PDA

View Full Version : F The FCC and Bush



ThunderCane
06-29-2004, 04:34 PM
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.:roflmao:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html)



http://www.bushwatch.com/

http://supak.com/bush.htm (http://supak.com/bush.htm)

http://www.ejectbush.com/ (http://www.ejectbush.com/)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm)

http://buzzflash.com/ (http://buzzflash.com/)

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/index.php (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/index.php)

http://www.bushreport.com/ (http://www.bushreport.com/)

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/)

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/index.php (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/index.php)

http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ (http://www.americaheldhostile.com/)

http://mediamatters.org/ (http://mediamatters.org/)

http://www.redefeatbush.com/ (http://www.redefeatbush.com/)

http://www.truthout.org/ (http://www.truthout.org/)



many more links here at http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html (http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html)



Howard spent more of the show blasting George Bush. He read a funny stat sheet about fines. Senator Brownback's indecency bill that just passed the senate would be able to fine Howard up to $500,000 per offense. So Howard read how other government fines stack up to the indecency fine. Here they are:

- Bribing an FDA agent to get your drug approved - $250,000 fine

- Transporting contaminated food interstate - $50,000 fine

- Transferring money for terrorists - $11,000 fine :eek:

So it seems the government has their priorities straight. :mad:

ltfinfan
06-29-2004, 04:45 PM
wow that whole pot calling the kettle black thing huh?

iceblizzard69
06-29-2004, 04:47 PM
It's unbelievable how much the FCC can fine you for what you say on the air. I truly believe that the FCC restricts free speech. It's unbelievable that you can get fined 500K for saying something on the air that the government doesn't like, but you get fined a little more than 1/50th of that for giving terrorists money. :shakeno:

Section126
06-29-2004, 04:54 PM
Howard spent more of the show blasting George Bush. He read a funny stat sheet about fines. Senator Brownback's indecency bill that just passed the senate would be able to fine Howard up to $500,000 per offense. So Howard read how other government fines stack up to the indecency fine. Here they are:


What Howard does not say is that the SENATE VOTED 100 to 0 (Isn't John F. Kerry one of those?)to approve those fines.

Howard Stern is a hypocritical moron. Why did he never mention all the fines he got during the Clinton administration? (Do not tell me he did, because I have listened to him for the last 15 years)

The answer is that he is a hack, and a crybaby that makes 65 million dollars a year and is unhappy.........

Yes....I said 65 MILLION!

ltfinfan
06-29-2004, 04:56 PM
why blast bush he doesn't run the fcc. kerry is the big supporter of this

PhinPhan1227
06-29-2004, 05:03 PM
God people are ignorant. The FCC is run by beaurocrats. Stern has been daring them for 20 years and Janet just gave them the ammo they needed. You're deluding yourself if you think this would be one iota different under Kerry.

iceblizzard69
06-29-2004, 06:28 PM
It won't be different under Kerry. It would be different under Gary Nolan though, but this country is dominated by two parties so we won't see any changes.

ohall
06-29-2004, 07:35 PM
It's unbelievable how much the FCC can fine you for what you say on the air. I truly believe that the FCC restricts free speech. It's unbelievable that you can get fined 500K for saying something on the air that the government doesn't like, but you get fined a little more than 1/50th of that for giving terrorists money. :shakeno:

Well their actions have HUGE support in this country. Maybe it's about time the standards were enforced rather than ignored like they have been for decades!

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
06-29-2004, 08:22 PM
Well their actions have HUGE support in this country. Maybe it's about time the standards were enforced rather than ignored like they have been for decades!

Oliver...

Yeah, screw free speech. :shakeno: :rolleyes2

If you don't like what Howard Stern says or what you see on TV, change the channel, but don't make it so that other people can't hear or watch it.

ohall
06-29-2004, 08:30 PM
Yeah, screw free speech. :shakeno: :rolleyes2

If you don't like what Howard Stern says or what you see on TV, change the channel, but don't make it so that other people can't hear or watch it.

How does using public air ways give anyone the right to say things that offend the majority of ppl that may be listening? There is nothing stopping anyone in this world from saying what they want. They may not be able to use public funded air ways to do so, but so what?

I'm sorry what you are saying to me at least makes NO sense. I have ZERO problems with Stern, I often listen to his show. But I most certainly understand why anyone would be offended that he is using the public air ways the way he does at times. If he doesn't like it he can goto XM radio or something and those ppl can follow him as well if they love his show so much.

Oliver...

LIQUID24
06-29-2004, 08:53 PM
I'm sorry what you are saying to me at least makes NO sense. I have ZERO problems with Stern, I often listen to his show. But I most certainly understand why anyone would be offended that he is using the public air ways the way he does at times. If he doesn't like it he can goto XM radio or something and those ppl can follow him as well if they love his show so much.

Oliver...
Hmm, how 'bout those people that are offended switch the station. What a novel concept.

TerryTate
06-29-2004, 08:59 PM
Michael Powell runs the FCC....examine the name carefully and you tell me who runs the FCC....

Section126
06-29-2004, 09:06 PM
Michael Powell runs the FCC....examine the name carefully and you tell me who runs the FCC....

Uh....Michael Powell.


Do you Remember who ran HUD in the Clinton Admin? It was Andrew Cuomo......so are you saying that Mario Cuomo controlled hud?

GWB could care less about the FCC....he has bigger fish to FRY.

ohall
06-29-2004, 10:19 PM
Hmm, how 'bout those people that are offended switch the station. What a novel concept.

How about ppl stop using public air ways anyway they want with total disregard for common sense and decency?

Please remember we're talking about air ways paid for by all tax paying ppl in this country. Based on that you cannot just simply say whatever you want. If someone wants to do that there are many other options out there for them to employ. It's about time we started enforcing the laws that have been on the book for decades.

Oliver...

LIQUID24
06-29-2004, 10:42 PM
How about ppl stop using public air ways anyway they want with total disregard for common sense and decency?

Please remember we're talking about air ways paid for by all tax paying ppl in this country. Based on that you cannot just simply say whatever you want. If someone wants to do that there are many other options out there for them to employ. It's about time we started enforcing the laws that have been on the book for decades.

Oliver...
Sorry, this is BS IMO. Let me get this straight, you're for one type of political correctness but not for another? I remember this quote from you on the Seau/Offensive Language thread---


OMG no, Jr. used a word most of us use at times to define a certain group of ppl in the world. What to do!?

This PC crap is out of hand. He's a football player and that word is commonly used in the locker room. How many times do you think the word n-igg-er is used in a locker room? Granted he said f-a-gg-ot in public, but for me I respect him even more for not compromising how he expresses himself publicly from how he expresses himself privately. To me it shows he was simply trying to be as real then as he is in the locker room with his team mates.

Again I can't believe HOW PC this country has become. Pretty soon you won't even be able to express yourself without someone saying you offended me.

Oliver...
Please explain this to me Oli.

TerryTate
06-29-2004, 10:44 PM
Uh....Michael Powell.


Do you Remember who ran HUD in the Clinton Admin? It was Andrew Cuomo......so are you saying that Mario Cuomo controlled hud?

GWB could care less about the FCC....he has bigger fish to FRY.

Yea, like gay marriage and athlete steroid use, two problems just CRIPPLING our country... :lol:

themole
06-29-2004, 11:19 PM
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.:roflmao:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html)



http://www.bushwatch.com/

http://supak.com/bush.htm (http://supak.com/bush.htm)

http://www.ejectbush.com/ (http://www.ejectbush.com/)

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm)

http://buzzflash.com/ (http://buzzflash.com/)

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/index.php (http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/index.php)

http://www.bushreport.com/ (http://www.bushreport.com/)

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/)

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/index.php (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/index.php)

http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ (http://www.americaheldhostile.com/)

http://mediamatters.org/ (http://mediamatters.org/)

http://www.redefeatbush.com/ (http://www.redefeatbush.com/)

http://www.truthout.org/ (http://www.truthout.org/)



many more links here at http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html (http://www.howardstern.com/bush.html)



Howard spent more of the show blasting George Bush. He read a funny stat sheet about fines. Senator Brownback's indecency bill that just passed the senate would be able to fine Howard up to $500,000 per offense. So Howard read how other government fines stack up to the indecency fine. Here they are:

- Bribing an FDA agent to get your drug approved - $250,000 fine

- Transporting contaminated food interstate - $50,000 fine

- Transferring money for terrorists - $11,000 fine :eek:

So it seems the government has their priorities straight. :mad:




At least the boys will be safe down there. Where is the party of the pedophiles hold their convention?

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 12:21 AM
At least the boys will be safe down there. Where is the party of the pedophiles hold their convention?
I don't know, where does you party hold their convention? :roflmao:

I am just kidding...you left yourself open for that one.

ohall
06-30-2004, 12:50 AM
Sorry, this is BS IMO. Let me get this straight, you're for one type of political correctness but not for another? I remember this quote from you on the Seau/Offensive Language thread---

Please explain this to me Oli.

Let's see, Seau made those comments during a private party, not on our publicly paid air way. People like Howard does what he does on our public air ways. Tell me what don't you get? Stop limiting yourself to LIBERAL propaganda, us the brain God gave you. That's of course if you believe there is a God.

Oliver...

ohall
06-30-2004, 12:52 AM
Yea, like gay marriage and athlete steroid use, two problems just CRIPPLING our country... :lol:

So you don't think those TWO topics are important to most Americans? These TWO non-time specific topics are topics a President has always involved himself with.

I'm not sure some of you are thinking things through.

Oliver...

LIQUID24
06-30-2004, 01:00 AM
Let's see, Seau made those comments during a private party, not on our publicly paid air way. People like Howard does what he does on our public air ways. Tell me what don't you get? Stop limiting yourself to LIBERAL propaganda, us the brain God gave you. That's of course if you believe there is a God.

Oliver...
Ok, that's what I figured your response would be, thanks. I still disagree. And I'm not limiting myself to any propaganda, I try to form my own opinions.

BTW, no, I don't believe in god, I'm an atheist and proud of it. That doesn't make me an unintelligent or bad person, does it?

ohall
06-30-2004, 01:05 AM
Ok, that's what I figured your response would be, thanks. I still disagree. And I'm not limiting myself to any propaganda, I try to form my own opinions.

BTW, no, I don't believe in god, I'm an atheist and proud of it. That doesn't make me an unintelligent or bad person, does it?

IMO no most atheist I know are some of the smartest ppl I've ever met. Most of the times those types of ppl think they are some kind of God themselves. Not saying that's you, because I don't know you.

However it's my experience a lot of these ppl find God the older they get. Not sure what that means, but it is something I've noticed.

And no it doesn't make you or anyone else any more or less bad IMO. It just means your value system is based off of a different set of values.

Oliver...

P4E
06-30-2004, 04:03 AM
To state that you are an atheist is to affirm that you KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that no God or Gods exist. With all respect, I don't consider that a defensible position. This is why I am an agnostic; -- I simply cannot prove to you or myself with certainty that God or Gods exist. I recommend the position strongly, just as much as I recommend that we live our lives as if a judgmental God exists. A certain spiritual sense and a belief in principles of right and wrong seems essential.

And if you disagree with my beliefs, that's fine. Just enjoy yours in peaceful harmony with me. Thanks.

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:43 AM
BTW, no, I don't believe in god, I'm an atheist and proud of it. That doesn't make me an unintelligent or bad person, does it?

NO, it makes you an evil, demented, godless devil. :tongue: :bat: :sr23: :jk:

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:45 AM
This is why I am an agnostic; -- I simply cannot prove to you or myself with certainty that God or Gods exist. .

This is EXACTLY my position.....this is scary. :rolleyes:

P4E
06-30-2004, 08:17 AM
This is EXACTLY my position.....this is scary. :rolleyes:
Don't sweat it, -- I think it just means you're really, really smart.:D

;)

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 10:44 AM
To state that you are an atheist is to affirm that you KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that no God or Gods exist. With all respect, I don't consider that a defensible position. This is why I am an agnostic; -- I simply cannot prove to you or myself with certainty that God or Gods exist. I recommend the position strongly, just as much as I recommend that we live our lives as if a judgmental God exists. A certain spiritual sense and a belief in principles of right and wrong seems essential.

And if you disagree with my beliefs, that's fine. Just enjoy yours in peaceful harmony with me. Thanks.


Well, since it's impossible to prove a negative, that certainly makes sense. For myself I'm a bit more of what I'd describe as a very loose Christian. Agnostic by definition means to question, and therefore leaves no room for the certainty that God exists. I firmly believe the existance of God, I just don't believe all the dogma of any one church. I also don't believe that those who follow other religions are going to hell. I try to give God enough credit that he could change his message depending on the audience...therefore the existance of God by other names. In a nutshell, I put my faith in the spirit above, and little faith in the men who try to get in between.

LIQUID24
06-30-2004, 11:09 AM
To state that you are an atheist is to affirm that you KNOW WITH CERTAINTY that no God or Gods exist. With all respect, I don't consider that a defensible position. This is why I am an agnostic; -- I simply cannot prove to you or myself with certainty that God or Gods exist. I recommend the position strongly, just as much as I recommend that we live our lives as if a judgmental God exists. A certain spiritual sense and a belief in principles of right and wrong seems essential.

And if you disagree with my beliefs, that's fine. Just enjoy yours in peaceful harmony with me. Thanks.
My dictionary defines atheism as-- "the belief that there is no God"
agnostic as---"one who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists"

I guess you could say I fall into the latter category, since none of us know for sure. But I always thought the two definitions were just a play on words. Either one suits me fine.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 11:20 AM
My dictionary defines atheism as-- "the belief that there is no God"
agnostic as---"one who believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists"

I guess you could say I fall into the latter category, since none of us know for sure. But I always thought the two definitions were just a play on words. Either one suits me fine.



Actually there is a sharp distinction. Atheism is an assertion of the negative, while Agnosticism is an acceptance of the unkown. If you can't make the declaration "there is no God", than you aren't an atheist.

themole
06-30-2004, 01:15 PM
Well, since it's impossible to prove a negative, that certainly makes sense. For myself I'm a bit more of what I'd describe as a very loose Christian. Agnostic by definition means to question, and therefore leaves no room for the certainty that God exists. I firmly believe the existance of God, I just don't believe all the dogma of any one church. I also don't believe that those who follow other religions are going to hell. I try to give God enough credit that he could change his message depending on the audience...therefore the existance of God by other names. In a nutshell, I put my faith in the spirit above, and little faith in the men who try to get in between.


:up:

God, has charged mankind to "Proove him herewith". I do that daily, I have yet to discover anything that would lead me to believe that there is no "GOD".

I believe that God answers prayers, yet he has never spoken to me. But... in some supernatural way, answers to specific questions have been revealed through prayer many times, everytime.

This very same God will not reveal himself to his children, that's his business not mine. I understand that it is a thing of faith that we are ask to live by. Because man could not live the higher law that allowed him to have visitation with his creator, the lesser law of faith was initiated.

To say the least, following the Judeo-Christian teachings (these are the only ones I'm familiar with) will certainly go a long way for the betterment of society. THEY are infact, the common thread that has made this nation great. That cannot be denied by anyone who has seriously read the history of the framers of the Constitution.

One thing people should remember about God is he does not like FANITICS. His words were: sway neither to the left nor right, but straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto rightiousness.

People are going to believe what ever suits them, that's why there are so many denominations, then there was Darwinism to come to terms with. Whatever it is that you place your core values on, they cannot escape the influence of what? Eight thousand years of Judeo Christian values.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 01:32 PM
People are going to believe what ever suits them, that's why there are so many denominations, then there was Darwinism to come to terms with. Whatever it is that you place your core values on, they cannot escape the influence of what? Eight thousand years of Judeo Christian values.


There's no conflict between Darwinism and Creationism. I find it hysterical AND sad whenever I see them presented as oposing beliefs. Darwinism says NOTHING about the origin of the process of evolution, and creationism says nothing about the mechanics of evolution. It's ridiculous to assume that because God COULD go "poof" and bring man into existance, that he DID go "poof" and bring man into existance. We're suppossed to assume that he went through the trouble to create biology and an ordered system for everything else in the universe...but in creating man he just decided to go "poof"? And in Darwins theories, he is ONLY discussing the process of evolution. Darwin himself WAS Christian. Because I describe HOW a baby in concieved and born, how does that detract from the miracle of that birth? How does that take God OUT of the equation? Quite the contrary, when science discovers yet another example of the beautiful and precise nature of the universe, that is MORE evidence of God in my opinion, not less.

In fact, the best proof I ever saw for Gods existance came from quantun physics. The fact that life exists is the result of 11(I believe it's 11...might be more) "absolutes" of physics. Constants like gravity, electromagnetism, etc...if they were MINUTELY different, would have prevented the formation of life. Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html

themole
06-30-2004, 01:53 PM
There's no conflict between Darwinism and Creationism. I find it hysterical AND sad whenever I see them presented as oposing beliefs. Darwinism says NOTHING about the origin of the process of evolution, and creationism says nothing about the mechanics of evolution. It's ridiculous to assume that because God COULD go "poof" and bring man into existance, that he DID go "poof" and bring man into existance. We're suppossed to assume that he went through the trouble to create biology and an ordered system for everything else in the universe...but in creating man he just decided to go "poof"? And in Darwins theories, he is ONLY discussing the process of evolution. Darwin himself WAS Christian. Because I describe HOW a baby in concieved and born, how does that detract from the miracle of that birth? How does that take God OUT of the equation? Quite the contrary, when science discovers yet another example of the beautiful and precise nature of the universe, that is MORE evidence of God in my opinion, not less.

In fact, the best proof I ever saw for Gods existance came from quantun physics. The fact that life exists is the result of 11(I believe it's 11...might be more) "absolutes" of physics. Constants like gravity, electromagnetism, etc...if they were MINUTELY different, would have prevented the formation of life. Here's a good article on the subject.

[url]http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html

/url]


:cry: I was merely speaking to the things that seem to separate the believers from nonbelievers.

:shakeno: The rant was unnecessary :confused: .

I once saw a scatter diagram presented to prove that from Cahos comes order. After a time a pattern developed. :D :cooldude:

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 01:56 PM
:cry: I was merely speaking to the things that seem to separate the believers from nonbelievers.

:shakeno: The rant was unnecessary :confused: .

I once saw a scatter diagram presented to prove that from Cahos comes order. After a time a pattern developed. :D :cooldude:

Lol..not a rant directed at you Oh GReat Moliness!!! Just venting. Every time I see a Darwin fish, or worse, a Jesus Fish eating a Darwin fish, I want to get out of my car and smack the driver upside the head.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 02:11 PM
http://www.iraqtimeline.com/


Congrats...you win the OFF TOPIC REPLY of the year award. HEre's a buck...buy a clue.

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 02:15 PM
No...you guys have been of the topic. I originaly posted this bashing the Bush Regime for going after freedom of speech and not doing their job. So you take that dollar and buy yourself towel. To wipe your face clean.

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 02:18 PM
No...you guys have been of the topic. I originaly posted this bashing the Bush Regime for going after freedom of speech and not doing their job. So you take that dollar and buy yourself towel. To wipe your face clean.


The topic evolved into an issue of morality and therefore religion. The Iraq timeline has NOTHING to do with the FCC. And how do you explain posting this SAME link to five other posts?

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 02:23 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/stern.bush/index.html








HOWARD IS BACK!!!

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 02:24 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/stern.bush/index.html








HOWARD IS BACK!!!


See...that's actually on-topic...thank you.

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 02:32 PM
The topic evolved into an issue of morality and therefore religion. The Iraq timeline has NOTHING to do with the FCC. And how do you explain posting this SAME link to five other posts?
Simple...if the topic was about the election or politcal topics covering the Bush regime and the war. I posted it, stayed on the topic.

WharfRat
06-30-2004, 02:36 PM
[QUOTE=ThunderCane]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/stern.bush/index.html



ThunderCane...

Please refrain from posting the same link repeatedly... once is enough really...

Thanks

ThunderCane
06-30-2004, 02:39 PM
The turth is never enough

BigFinFan
06-30-2004, 03:06 PM
atheism \ noun [MF atheisme, fr. athee atheist, fr. Gk atheos godless, fr. a- + theos god] (1546)
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

agnostic \ noun [Gk agnostos unknown, unknowable, fr. a- + gnostos known, fr. gignoskein to know — more at know] (1869)
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

WharfRat
06-30-2004, 03:08 PM
The turth is never enough


In here... it most certainly is...


anything more than once or twice is spam, and will be moved to the appropriate forum (the Spam forum)...

themole
06-30-2004, 03:50 PM
Lol..not a rant directed at you Oh GReat Moliness!!! Just venting. Every time I see a Darwin fish, or worse, a Jesus Fish eating a Darwin fish, I want to get out of my car and smack the driver upside the head.

Ohh...Those type fish haven't made it to PUTNAM CO. FL. yet. We are better known as the bass capital of the world.

I have seen the one on the cars and recognize what it represents, and have no problem with it. I've NEVER seen the Darwin fish chomping on the Jesus fish or visa versa though.



Here's a word to the wise: “When you throw dirt, you lose ground.”

PhinPhan1227
06-30-2004, 04:01 PM
Ohh...Those type fish haven't made it to PUTNAM CO. FL. yet. We are better known as the bass capital of the world.

I have seen the one on the cars and recognize what it represents, and have no problem with it. I've NEVER seen the Darwin fish chomping on the Jesus fish or visa versa though.



Here's a word to the wise: “When you throw dirt, you lose ground.”

Jeez man, try Dade or Broward. You'll see the Darwin fish everywhere(Jesus fish with feet), and you'll certainly see the Jesus fish eating the Darwin fish.

BigFinFan
06-30-2004, 04:37 PM
More reasons that make me happy that I moved from Florida.

TerryTate
06-30-2004, 05:18 PM
Yea, like gay marriage and athlete steroid use, two problems just CRIPPLING our country... :lol:

No response to my line S-126? Im not very good at arguing politics so I'm gonna take this "no-response" as a "I have no response."

I think you just got served ;)

Section126
06-30-2004, 05:20 PM
No response to my line S-126? Im not very good at arguing politics so I'm gonna take this "no-response" as a "I have no response."

I think you just got served ;)

I didn't see it.

Here is your response:

better yet....have the 60 Million NEW free people give you my response.

Boy...I would say that 60 Million people would say that YOU JUST GOT SERVED.

iceblizzard69
06-30-2004, 05:50 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/stern.bush/index.html








HOWARD IS BACK!!!

That's great news. He was never taken off where I live but it's good that a lot of his fans will be able to listen to him again!

**** Clear Channel
**** the FCC

TerryTate
06-30-2004, 06:23 PM
Ok fine....war is war...HOWEVER, why was bush making what I just said in reference to gay marriage and athletes and 'roids an issue in his state of the union? There are bigger things to worry about, like our economic situation and more things tied to the conflict in iraq....and you ignored my point entirely with that statement S-126....

TerryTate
06-30-2004, 06:24 PM
And S-126, I originally supported the war in Iraq and I'm happy that the people are "free".....so how am I getting served again?

ohall
06-30-2004, 06:31 PM
Simple...if the topic was about the election or politcal topics covering the Bush regime and the war. I posted it, stayed on the topic.

LoL regime, dude you're so obvious!

Oliver...

ohall
06-30-2004, 06:32 PM
Ok fine....war is war...HOWEVER, why was bush making what I just said in reference to gay marriage and athletes and 'roids an issue in his state of the union? There are bigger things to worry about, like our economic situation and more things tied to the conflict in iraq....and you ignored my point entirely with that statement S-126....

The economy is just fine, and I'm certain he can take care of more than one thing at a time. That's why Presidents employ a staff.

Oliver...

Section126
06-30-2004, 07:10 PM
And S-126, I originally supported the war in Iraq and I'm happy that the people are "free".....so how am I getting served again?


The president made those two things an issue because people care about those two things.....SOTU speeches sometimes are laundry lists...sometimes they are poetry.....

Bush's 9/20/01 SOTU speech is considered by many to be one of the finest speeches ever delivered.

The speech you are referring too was a dull laundry list speech that Clinton was very adept at delivering.....Those two issues will probably die anyway....unless Bush can use them to help him politically.....just being realistic.

Think about it:

Gay Marriage has become a state issue.

Steriods is an issue for sports owners and players unions.

Bush can touch neither.

DolFan31
06-30-2004, 07:31 PM
Im an agonostic because I feel it is only possible to be neutral in religion because there are so many religions in the world how could one religion be possible? And how does anyone know what our "god" is? It could be something we never even thought of, or its possible we could "just exist". We just dont know.


There's no conflict between Darwinism and Creationism. I find it hysterical AND sad whenever I see them presented as oposing beliefs. Darwinism says NOTHING about the origin of the process of evolution, and creationism says nothing about the mechanics of evolution. It's ridiculous to assume that because God COULD go "poof" and bring man into existance, that he DID go "poof" and bring man into existance. We're suppossed to assume that he went through the trouble to create biology and an ordered system for everything else in the universe...but in creating man he just decided to go "poof"? And in Darwins theories, he is ONLY discussing the process of evolution. Darwin himself WAS Christian. Because I describe HOW a baby in concieved and born, how does that detract from the miracle of that birth? How does that take God OUT of the equation? Quite the contrary, when science discovers yet another example of the beautiful and precise nature of the universe, that is MORE evidence of God in my opinion, not less.

In fact, the best proof I ever saw for Gods existance came from quantun physics. The fact that life exists is the result of 11(I believe it's 11...might be more) "absolutes" of physics. Constants like gravity, electromagnetism, etc...if they were MINUTELY different, would have prevented the formation of life. Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec11.html

Wholly agreed, even if Im not convinced there is a God.

TerryTate
06-30-2004, 08:00 PM
Think about it:

Gay Marriage has become a state issue.

Steriods is an issue for sports owners and players unions.

Bush can touch neither.


If bush can't touch it, (as he shouldnt touch it, especially gay marriage) then he shouldnt talk about it.

Section126
06-30-2004, 08:21 PM
If bush can't touch it, (as he shouldnt touch it, especially gay marriage) then he shouldnt talk about it.

He's the president..he can talk about whatever he wants... :club:

themole
06-30-2004, 10:01 PM
If bush can't touch it, (as he shouldnt touch it, especially gay marriage) then he shouldnt talk about it.

Why can't he talk about it TT? The opposition certainley doesn't shy away from bringing it up.

TerryTate
06-30-2004, 10:09 PM
He needs to talk about what he can do, not what he cant do....it just turns into false promises that way.

Section126
06-30-2004, 10:16 PM
He needs to talk about what he can do, not what he cant do....it just turns into false promises that way.

Well, you gotta agree with that. That is true. So true. It actually describes the Clinton Presidency in full.

ohall
07-01-2004, 12:17 AM
If bush can't touch it, (as he shouldnt touch it, especially gay marriage) then he shouldnt talk about it.

He's the leader of the free world, why shouldn't he be able to talk about something, because you say so or because he may disagree with your POV?

Oliver...

Mr.Murder
07-01-2004, 12:18 AM
No conflict with creatrionism and evolution when one takes into account relativity. A day is as a thousand years to the Lord. So even a strict interpretation in those guidelines is very much possible in thos guidelines.

Binding energy- by God's essence/existence /power all things consist. He holds like charges together that would repel otherwise.

Speaking of which Christ never spoke out against homosexuals, his new covenant was to love one another and he also prevented violence against women and capital punishment of prostitutes. Clearly he respected feminine genders more so than his culture. As for bunch of guys that ran around together and were their leader was supposedly never married... well do the math with it.

Final note- Clinton was so bad he had the highest popularity ratings of a President despite attempts to bribe or threaten or plea bargain people into perjury against him. Kenneth Starr was former Bush Sr legal arm who tried to carry a witch hunt out.

ohall
07-01-2004, 12:18 AM
He needs to talk about what he can do, not what he cant do....it just turns into false promises that way.

Ouch man, I can't even begin to start telling you just how silly this sounds. He's the leader of the free world. Most of the world cares very much what he thinks on most subjects.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-01-2004, 12:23 AM
Ouch man, I can't even begin to start telling you just how silly this sounds. He's the leader of the free world. Most of the world cares very much what he thinks on most subjects.

Oliver...

I doubt that anyone in England, Japan, or any other country not called the United States of America cares what Bush thinks about gay marriage.

People in other countries care about our foreign policy. They also care about our economy because it can have an effect on their economy. They don't care about what Bush thinks about gay marriage or steroid use.

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2004, 10:47 AM
No conflict with creatrionism and evolution when one takes into account relativity. A day is as a thousand years to the Lord. So even a strict interpretation in those guidelines is very much possible in thos guidelines.

Binding energy- by God's essence/existence /power all things consist. He holds like charges together that would repel otherwise.

Speaking of which Christ never spoke out against homosexuals, his new covenant was to love one another and he also prevented violence against women and capital punishment of prostitutes. Clearly he respected feminine genders more so than his culture. As for bunch of guys that ran around together and were their leader was supposedly never married... well do the math with it.

Final note- Clinton was so bad he had the highest popularity ratings of a President despite attempts to bribe or threaten or plea bargain people into perjury against him. Kenneth Starr was former Bush Sr legal arm who tried to carry a witch hunt out.

Damn Murder, until you jumped back into politics we were actually on the same page for a moment. Hey, if you ever want to piss off a Catholic...float the idea that Paul was a repressed homosexual which was why he was such a ba$tard prior to meeting Jesus, and so down on sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular afterwards. There's no proof for it of course, but I do find it funny that it's only in his scriptures that we find a really "puritanical" diatribe. And just so this doesn't turn into a total love fest I'll point out that Clinton was a very lucky President. He got to serve after the Cold War was won, and before terrorism came to our shores. He also was lucky enough to ride the dotcom economy, and overall didn't do anything to screw any of that up(although I and many others blame his weak responses for much of 9/11). As the old saying says...it's better to be lucky than good.

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2004, 10:48 AM
I doubt that anyone in England, Japan, or any other country not called the United States of America cares what Bush thinks about gay marriage.

People in other countries care about our foreign policy. They also care about our economy because it can have an effect on their economy. They don't care about what Bush thinks about gay marriage or steroid use.

Actually France is having a national debate right now on Gay marriage.

iceblizzard69
07-01-2004, 05:48 PM
Actually France is having a national debate right now on Gay marriage.

They may, but do you think that the French care what Bush thinks on the subject? What Bush thinks on gay marriage isn't going to affect what people in France think of gay marriage.

PhinPhan1227
07-01-2004, 05:59 PM
They may, but do you think that the French care what Bush thinks on the subject? What Bush thinks on gay marriage isn't going to affect what people in France think of gay marriage.

Possibly not...but the obverse to that question is why should Bush care what the rest of the world thinks of OUR state of the Union address?