Skip to comments.
Stern Threatens To Quit If Bush Signs Indecency Bill
FMQB ^
| March 11, 2004
Posted on 03/11/2004 7:03:02 PM PST by GulliverSwift
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-202 next last
To: GulliverSwift
Well....it's a Beaattchh isn't it Howard, when the adults are in charge.
41
posted on
03/11/2004 7:19:51 PM PST
by
goodnesswins
(The Democrat "Funeral" is on.....dum..dum..di...dum.)
To: GulliverSwift
Stern is threatening to quit anyway if President Bush signs new indecency legislation into law.And the downside is???
42
posted on
03/11/2004 7:20:04 PM PST
by
pfflier
To: GulliverSwift
Both I think. He's dull --- same stuff over and over --- I actually didn't know he was still around until the recent threads about him leaving his show. I can't say I'm an expert but the 20 minutes I listened to him, I can only say he was hysterical over himself but wasn't funny. I think like Alec Baldwin he's trying to make himself politically more important than he ever could be.
43
posted on
03/11/2004 7:20:18 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: GulliverSwift
He's going to satellite ....... they will pay to buy out his contract ....... and he/they will make even more as their masthead shock jock
.
44
posted on
03/11/2004 7:20:41 PM PST
by
Elle Bee
To: kcvl
Maybe you have forgotten about the Clintons having Bill O'Reilly audited THREE times and trying to put Rush out of business. And he failed to shut Rush down under existing laws.
Think he'll have better luck with new laws?
45
posted on
03/11/2004 7:21:46 PM PST
by
Mulder
(Fight the future)
To: myrabach
"Who's Howard Stern and why should I care?"
Howard Stern is an aging long haired radio guy whose significance in human development lies in the single fact that under the giuse of silencing his brand of speach, our government is setting president to silence others. Its actually our willingness to let government burocrats decide who is to speak and who is to be silenced that is the sad tale.
"Go ahead, take away my rights. I'm not using them."
46
posted on
03/11/2004 7:21:54 PM PST
by
dinok
To: GulliverSwift
You can't fire me, I quit. LOL
To: Elle Bee
if he is on a pay channel, very few will spend the extra money. they would likely put him on one of the "included" stations, to see if they could increase subscribers.
To: GulliverSwift
How, oh how, will we go on?
49
posted on
03/11/2004 7:24:05 PM PST
by
Skooz
(My Biography: Psalm 40:1-3)
Comment #50 Removed by Moderator
To: Elle Bee
How can he shock? Nothing is really very shocking anymore --- I think that's his major problem -- it's all he's ever had going and the repetitiveness of his routine will doom it. It was years ago when I listened to him -- it was stupid and vulgar but far from shocking.
51
posted on
03/11/2004 7:24:24 PM PST
by
FITZ
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
"And if Howard Stern is allowed to continue with his perversion schtick, the 'rats (when in power) will leave conservatives alone? Is that your argument?"
Up until now, we have had free speach. They may have wanted to go after Rush and others, but they did not have the legal tools. We just gave them to them.
Stern's popularity was wanning anyway. The guy was planing to give it up soon.
52
posted on
03/11/2004 7:25:14 PM PST
by
dinok
To: GulliverSwift
Door meet ass.
53
posted on
03/11/2004 7:25:48 PM PST
by
rintense
To: oceanview
I guess "the Murder Channel" would be OK too. And the "IV Drug channel". The current crap on the networks is no better. It's simply 'bread and circuses' mixed with propaganda.
To imply that the current broadcast lineup is wholesome simply because it doesn't feature "Debbie Does Dallas" and "IV Drug Channel" is ludicrous.
And the means by which the the public is to keep this kind of stuff out of the culture would be through some kind of diligent, 100% effective all the time, channel blocking everywhere, on every TV set that children could and might see. and the same for radios, we need foolproof parental controls for those also.
If parents spent more time teaching their children right and wrong, instead of trying to control everybody else's life, then the kids would simply turn it off themselves.
54
posted on
03/11/2004 7:25:56 PM PST
by
Mulder
(Fight the future)
To: GulliverSwift
Hmmmmm...just in time for MTV spring break shows. LOL!
To: dinok
They may have wanted to go after Rush and others, but they did not have the legal tools. We just gave them to them.What could be in an "indecency bill" that would impact Rush?
To: Mulder
Think he'll have better luck with new laws? After turning the IRS on every so-called conservative in the country, who had a radio show, newspaper or magazine article, I doubt they can. If the Clinton crime gang couldn't get it done, no one can. They are PROFESSIONALS at it.
57
posted on
03/11/2004 7:28:49 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: GulliverSwift
What a terrible loss to society.
58
posted on
03/11/2004 7:31:23 PM PST
by
pepperdog
(God Bless and Protect our Troops)
To: GulliverSwift
Stern is threatening to quit anyway if President Bush signs new indecency legislation into law. Is there supposed to be bad news in there?
59
posted on
03/11/2004 7:33:16 PM PST
by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: kcvl
After turning the IRS on every so-called conservative in the country, who had a radio show, newspaper or magazine article, I doubt they can. Isn't that a crime?
60
posted on
03/11/2004 7:33:17 PM PST
by
Mulder
(Fight the future)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-202 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson