS is on around the US ....you are talking 30 to 40 million dollars. That 30 to 40 million dollar fine, being arbitrary, can be thereafter applied any time the FCC wishes. Sure, The HS Show has a good deal of revenue, but not enough to take more than one hit like this a year.

On the other hand, if it were - as you mentioned - groups of people gathering at a grass roots level and letting other like- minded people know that something on the air is indecent and that people should not purchase products advertised on the show they dislike - that is totally peoples' right. Voting with their pocketbooks is totally democratic.

But giving that same power - that of making a person's speech economically infeasible - should not be given to one man - Michael Powell in this case. The raising of fines - as is before congress now - goes beyond a comedian/sex talk show host one may or may not like.

[Ally_Kat]

I'm not underestimating the impact of it? Again, 500 grand is the MAX, not a flat rate. How many times is the max applied? Not a whole hell of a lot. If you really fuck up, then pay the price. And you want to know something, you go over the line and break what laws are there that are simplistically written out, then tough shit. Seriously. They signed up and agreed to those laws by going into the field.

And there are station lawyers. Lawyers who approve things nad check to make sure things are legal according to FCC requirements. Sometimes jocks swerve off and go on their ownroute and go too far.

Broadcasters are required to know the law and that law is not limited to just the 7 deadly words. Where are you getting that from? There's a whole section on obsecene language and what you can and cannot say. Examples are given, also. If you don't know these basic broadcast laws or wish to adhere to it, you won't be hired.

And people aren't just going to change the channel. There are those people out there who like to take action. Like you said before that Howie making himself a victim is done mostly for comic value. I find that annoying, stupid, and can't stand how there are Howard sheep who wouls turn around and take everyhting he says as gold. I change the channel. Someone else who's tuning in when he's doing nothing but asking a celebrity about their sex life might find something offensive and complain. The FCC will come out and tell you that they investigate matters upon public complaints. It's not just one person sitting there going, "ya know, that Stern boy - I dont think his speech is economically infeasible. Let's randomly fine his show til death." There are enforcement offices within the FCC and a hell of a lot of work goes into pursuing incidents that draw complaints.

There's more going on behind the scenes than Howard will ever tell you

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
It's an "L" thing. :D


Holy shit! that's my new title.

[steve]

xxx

[steve]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
And you want to know something, you go over the line and break what laws are there that are simplistically written out, then tough shit. Seriously. They signed up and agreed to those laws by going into the field.


The laws ARE NOT simplistically written out- that's my point; and that is the problem.
In the 1978 court Case of FCC Vs. Pacifica (The "Seven Dirty Words" that I referenced above was this court case - commonly referred to based on the subject at hand - George Carlin's satiric monologue as played on NYC radio "The Seven Dirty Words")

The majority opinion in this case clarified the FCC's power as such:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Radio_and_tv/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision
"Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided:

"Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construedto give the
licensing authority the power of censorshipover the radio
communications or signals transmitted byany radio station, and no
regulation or condition shall bepromulgated or fixed by the licensing
authority whichshall interfere with the right of free speech by means
ofradio communications. No person within the jurisdiction of the United
States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means
of radio communication."44 Stat. 1172."

The prohibition against censorship unequivocally denies the Commission
any power to edit proposed broadcasts in advance and to excise
material considered inappropriate for the airwaves. The prohibition,
however, has never been construed to deny the Commission the power to
review the content of completed broadcasts in the performance of its
regulatory duties.[fn9]

However, if the fines which the FCC uses to "regulate" become as high as they are proposing for themselves, the FCC crosses that gray area from regulator into being a body of legal decision makers - a power it is not supposed to have. in the case of the FCC, the fines effectively enable them to silence anyone they don't like. Courts...judges make legal decisions.

The "simplistically written out" "laws" that broadcasters must abide by that you are referring to are the mere guidelines in this 2001 FCC policy statement (see below). The problem with raising the fines is that it effectively gives the FCC the specific power that the law (1978 FCC vs. Pacifica) forbade it. The result will be that the FCC will have too much power and no one to answer to. There isn't another organization that makes decisions on matters of free speech in the United States besides courts of law - the only ones that SHOULD be able to do so. That is why the amount of the fine does make a difference

Lastly, the FCC regulations are ANYTHING BUT simplistically written out; as argued in the dissenting opinion of the former FCC Chair herself. She argues that the FCC guidelines are...crap. I have no idea of whether or not she believed further regulation was needed or not; but she too, as I, believed that the FCC guidelines leave way too much room for interpretation. Simplistically put, the vagueness levies too much power into the hands of the FCC (her dissenting opinion, as noted in the FCC guidelines, is pasted below).

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.pdf
[i]POLICY STATEMENT
Adopted: March 14, 2001
Released: April 6, 2001
By the Commission: Commissioners Ness and Furchtgott-Roth issuing separate statements;

Commissioner Tristani dissenting and issuing a statement...

V. CONCLUSION
30.
The Commission issues this Policy Statement to provide guidance to broadcast licensees regarding compliance with the Commission's indecency regulations.
By summarizing the regulations and explaining the Commission's analytical approach to reviewing allegedly indecent material, the Commission provides a framework by which broadcast licensees can assess the legality of airing potentially indecent material.

...

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani

IN THE MATTER OF INDUSTRY GUIDANCE ON THE COMMISSIONS CASE LAW INTERPRETING18 U.S.C. §1464 AND ENFORCEMENT POLICIES REGARDING BROADCAST INDECENCY, EB FILE NO. 00-IH-0089

I dissent from the issuance of this “Policy Statement� (hereinafter “Statement�)for three reasons. First, the Statement creates a false impression that it satisfies an obligation assumed by the Commission in 1994. Second, the Statement perpetuates the myth that broadcast indecency standards are too vague and compliance so difficult that a Policy Statement is necessary to provide further guidance. Most importantly, this Statement diverts this Agency’s attention and resources away from the ongoing problem of lax enforcement, which is a pressing concern of America’s citizens.

[rustoffa]

They (the FCC) hit the regular guys here in atlanta too.One broadstroke for the good of the people.Face it,sensationalism sells.The fines involved in this supposed "cracking down" were negotiated to the hilt.It's good press for the FCC and publicity for every sound effect ridden shock jock involved.BTW Steve,you can always turn your radio off if your sick of the snake-handlin' FCC.Better yet,listen to NPR and look forward to the socialist flu shot Hillary's gonna give ya in her mandated health care initiative.The signal you'll be pinging to satellites will make FM radio look like tin cans and twine.

[John Ashcroft]

I think we need to form a committee to analyze what would make the Howard Sterns of the world do what they do. You know, we've got to get to the root of the problem to prevent this from happening again. Was he abused as a child? Was he bullied in School? Did he get caught wearing his mother's dresses?... Simply punishing law breakers has been proven ineffective. I mean, we could tax each communications business $500K to pay for the program. After all, it's they who can afford it most...