General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2190708

    Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

    Locked

    by sleepin’dawg ·

    [b]It doesn’t matter what party you are this is absolutely hilarious.

    [i]Just watched a show on Canadian TV.[/b][/i]

    There was a black comedian who said he misses Bill Clinton.

    “Yep, that’s right – I miss Bill Clinton! He was the closest thing we ever

    got to having a black man as President:

    Number 1- He played the sax.

    Number 2- He smoked weed.

    Number 3- He had his way with ugly white women.

    Even now — look at him… his wife works, and he doesn’t!

    And, he gets a check from the government every month.

    Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America’s shelves this week with “Clinton Soup,” in honor of one of the nations’ most distinguished men.

    It consists primarily of a weenie in hot water.

    Chrysler Corporation is adding a new car to its line to honor Bill Clinton.

    The Dodge Drafter will be built in Canada.

    When asked what he thought about foreign affairs, Clinton replied ” I don’t know. I never had one.”

    American Indians nicknamed Bill Clinton “Walking Eagle” because he is so full of crap he can’t fly.

    Clinton lacked only three things to become one of America’s finest leaders: integrity, vision, wisdom.

    Clinton was doing the work of three men: Larry, Curly and Moe. The Clinton revised judicial oath: “I solemnly swear to tell the truth as I know it, the whole truth as I believe it to be, and nothing but what I think you need to know.”

    Clinton will be recorded in history as the only President to commmit Hanky Panky between Bushes.

    For the Glory of The State…

    [i]With sincere apologies to my American friends but this was just too funny to leave lie.[/i]

    [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3047278

      You can’t be Canadian.

      by stress junkie ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      You spelled “honor” correctly. 🙂

      • #3047262

        Being Canadian means we are more flexible with our spelling.

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to You can’t be Canadian.

        Honor or honour, what does it really matter??? Just because there are hide bound traditionalists around doesn’t mean I have to be one of them. I actually think and feel the American spelling makes more sense. It’s more economical in the use of letters. Now, when in hell are we going to get really smart and start spelling light and/or sight, lite and site. Do you know the Brits spell draft, draught. Why??? Makes no sense to me. for what it’s worth, though, I am very much a Canadian, I’m just not an American or US basher.

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3064776

          How dishonourable!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Being Canadian means we are more flexible with our spelling.

          F’our’, P’our’, Col’our’, Hon’our’

          for, por, color, honor?

          I have picked up a terrible habit of using Z instead of S though.

          Mesmorize, colourize, familiarize, Z AAAAAGHH!!!

          Gawd dang Engrish!

          Spelling it right:
          http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/diffusuk.html

        • #3064668

          Idiot …

          by ragingbull ·

          In reply to Being Canadian means we are more flexible with our spelling.

          I’ll tell you why we spell it draught and not draft – BECAUSE IT’S OUR GOD-DAMN LANGUAGE!

          Canadian/American = English for Dummies!

        • #3064566

          People make it sound

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Idiot …

          like there is suppose to be some intellegent thought put into how the language works! THAT is funny.

          When we have rules that something is done a certain way, unless it isn’t then you know the whole thing is a bunch of BS.

          But it is no different than other professions, such as medicine and Tech. We come up with terms no one else outside the field will understand to make us APPEAR to know more than we do. Well, the “academia” do the same thing all the time.

          How else do you thing people with a liberal arts degree can get a job doing anything but flipping burgers?

        • #3054538

          Inglish Misspelleng

          by melar ·

          In reply to Being Canadian means we are more flexible with our spelling.

          From reading original literature from around the mid-18th to late 19th century, I’ve come to think that the English language has been developed from the most popular misspellings. Even letters between scholars are rife with spelling and grammatical errors.
          It’s interesting to see how this language has evolved over time. Most of the differences in US spelling are logical, though I?m still willing to give it to the American?s for not being able to spell (:P).

          It?s actually quite a shame that such and uneconomical and illogical language became so wide spread. I think about the only thing going for it is the small number of characters used, though I’m sure there are languages with less.

        • #3054524

          Logical or phonetic?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Inglish Misspelleng

          I find most North American ‘misspellings’are phonetic. People just spell how it sounds, they seem to rarely rely on rules of silent letters, how vowel placement creates soft or emphasized vowel sounds etc.

        • #3058694

          Both

          by melar ·

          In reply to Logical or phonetic?

          We’re both saying the same thing. North American spellings are logical, you spell them how they should logically be based on how you want the word to sound.

    • #3047253

      Now you have done it!

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      Why do both men and women love Hillary Clinton?

      Women love her because she is a stong, independant, sucessful woman who goes for what she wants.
      Men love her because she lets her husband have affairs.

      The difference beteen humor against Bill and George is I really haven’t seen anything that wasn’t HATEFUL against GWB. How is being hateful funny or a joke? That or they take OLD jokes and substitue the name in. ha ha ha.

      • #3047251

        why

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Now you have done it!

        do people not make jokes that are funny about gwb?
        cause he is a joke in and of himself.

        it is obvious he is a couple dozen sandwiches short of a picnic.

        • #3047195

          And many points are fair game

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to why

          I am not saying “don’t make fun of GWB”, just if it is suppose to be a “joke” us should be funny AND jokes to be funny can not be based on HATE.

          Nothing funny about hate.

        • #3047187

          depends on your interpretation of hate

          by jck ·

          In reply to And many points are fair game

          if someone is poking at someone’s less-admirable qualities…is that really hate?

          if it is…all comics are hate mongers…cause, they all make fun of someone for some reason that they hate for one reason or another.

          Nonetheless…Bush is a joke…face it…he’s no great scholar…he’s no genius…and, he has little respect of other world leaders or from a majority of people…both in his own and other countries…including the people of Iraq who he is liberating to democracy.

          You can say all you want about Clinton. Clinton was respected and admired at home and abroad…and he could pronounce “nuclear” properly. 🙂

          btw…can ya call Dubya for me and ask him if Katrina was a big enough emergency to release some oil from that “emergency reserve”? 🙂 hahaha

        • #3047172

          Reply To: Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

          by antuck ·

          In reply to depends on your interpretation of hate

          “btw…can ya call Dubya for me and ask him if Katrina was a big enough emergency to release some oil from that “emergency reserve”?”

          He can’t do that. Then the price of gas would have to come down and big oil will not have that. It just rasied .25 in one day here. The storm just went through and we are already be gouged. And when I was at a gas station today, someone said they heard $4 to $5 a gallon soon.

        • #3047132

          gas prices

          by jck ·

          In reply to Reply To: Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

          we went up $.08 on Tuesday morning…and expect another $.06-12 today.

          You’re right. He’s held off doing it as payback to his big financial backers in the oil industry.

        • #3047104

          Gas prices here

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to gas prices

          The station nearest my home went from $2.49 on Sunday to $3.09 today. It’s incredible how big that hurricane was. It actually affected the gas in the tank in the ground over 1,000 from landfall. The station will get it’s next delivery tomorrow, so the supply there now was there before the storm hit.

          Somebody’s making money off of this. On a positive note, prices for Guinness have held steady. 🙂

        • #3055517

          reports back from the Lunch crowd here

          by jck ·

          In reply to gas prices

          Monday, August 29: Wal-Mart Supercenter here: 2.58
          Wed., August 31: Wal-Mart Supercenter here: 2.88

          30 cents in 2 days.

          Time to ask the boss to telecommute.

        • #3047080

          He has done it

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to Reply To: Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

          Check the news and you will see that GWB has authorized the use of oil from the reserve to keep refineries running. The refineries will be allowed to use it in exchange for replenishing it later “with interest”.

          “Technically it’s called an exchange of oil that we deliver today and that we will get oil back plus some interest, if you will, in the future. We will be tapping that today.”

          http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167908,00.html

        • #3047152

          NOW THAT WAS FUNNY!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to depends on your interpretation of hate

          “Clinton was respected and admired at home and abroad” HAHAHAHAHAAAA! Respect is NOT a word that is associated with William Jefferson Clinton.

          Also, my understanding that oil reserve is in case of getting cut off from importing oil, such as a time of war, not to lower the price of gas for a week to buy votes like Clinton tried.

          And you know exactly what I am talking about when I say “hate”.

        • #3047139

          Well…

          by jck ·

          In reply to NOW THAT WAS FUNNY!

          In comparison to Bush…Clinton was far more widely respected and admired by other world leaders…and…was always welcomed in other countries in a far warmer manner by more people at home and abroad than Bush. You never saw 1,000,000 Europeans gather to protest Clinton’s arrival in another country when he was president.

          Bush has burned a lot of bridges. It’s just reality, dude. I don’t know why you’re so staunch about Bush, but he’s nowhere near as good of a good diplomat…or respected as a leader as much by most of his peers (world leaders)…or as well-accepted by people in general by people in all countries as Clinton was.

          Just because Clinton didn’t support your causes, you try to castigate him from the honorable. Then, you chastise anyone’s opinion (like me) who thinks of Bush as “not a good president”.

          And besides that…if you think Bush is any more chaste than Clinton was in Washington D.C., you really need to take off the Republican rose-colored glasses.

          Maybe Clinton doesn’t have *your* respect…or Pat Robertson’s…or Hillary Clinton’s. But, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t hold higher regard amongst others than Bush as the leader of the United States.

          I just think Bush has got the wool over your eyes…or…you’re secretly in love with his twin daughters…ahhahaha…oh my…the stories about Austin I know involving Jenna. 🙂

          Have a nice day 🙂

        • #3055541

          ah, there you go again

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          I DIDN’T claim any high praise for Bush, you just took any slap against Clinton as a raise for Bush?

          People LIKE Clinton, they don’t RESPECT Clinton. The man is a weasle who would launch an attack everytime the news hounds got too close on his tail. (or was it ALWAYS a coincidance?) I am SURE he would be a great guy to go out drinking with, but I wouldn’t trust him with my daughter or my country. (if I had a daughter, that is)

          No rose colored glasses as if you would actually take the time to READ what I DO post, I only defend against untrue or unconfirmed charges that have no bases in facts or reality. I don’t and haven’t been singing his praise. Please link to if I you see differently.

          Has Bush pissed off other leaders? Yes, there were a lot of leaders who stood to continue great financial gain if Sadam would have stayed in power. Hmm, you mean other people were putting their finanial gains up front like you constantly claim Bush is? Oil for food anyone? Contracts with France and Germany anyone? The UN is corrupt to the core, but that is just peachy with you.

          And I would show his daughters that I AM the person their mother warned them about! ]:)

        • #3055504

          what? you mean…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well…

          I can’t refer to your backing of his policies in other postings like you go back to my old ones?

          As my old buddy Foghorn Leghorn might say to ya:

          “consistency, sir…I say…consistency…”

          hahahaha…see…you do raise Bush because…you only compliment him, yet you detract from Clinton on anything he did slightly questionable.

          I’ve actually complimented Bush on his fine choice of a wife. Laura Bush is one of the best first ladies and one of the few (including Dubya’s mother) who actually earns from me the title of “lady”. Something I wouldn’t give to Hillary because of her lack of poise and lady-like demeanor in highly charged situations.

          Hillary: Pit bull
          Laura: Lady

          Again…Clinton screwed around…big deal…a third of the people you have known have probably done that and I bet you still respect some of them…but as a *leader* of a country…how can you detract from what Clinton did there? He maintained a healthy, stable economy. He kept us on good terms with almost every country in the world. He maintained an image of a thoughtful, cognizant leader.

          BTW, Ireland had nothing to benefit from Iraq’s continued food for oil policy with the UN…that was France and Germany that were mainly involved in that (I think Syria and Jordan as well). Yet, Ireland didn’t back the USA. How can you explain that? Not every UN nation fits your mold of all the UN nations profiteering from Saddam’s transgressions.

          So anyways…I’m gonna go back and ply through your stuff sometime this weekend and find all the things you’ve said to support Bush’s policies and presidencies while I’m drinkin down my 15 liters of beer…

          ok…well…maybe I won’t…I think I’m just gonna drink, watch spank-o-vision like the swill sinner I am, mow my yard, powerwash my patio, paint parts of the house, mop my floors, and enjoy my weekend.

          BTW…I hear Jenna is a lot of fun and was definitely a drinker like her dad was…get her a bottle and I’m sure she’s yours 🙂 hahaha

          I *still* want Eleanor Mondale…just somethin about her…even tho I hated Fritz…

          Have a nice weekend…I’ll see you next week…unless I win the lotto…and in that case…it’s been nice arguing with ya! 😀

        • #3055485

          That is one, maybe

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          Ireland huh? I don’t recall hearing them voicing a protest of the US following through with the UN mandates that were already approved. Do they have an army? What did they way about the Iraq issue?

          As for past statements, that is EXACTLY what I have offered. Go back and look for my praise of GWB, while remembering defending parts is not the same as singing praise. There was the comment about him GRADUATING from a more prestegious University than either of us, but that isn’t exactly praise is it?

          So if just goes back to you being a radical left wing nutjob while I am the calm, reserved ceneral leaning independant thinker that has voted Republican. B-)

          Don’t drink and drive! You might spill your drink.

          Let us know how batch two came out.

          NOTE: what do you figure it is costing you per bottle to make your own? Have you figured it out yet?

        • #3055478

          you Love Bush like you love your porn :p

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well…

          hahahahaha ]:)

          Ireland refused to let any military from the US launch operation steps from Ireland upon Iraq, namely Shannon.

          Ireland has a military, yes.

          Ireland did not approve of the USA taking perrogative to invade and attack the government of a foreign nation. Therefore, they didn’t host US military actions from Ireland against Iraq. Of course, they didn’t talk smack or try to stop it either. I suppose you’re gonna pull that “with us or against us thing” now??

          As for not praising him…you have not gone and put him on stained glass…but, you never did mention the fact Clinton went to as prestigous a school…graduated with a higher GPA…was a Rhodes (I believe) scholar at Oxford…and had a higher GPA there than Bush did coming out of his BA or MBA.

          Oh well…you love Bush…if I see Jenna, I’ll let her know you’re waitin for her in Michigan.

          13 mins to go til I am off work…and…you’re still workin. 😀

          WOOOHOOOOOO!!!!

          “Beer Beer Beer…let it flow like water…” – Bubba Wilson

        • #3055320

          Again, your not being fair

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          I mentioned Bush’s academics because of the many times people go on about “how stupid he is”.

          I did not mention Clintons academics because no one said anything to imply otherwise. I never said Clinton was stupid or uneducated.

          JD = fair
          JCK = !fair

          :^O

          I didn’t sing praise, just don’t like unfair or untrue statements and try to set the record straight.

          Like I said, I would have a beer with Clinton and I know he would be the life of the party. A likable guy. Just not someone I would trust with anything more than to order the next round or chose which nudie bar to go to.

        • #3055302

          ok then…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well…

          before I go write software:

          Give me your fair, impartial, unbiased, centrist (and hopefully somewhat abbreviated) comparison of Bush versus Clinton on these points:

          1) Personal morality vs claimed religious belief
          2) Personal life activities past and present
          3) Actions taken in office based on human rights
          4) Fiscal spending while US President
          5) Policies implemented during their tenure as president and their effects (good or bad) upon the American people

          Here’s your opportunity to convert me (even though I’ve been a registered Republican since 1988). I would love to hear why I should think more highly of Bush.

          BTW, I voted for Jeb. He’s a Republican. So, I’m not *that* leftist 😉 hahaha

          Really gotta run. I’ll try and get back for your thesis 🙂

        • #3055223

          I respect Clinton.

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Well…

          Truly and honestly. The man was a weasle and cheated on his wife, HOWEVER, because of him, for 8 years, you couldn’t NOT be covered for pre-existing conditions, small businesses got some great tax breaks (that’s what really allowed the internet to boom FYI), more people GOT health insurance than were disqualified for it, and he made great strides in bringing peace to several parts of the world. All by executive orders that GWB nixed his first days in office.

          There have been PLENTY of presidents who cheated on their wives, but none of THEM got impeached for having consensual sex and then trying to keep it a secret. WTF business was it of Ken Starr or a court that he was cheating on his wife as long as long as it wasn’t sexual harassment? That was a matter for he and his wife, and NOT something that should have been put to a public judging. Ken Starr couldn’t find anything Clinton was actually doing that was illegal or even questionable other than getting a hummer, so he had to discredit him any way he could. Jdclyde, your wife cheated on you, should she have lost her job for it? Was it any business of her boss or the other people she works with?

          So, while I don’t like what Clinton did to his wife, I respect the policies and the foreign diplomacy of the man. He was a great supporter of the blue-collar laborer.

        • #3055851

          Well Jess

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          Clinton didn’t get in impeached for having an affair. He got impeached because he committed purjury while trying to defend himself FROM a sexual harassment suit. He used his position to obstruct justice to defend himself on a personal level for this alleged sexual abuse. Why weren’t any of the womens advocate groups screaming for his head on a pike over that?

          This is the same man who would not repeal the “marriage tax penalty” because it would “cost too much”.

          This is the man who did not take a strong stance when terrorists attacked. They were used to the way Bill did business-as-usual and when the trade center was attacked it was done with the thought that we would pull all bases out of Quait, not hit them back.

          How about his refusing to do anything in Rwanda because it was an election year? Then after the slaughter was done, he goes down there on Air Force One, Makes a quick speach AT THE AIRPORT claiming no one understood what was going on. He then turns around and leaves. Ever see the videos of the genocide there? Groups walking around with machetties hacking up men, women and children. Wasn’t pretty.

          play down why he was impeached if you want.
          As for the internet boom, he was just at the right place at the right time. If he was responsible for the boom, then he would be responsible for the crash too, right? Time to be fair. He wasn’t responsible for either.

          How about launching a few rockets any time the media got too hot for him? Blowing up that embassy because they looked at an old map? Come on! Give us more credit than that.

          And do not confuse dislike for one with blind support for the other.

        • #3055659

          He should never have been put in a position to perjure himself

          by jessie ·

          In reply to Well…

          He wasn’t being charged with sexual harassment, he was being questioned under oath in regards to a consensual sexual relationship. He was made to choose between hurting his wife openly and publicly, or commenting on a perfectly legal though completely immoral relationship.

          And Clinton WAS as responsible for the internet boom as anyone can claim. He gave huge tax breaks to small businesses (who employ 40% of the work force) allowing more people to afford to start up companies via the internet. He did this by executive order in his first 30 days in office. As for the recession, the internet boom had plateaued in his last year in office, but we didn’t start to recede until Bush came into office and froze Clinton’s executive orders.

          What about FMLA? That was Clinton’s baby. And the Earned Income Tax Credit that allowed me as a young single mother to keep a little more of my tax money, giving me a WHOPPING $1500 income tax return which allowed me to buy the 12 year old suburu wagon that got me to work and back for another 6 years.

          What about the middle east peace talks the Ayatollah walked out on, and Clinton flew out to him, and brought him BACK to the table?

          Admittedly, not EVERY policy Clinton espoused while he was in office did the Middle income earners a lot of good, but we were sure a HELL of a lot better off than we are now with GWB! And YES that WAS thanks to Clinton and his policies!!!

        • #3055199

          I agree

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          he never should have sexually harrassed anyone. Then he would not have been called into court to be asked about Flowers OR Monica. If you will recall Monica was called in to show he has a history of doing this sort of behavior with subordinates.

          And if Monica wouldn’t have saved the famous blue dress, she would still be “that woman” and Bill would still have never had sexual relations with her.

          But people like to focus on that part so they can downplay his whole role. They make excuses for him because they liked him and money was good.

          The FACT that the only reason Monica came up (pun intended) was as a part of the Jennifer Flower Sexual Harrassment suit. Why would you excuse sexual harrassment? Why would you excuse perjury? Why would you excuse him blowing up the wrong building more than once? Embassies? Asprin factories? And of course Rwanda did affect us here in the US and the media refused to carry it so that has been made into a non-issue.

        • #3065046

          Bill Clinton fired that missile?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Well…

          I believe he ordered that the military blow up a missile factory, and the military’s “intelligence” failed to correctly determine that chemical factory’s present use. As I recall, it had been used for chemical weapons in the distant past, but its conversion to civilian use had not been noticed.

          It’s also worth remarking that Clinton was NOT found guilty of harassment, but that the Lewinsky testimony served its purpose: it was repeated for months, on every broadcast media available, humiliating the man and the party, while distracting from issues that intelligent, responsible people consider relevant political events.

        • #3064825

          Do you mean to tell me

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well…

          Clinton acted on false or old intelligance information? I have heard that before.

          Just like how the 9/11 commision NEGLECTED to report on how we HAD lots of information about the hijackers a year BEFORE Bush took office

        • #3064774

          Depends if you can laugh at yourself

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to depends on your interpretation of hate

          Someone who cracks jokes about other people is fine, if he can also take a joke or even tell a joke about himself.

          I will be the first one to laugh at someone else, but I can laugh at myself too, this is where hate turns into fair humour.

        • #3064563

          don’t forget intent

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Depends if you can laugh at yourself

          if the whole intent is to be mean or crual then you have answered your own question on if it is hateful or not.

          Like I said before, hate is never funny.

        • #3055507

          “Nothing funny about hate.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to And many points are fair game

          Absolutely right.

          As much as I admired Bill Clinton’s attempt — when it was honestly attempted — to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative, attempting to use a cigar as a dildo is hilarious, especially when I think of what happens to cigars when they become wet.

          There is nothing funny about telling outright lies about the capability of one’s father’s enemy’s ability to commit acts of war against the country of which one is the president, while remaining allied with the nation of origin of all 19 members of a bona fide act of war against that same president’s country.

          The reason for hate of GWB is not that all Democrats are hateful, but tht GWB’s “leadership” is hateful.

        • #3055479

          This is far from a new thing

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “Nothing funny about hate.”

          As there were many in the Democratic party ranting and raving even before 9/11 happened.

          The thing that Gave Bush the last election was HATE was the MAIN tool used for the Kerry election and it didn’t work. That and being “not Bush”.

          While we will never know all the truths in the world, we do know that we won’t find them in a Michel Moore movie.

        • #3055469

          hehehe

          by jck ·

          In reply to This is far from a new thing

          I just had to reply to this one before I leave the office:

          from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

          Entitled: “From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity”

          “Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.”

          So…who was the hate monger again? hehehe

          Have a good weekend…oh wait…you gotta work tomorrow!!!

          (Sorry to rub it in…first day vacation days taken off in 18 months 🙁 )

        • #3055310

          more factors involved

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to hehehe

          first, there is a difference between an ad showing someone saying or doing something that voters won’t like. Negative, but reasonable.

          The TONE in the ATTACK ads against Bush were NOT reasonable.

          When they go to the family of the guy that got dragged to his death because he was black, and Bush didn’t sign the “hate crimes” bill.

          The people that did the crime were already convicted and were going to get the death penalty. What was needed of this HATE CRIMES bill if they were already getting the worst we can do to someone?

          To have the family say “It was liking having him killed all over again…” That was just stupid and EVERYONE that bought into it WAS AND IS STUPID.

          Then there were the moveon.org and Soros ads that don’t play into that. Get an outside group to play your hate ads so you can pretend you have nothing to do with it? Any honest person saw right through all of that.

          Remember your lesson of the day. Negative does not equal HATE. Just means there is a lot of bad things to say about someone! 🙂

        • #3055277

          Bush did the same thing

          by jck ·

          In reply to hehehe

          He got vets groups to attack Kerry. Outside group recruited to attack…so, he’s no better on that point.

          Of course, Bush could not rely on using his own service record of going into battle…because he never went. So, he had to pick on Kerry and not being able to remember where he was in Southeast Asia 30 years prior.

          Bush also used the 9/11 victims as a campaign tool. If you asked me, that was distasteful showing grieving families and that tragedy as a campaign tool. Not to mention, Rudy Giuliani was the real leader of that recovery…not Bush…Bush came in after the fact. Giuliani was a rock and was often there around the clock. Bush tried to take the glory for that. If anything, he should have admitted national security faultered during his first term.

          Not to mention, Bush ads lied about the number of votes Kerry cast on things…and, those were Bush Campaign written ads, not an outside source.

          Anyways…Bush did no better…and, Bush had his attack dogs too…and did his own spin.

          Now…where is the hate again in Kerry’s ads? Negative not equal hate? Someone say that? How was Byrd’s family saying things hate by Kerry? You lost me there.

          If so, then Bush using 9/11 photos and film in his campaign was even worse. Using the suffering of thousands of families for political motives. That’s a real class move.

        • #3055802

          “Pets or meat!”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to This is far from a new thing

          I don’t often agree with you JD, but when I do, I agree wholeheartedly. I can’t think of an instance of Michael Moore being honest about an [b]important[/b] fact when he could distort instead. Sure, he’s objective and accurate…but only when saying trivial things, like the time of day or “Now we’re approaching GM headquarters, dressed in rags, for a surprise visit with the president of the company. Despite our appearance and demeanor, we’re going to act scandalized that he won’t see us without an appointment.” I don’t even bother to consider that blowhard’s meaningless drivel since that movie about Flint, MI.

          Kerry did campaign stupidly, that’s true too, but none of that changes the facts that the reports that Saddam Hussein had the ability to launch missiles to England at 45 minutes notice were not current, that the president, and probably all the administration members who parroted that claim, had access to that fact, and that the Congress was not told that the “intelligence” was faked when they voted to support the invasion of Iraq. Few Democrats argue the facts that carefully, but if you review the news, that is exactly what you’ll see. Barak Obama had C. Rice on the ropes in January, but the party didn’t pursue the point.

        • #3055748

          Is that twice now

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “Pets or meat!”

          that you agreed with me?

          You would think something as rare as that would stand out more….. 🙂

        • #3065057

          It’s bound to happen occasionally.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “Pets or meat!”

          We are both very opinionated, don’t you agree?

          😉

        • #3065006

          I disagree

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “Pets or meat!”

          I am opinionated, while you are [b]merely[/b] mistaken! [i] (I crack myself up)[/i]

          :^O

          [b]mere[/b] [i]2 obsolete : being nothing less than : [b]ABSOLUTE[/i]

        • #3064896

          I will concede that one point.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “Pets or meat!”

          In hypothesizing agreement on being equally opinionated, I must concede that I was “[b]merely[/b] mistaken!” It’s your opinion that I’m not opinionated, but all that means to me is that you’re an even ornerier, opinionated blowhard than me!

          Actually, for somebody who’s chronically wrong, you’re very funny!

        • #3064847

          Just about died

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “Pets or meat!”

          from laughter when I looked up merely and saw that definition! :^O It was fate? Or maybe an act of GOD! ROTHLMAO!

          [i]”chronically”?

        • #3065079

          Well you got that one wrong

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to This is far from a new thing

          Bush was re-elected because his campaign director deliberately targeted the Evangelical Christians on the correct assumption that they would vote against Bush on the moral issues as they would consider those more important than foreign policy and domestic management.

          It’s a while back now so I don’t remember the percentages, or the name of his campaign director, but that person quite openly declared his strategy after the election.

          By the way, as an Aussie I can assure you that the mood in my country is that Clinton was a respected leader, and even though I live in one of the most conservative areas of Sydney, I have never encountered ANYONE who had anything positive to say about GWB.

        • #3065000

          But there is a difference

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well you got that one wrong

          between not having anything positive to say about GWB and having something positive to say about WJC.

          And yes, Bush’s campaign centered around his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses. That is what you do as a campaign director.

          It also helped that the Kerry campaign, as well as the Gore campaign were poorly run and did as much to hurt themselves as Bush did to make himself look good.

          If listenting to liberal radio is any hint, the people that have hijacked the Democratic party actually believe they lost because they weren’t liberal ENOUGH and want to drag that party even further to the left. Centrist Dems don’t want that and the people at the top just can’t understand that.

          It will be interesting to see what happens next time around and what the Dems will try next. “I’m not Bush” and Bush Hate will not work this next time either so they will have to find someone new to hate. And all this hate is WHY they will lose again and again.

          And I assume you meant to type they would vote FOR Bush on the moral issues?

          From what I see, Clinton has hurt the Democratic party and it is something that will continue for a while. If he were thought of well here in the US, he would have helped the Dems get the presidency. He would have helped his wife get elexcted in NY to the senate. Very low profile in both presidential elections and no where to be found for his wifes election.

          Yes, he is popular still, just like other notoriuos people in our society over here. A well spoken, good looking guy that does what he wants when he wants “because he can”. I woldn’t vote for “snoop dogg” either, but he seems very popular. Just shows how low of a standard many have, not that he is a good role model or leader.

        • #3064965

          hey jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well you got that one wrong

          get that…a foreigner who thinks Clinton was considered a respected leader by the people in that area of their country.

          Holy crap…could you be wrong?????

          hahahaha…this is good…I’m gonna have to get my friends from England and Ireland and Scotland on here…they’ll tell you the same thing.

        • #3064941

          Well jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well you got that one wrong

          getting enough people to say an incorrect answer does not change the conclusion that the answer is still incorrect.

          There are plenty of people that are wrong all the time! Just a good thing I’m not one of them!

          :^O

        • #3064918

          but it’s not an answer that was involved…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Well you got that one wrong

          You stated your *opinion* that foreigners didn’t respect him. You never showed poll results.

          jul646 seems to think more people than just himself respect Clinton as a leader in his part of Australia.

          I concur with him, because my friends in Perth, Adelaide and Sydney have told me before that Clinton was a much better president for the states and that he seemed to be more respected than Bush. Not to mention, my friends in Newcastle and Ipswich and Penzance England, Edinburgh Scotland, Tipperary Ireland, Belfast Northern Ireland and Lyons France have the same general consensus.

          I think it’s clear he had respect as a president in many other countries, and more respect as a president than Bush does.

          But, what do I know? Right? Don’t get in a *RUSH* to answer me…hahahahaha 😀

        • #3047083

          I think you just proved jdclyde’s point

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to why

          Your comments describe exactly what he said.

          Now, if you made a joke about how GWB says “nucular” or “misunderestimate”, then that would be funny without being hateful. 🙂

        • #3055540

          It is a burden

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I think you just proved jdclyde’s point

          always being right, but I am used to it! 🙂

          Clinton “jokes” about bill are usually about his complete lack of moral character which he even admits to with his explanation of why he did it. “Because I could”.

          I will admit that “jokes” about Hillery are just as hateful as the GWB ones because SHE IS hated, while Bill isn’t hated.

          Yes, I would bend Chelsia over too! ]:)

        • #3055522

          complete lack of moral character?

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is a burden

          hmm…a guy who goes out and raises funds for tsunami relief…complete lack of morals there.

          Even Bush Sr. did too. Didn’t see the prez fly over and take a look. He was too busy in Crawford 🙂

          Personally…I’m still lookin to get a hold of Eleanor Mondale. ]:)

        • #3055296

          Trying to establish a legacy

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to complete lack of moral character?

          He has been trying to re-write who he is so future generations will look at him differently than the current generations.

          Did you know that in I believe it was in the great down-under country in their wax musium they had to SEW the zipper shut on the Clinton wax figure because people would hop the line, unzip the zipper and have their picture taken kneeling in front of Bill? THAT is what the world thinks of Bill.

        • #3065054

          Do you mean the wax museum in Amsterdam?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Trying to establish a legacy

          That’s the city where nothing is more than 5 minutes, on foot, from the nearest prostitute in a window. I never went into the wax museum, but “sex tourism” is a major industry there, so anything sexual is likely to be overemphasized & taken to extremes, including a President’s famous adultery. Amsterdam is also famous for its “coffee shops”, which sell marijuana from all over the world. So, I propose that it would be more accurate to take behavior in that environment as evidence of what a bunch of sex maniacs and potheads think, not to say “THAT is what [b]the world[/b] thinks of Bill.”

        • #3055480

          why is

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I think you just proved jdclyde’s point

          stating my opinion that bush is shy of sandwiches for a picnic a hatefull comment?

          it wasn’t meant as either a joke or a hatefull comment. only my opinion.
          ( which the media has supplied ample evidence in support of )

        • #3055294

          Your a smart guy

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to why is

          you can figure out what is hateful and what isn’t.

          Delivery and intent are good indicators.

        • #3055265

          so you’re implying

          by jck ·

          In reply to Your a smart guy

          that I’m stupid, because you evidently don’t think I know the difference between hate and political ad campaigns.

          Negative ads (mudslinging it’s called in political circles) was what happened.

          Hate ads would have been Kerry’s campaign adding “…and, Bush’s brother is a spic-loving idiot with a drug-head daughter.” or Bush’s adding “…at least I didn’t marry my wife for money.”

          That’s the difference. That is hate.

          ?Compr?ndes t? ?ste lecc?on, amigo?

        • #3055863

          Hmmm, did I step on your tail?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to so you’re implying

          This part was focused on the JOKES, not the ads.

          Your on the wrong page amigo, turn baby turn.

          I imply nothing.

          I can not be held accountable for how you feel about a post to someone else. Feel guilty?

        • #3064612

          feel guilty?

          by jck ·

          In reply to so you’re implying

          not in the least…

          and by the way, that isn’t a tail that you stepped on hangin out of my pantsleg…

          it’s my suspenders… 🙁

        • #3064775

          Because it isn’t funny

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to why

          Sure his Bushisms are funny, his redkneck swager and typical attitude are funny, but really, there’s not too much to laugh about when they guy has the power to actually act on his stupidity.

          It wasn’t funny when Clinton was in office either, we can all laugh at what was a serious concern once the person is no longer in power.

          Mind you I have heard a lot of really funny comedians take on Bush; there is a lot to laugh at, unfortunately it’s laugh until you cry, as it becomes a reality.

        • #3064670

          You know what they say..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Because it isn’t funny

          It’s all fun and games until it starts itching and burning.

        • #3064417

          :)

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You know what they say..

          Save that for the Yuk!

          P.S. thanks for the late-in-the-day smile, I really needed that!

      • #3047248

        Once he’s out of office …

        by stress junkie ·

        In reply to Now you have done it!

        … the humor will become more light hearted.

        • #3047207

          very true

          by jck ·

          In reply to Once he’s out of office …

          Broadcasters are scared s**tless of 7-figure fines from the Bush FCC for “questionable content”.

          When Dubya is gone and the FCC chair is replaced, broadcasters won’t feel like they’re in Victorian era England anymore.

        • #3047188

          And that has what to do with this conversation?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to very true

          The “jokes” come in emails, posted in blogs and on web sites.

          The FCC does not regulate this.

          The FCC does not regulate speech against the Pres as long as your educated enough to not swear while you are making your speech.

          IF the FCC would have been doing their job years ago, it wouldn’t seem so far out of line now.

          You don’t think there should be ethical and moral standards held to broadcasts on public airwaves during prime time?

          You don’t think there is too much sex and violence in graphic detail for young children to watch on a daily basis?

          When you have children, will you let your five year old watch violent show? Shows that have such poor writing that people count how many times the “F” word is used per broadcast? Shows that have hot babes walking around in very revealing clothing and sometimes nothing at all?

          After hours or on pay channels are and should be exempt from that because you are CHOOSING to bring it in or there is less chance of small children watching.

          I still avoid shows with the gratuatious sex scenes when I am with my boys. They have the rest of their lives to have women to make them miserable. Let them be kids for now.

          Note about Victorian England, didn’t the queen get “serviced” often?

        • #3047183

          what is has to do

          by jck ·

          In reply to And that has what to do with this conversation?

          Check out the number of comedic entertainers who have commented (among others in entertainment and others involved in broadcasting) on how the FCC has restricted expression.

          It has to do with repression. Humor will get lighter…here and in broadcasting…once Bush is gone. Not only because people have to worry less about what he’s currently doing, but because his FCC regime will be outed as well.

          Life and broadcasting aren’t mutually exclusive of one another…they do affect each other.

        • #3047148

          Free porn for all?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to what is has to do

          Get another Dem in the white house so we can get rid of those pesky moral standards that infringe on our rights to be a decadent society!

          I watch very little TV anymore simply because the standards on what is acceptable behavior is much lower than I can tolerate. If it wasn’t for my kids, I wouldn’t even have cable TV because I haven’t turned a TV on in about two months now. I will occasionally sit down and watch something with the boys that they are watching.

          The “no standards/no judgements” crowd disgusts me. Gee, I WONDER why the rest of the world sees us as so decadent? They watch our shows and our glorification of excessive violence and sex.

          No, I am not a prude. Nor would I take your dvd of “debbie does dishes”. But I don’t think it has any place on public TV or radio. Get yourself a pay channel, swill boy! 🙂

          “a time and place for everything”.

          We in America do NOT have to be scumbags to enjoy life.

        • #3047136

          damn skippy

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          As an adult…if I choose to buy porn…that is *my choice*…not *yours* to make for me. Thank you.

          You have *no* right to dictate my morality so long as it doesn’t infringe on your or anyone else’s rights guaranteed you under law.

          The reason the world sees us as anything is because of our double-standard when it comes to “rights”. We, as a country, are considered by most of Europe to be “behind the curve”. They don’t make issue of a naked human body in a lot of countries on TV in Europe…or even intimacy…but, ya won’t see hard-core porn over there on TV either. Why? Because they can choose between what is blatantly raunchy and what is commonly admissable. But in the United States, we still give too much power in our government to the “moral majority” which is essentially the religious establishment, rather than letting all people have equal ground of differing moral beliefs.

          One thing Europeans laugh at us for is our ability to call ourselves “moral” because we don’t allow nudity on television, yet we bomb other people whose political state is not in line with our own political ideology.

          Now…let me ask you this: when did I *ever* advocate porn on public television or radio? You’re sensationalizing things now. You start it out with me getting free porn….then…move it to me wanting it on public broadcasts. Where does that come from? I never advocated that. I simply think that someone shouldn’t be fined $750,000 for saying “penis” on the air because his name is Howard Stern and not Dr. Ruth Westheimer. Dr. Ruth can talk about sex all day…but if Stern cracks one joke and his stationo doesn’t bleep him…instant fine. That is sad someone can’t even make light of sex.

          BTW…there were broadcast standards that don’t allow adult content on broadcast television and radio when Clinton was in office and he had Reed Hundt as FCC chair…who was a conservative FCC chair. And enforced them quite often.

          However under Bush…and…it was *not* on the docket until *after* Howard Stern announced he was leaving “terrestrial radio” (publicly broadcast radio) that the Republican congress decided to start looking into censoring pay-per-use satellite radio and television.

          If anything, Bush’s buddies in the house and senate are on a witch hunt to take out people who talk against them and their form of politics…Stern just being the biggest target for them to aim at. They take him down, others will fall in line.

          Luckily, private subscription service is not regulated under decency law like that. So, Bush’s political cohorts failed to get around the law that way. I’m sure they, and Bush, will be looking for some loophole to silence their detractors.

          And if you can’t find anything to watch on cable television, might I suggest:

          PBS
          The History Channel
          The Discovery Channel
          The Learning Channel
          History International
          The Science Channel
          The Discovery/Times Channel
          Food Network
          The Travel Channel
          FitTV

          and any one of the plethora of channels that have no “offensive” material.

          And besides that…if you want family TV…there’s always “Pax” or “CBN” or “TBN” or “The Family Channel”

          BTW…I do have standards…I just don’t think mine should be what is required in your home. 🙂

        • #3055533

          Repent sinner!

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          LOL! I didn’t say there was ANYTHING wrong with your porn, in your home.

          There is a difference between nudity and decadent behavior, and decadent has no place on the public airwaves when CHILDREN could be listening or watching.

          There ARE countries in the EAST where it is illegal to have ANY porn. Anything that happens in France is NOT a concern or standard that should be followed anywhere else in the world. does spain or England have the majority of their programming dealing with VERY violent shows, decadent behavior, glamorization of drugs and sex?

          Should anyone be able to say the “F” word, anytime they want? What is the value of foul language or lude acts in the public forumn?

          You are big against child abuse, but don’t have an issue of them being exposed to Howard Stern? A VERY adult show that SHOULD be on a pay channel. It is funny and I have listened to it, but it is ADULT humor and should not be made available to minors.

          Or do you think that it is a crime to not allow minors unsupervised into rated “R” movies? Just let anyone do whatever anyone wants to do. I think that is sad. I love my kids, and feel ALL kids should not be exposed to adult material.

        • #3055492

          yessuh massah

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          “LOL! I didn’t say there was ANYTHING wrong with your porn, in your home.”

          No, but you are saying cable is full of this “decadent” programming. And, less than 10 of my channels are local, broadcast, freely publicly-accessible television. And, I *pay* for a *subscription* to cable. Therefore, I should be able to get at least *some* porn on there. That’s what Skin-emax and Ho Box Office are for. 🙂

          Of all the channels I get on cable…7 are local, broadcast stations. The rest (some 145, I think) are satellite carried and not broadcast.

          So…since I pay for cable…Swill boy has paid…now gimme mah porn, GOPer! :p

          Personally, I think you’re dwelling on all the negatives. There are plenty of great shows on cable. Honest.

          Seriously, I could recommend some cool shows for you to watch that involve no person-on-person violence gratification (Mythbusters does blow stuff up and what not), has no nudity ever, and has no drugs (unless it’s a documentary about it or its effects)…and…none of them involved networks run by Robertson, Falwell or Jesse Jackson.

          The “decadent” stuff is kept off broadcast TV.

          As for children that could be watching on cable:

          a) They instituted a TV programming ratings system…learn it…it helps…I promise you.

          b) Most cable operators offer program blocking so that you can keep children out of channels and/or certain rated programs. Please contact them for information.

          There are ways to keep your kids from watching that stuff….honest. I know this and I’m not even a dad….and used it when my niece visited years ago.

          There are many countries in the WEST too that have bans on porn…or even nude artistic pictures.

          In Japan, showing breasts is fine. But, showing a woman’s pubic area is forbidden and must be covered on broadcasts.

          In England, shows called “Footballer’s Wives” and “Dream Team” are showing/have shown smoking and drug use done by the glamourous and wealthy. So in a sense, they show it as something that the “hip” people do.

          Is “the F word” never appropriate? Is it always a vulgarity? Not in Ireland evidently, where (although I understand it’s not used rampantly) I did hear “the F word” on an Irish radio station.
          See…the Irish…understand context. You can use it as a vulgarity…or an insult. Or, you can use it as an emotion of expression which is non-inflamatory and non-degrading and has no sexual overtones.

          Now…the last…and certainly most important thing I want to stress…and I’m sure you know this already:

          You, as the father of your children, have complete control over what they do and don’t watch and listen to while they are in your home, car, etc. If your children are being exposed to things you don’t want them exposed to, you have the right to prevent your children from being in those places and situations. That is your legal right as a parent, whether it is at home, school, church, on the playground, etc. You are ruler over your children until they are 18 or legally emancipated from you by a court of law.

          Now…I can understand not wanting porn on television. Fine.

          However, Howard Stern is comedy. Sometimes, it is very adult. However, you have the option to exclude your children from exposure to those things.

          And more importantly, you have the ability to turn off Howard Stern while your children are in your presence and to keep them away from people who would expose them to that which you find not to your liking.

          However, Howard Stern is not just sex talk. Howard Stern is not just vulgarities. Howard Stern is not only devil worship. In fact, Howard Stern has been so censored by Infinity Broadcasting that it should get a PG-13 rating now.

          But, that man (likely because you don’t know because you don’t listen enough) has done some of the finest interviews with people such as Eric Clapton, Joe Walsh, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Bill Clinton, Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc etc etc. Sure, the guy throws in a weird question on occassion. But, the real class interviews handle it well and the regular dialogue continues.

          Honestly, I have no doubt you gather part of your opinion of Howard Stern through the same means as I do mine of Dubya….the media.

          But, you’d actually be impressed if you heard some of the stuff he’s done. A lot of the stuff people pick at him for is years and years old.

          Now…let me ask one thing of you: Do you have pay channels…and if so, do you have them restricted from your children watching them?

          If not, I can tell you as a former minor male…when you find out about HBO and Cinemax…ya start watchin em when mom and dad aren’t around.

          Plus, I have to tell you. I’ve heard worse stuff come out of the mouths of junior high students than Howard Stern has ever had. Your kids are exposed to far worse at school. I would think your efforts would be better aligned cleaning up the public institutions your taxes help pay for, rather than a self-sufficient, privately funded program such as Howard Stern.

          Anyways…have a good weekend…I’m off for my long one…off to beer and swill as I please…YEEAAAAAAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ]:)

        • #3055167

          You guys seem to be missing a point.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Children should not be exposed to sex and violence before they’ve reached a proper level of comprehension of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. As to what is moral or immoral will, to a large extent, lie within how their parents and environment respond to what is being shown and thus, norms of morality become a moving target.

          Here are some examples of some of the foulest languge possible; take a walk past any school yard and listen while 1st graders, male and female, toss around words like “fu_k”, “sh_t”, “co_ksucker”, “motherf_cker”,”pri_k”, “cun_”, “b_tch”, “ba_tard”, and last but not least, what domestic heaven turned out a child that announced, in adult company, I might add, “Mommy I need to take a piss before I fu_kin’ float away.”, this latter from a four year old at an upper level, middle class church gathering. It wasn’t my kid, so I felt free to kill myself laughing, especially at the look of shock that crossed the face of every adult and the consummate embarassment on the faces of the parental units, which was compounded by there attempts to disown their progeny. “I don’t know where she heard that word.” “Where do kids hear things like that?” “Who taught her that?” I damn near gave myself a hernia trying to suppress my laughter because I knew the answer.

          Years before I had suffered a similar incident while picking up my mother-inlaw at the airport. My daughter was in the backseat, in her carseat and as we were leaving the airport, someone cut me off. I kept my cool, bit my tongue and said nothing except maybe damn but from the rear seat, my precious, beautiful daughter let fly, “Did you see that pri_k? Where did that as_hole learn to drive?” Trust me, I shrank down in my seat as much as possible under the glare of my mother-inlaw, who knew full well where she had acquired the language. We oftimes forget the presence of children, which was the only posssible explanation of where she had learned the language and phrasing. Fortunately my mother-inlaw was a good sport and let on that she had suffered similar incidents with her daughters and sons. It’s a mind-blower when you realize just how much kids acquire when you think they aren’t listening or you’ve forgotten their presence.

          Back in the school yard, you’re first reaction is, “What kind of homes do these kids come from??” The answer, of course, is perfectly normal homes. How we react to language teaches them that certain words have the ability to shock and they have no idea of any limits to their usage. Furthermore, they have little or no idea to the meanings. If you think back carefully, there must have been a time or two when you jolted your parents with inappropriate language and were threatened to have your mouth washed out.
          Think about it!!!

          As for explicit displays of sex and violence it is up to parents to monitor what their children are watching. You can only ride herd on them to a limited extent. Sure you can make sure they do not watch the more adult programs such as ER or NYPD Blue but how do you stop them from watching the six o’clock news. I became concious of this back in the Vietnam War era when seeing real time displays of action during news broadcasts of those times. The news displays real sex and violence not the simulated variety of entertinment TV. How we explain this to our children is how they will learn to react when we aren’t present to guide them. Remember the lesson of forbidden fruit, there is a lure to that which is restricted and forbidden. It has been an age old struggle to determine when and if it ever becomes moral and appropriate to expose this to kids and at what age. No one has found an answer to that yet and there are as many opinions as there are people. Sex, violence, pornography have been around since the beginning of time and it’s not about to go away. There were pornographic murals uncovered in the excavations of Pompei and several Egyptian sites, to prove that. How we respond to pornography will determine the level of licentiousness and permissiveness of our society.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3065096

          no point missed here

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          I can understand not exposing children to things like gratuitous sex and violence. I’ve never been a proponent of that.

          However, I am a proponent of getting parents off their arse and making them be *parents*. This means, you don’t sit the kids in front of the TV set with their Count Chocula or whatever and let them watch and watch and watch.

          Too often nowadays, adults (namely parents) use things like television and the internet as a babysitter for their kids so that they can keep them occupied while the parents “do things”.

          I simply propose that it is not totally the broadcaster’s responsibility to fracture the entirety of program content into diminutive portions of moralistic content to appease every little sector of society. Television broadcasters and the recording industry already provide a ratings system upon which parents can grade the programming and music media to which their children are exposed.

          At some point in the United States, we have to place the responsibility onto parents for what their children watch and/or listen to while not being monitored.

          It just seems hypocritical that some people I discuss with on here rave about how they don’t want government interfering in their lives, but at the same time will go and expect the government to come into their homes and regulate things such as television to a point where the government is really monitoring the content of the programs and not the parents themselves. And in the end (unless the parent uses the tools available), the children usually end up flipping the channel to something else they want to watch rather than what the parents put on for them or tell them they can view.

          For you parents out there who haven’t investigated this already, I ask you to look at these links to sites that will help you figure out what your children view and listen to:

          Recorded music:
          http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp

          Television programming:
          http://www.fcc.gov/parents/parent_guide.html

        • #3065070

          No standards, no judgements huh?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          So we should totally remove all restriction on language and content and slap a warning lable on it is EXACTLY what your saying jck.

          These are PUBLIC airwaves that are monitored for the well being of the people. Just like we don’t let you walk down the street naked (gawd, there is a visual) there are restrictions on what people can do and say. If you don’t have some MORAL standard, society is reduced down to a pack of dogs running wild.

          You don’t expose children to vulgar language or YOU are not a moral person.
          You do not expose childred to excessive violence ang gore or YOU are not a moral person.
          You do not expose children to highly sexual content or YOU are not a moral person.

          You do not have a RIGHT to be a pervert in the public view.

          The rules ARE different for pay channels because they aren’t open for kids to get. You have to make an effort to bring that into your home and is THEN the responsibility of the parent to control. (when I say pay channels, this is all cable, satalite and XM radio)

          Holding people to standards makes them better people. The less you expect out of people the less you get. That is why there are so many kids today that are punks. They see the glamorization of the “gangsta rappa” and other degenerates and buy right into it all.

          “I simply propose that it is not totally the broadcaster’s responsibility to fracture the entirety of program content into diminutive portions of moralistic content to appease every little sector of society”

          During the day on free airwaves, YES IT IS totally their responsibility. Do you remember they USED to not run the more mature content until after 9pm?

          Even the best raised and watched kids will get curious and if they can’t get the show on at home they will go to someone elses house where it isn’t blocked. Not every kid that watches this is a neglected child, but EVERY programer that provides this access to children is an immoral person.

          It saddens me that you think we should be a standardless society.

        • #3065041

          “totally remove all restriction on language and content”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Exactly, JD. And if you want a rating system, you are free to spend your money creating economic demand for it, not to spend [b]public[/b] money to [b]exaggerate[/b] the economic demand for it. If the FCC spends more than free consumers would be willing to spend on a private institution that rates the media content, then the FCC is redistributing wealth to achieve the social goals of religious special interest groups.

        • #3064995

          religious

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          I never said anything about religion, did I? Or are you saying that only a religions person would have morals?

          Did you miss the whole “morals without religion” discussion?

          Is it only a religious person that thinks vulger language, violence and gore, and overt sex are inapropreate for the viewing pleasure of children?

          Here I got the impression from the discussions that non-religions people still had a moral standard of behaviour.

          Should we have the animal network show beatiality next? Can’t make judgements after all. Do you have to be a religious nut to think sex with a sheep is wrong? Or DO you think that SOME standards should be imposed on behaviour after all?

          This isn’t a religious issue unless your saying if your not religious you have no morals. Is that your stance now?

          [b]Tell me what YOU feel is apropreate for children please, and then justify this without the use of religon. Is it anything goes?

        • #3064968

          here you go again…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          OK…gonna take you paragraph by paragraph:

          “So we should totally remove all restriction on language and content and slap a warning lable on it is EXACTLY what your saying jck.”

          I said no such thing. You’re exaggerating.

          I said that they put ratings on recordings and television to help you decide what level of content is appropriate.

          “These are PUBLIC airwaves that are monitored for the well being of the people. Just like we don’t let you walk down the street naked (gawd, there is a visual) there are restrictions on what people can do and say. If you don’t have some MORAL standard, society is reduced down to a pack of dogs running wild. ”

          Again, I never said not to have a moral standard. I just don’t think that, in the end, it is 100% of the responsibility of the government or broadcasters to determine everyone’s morality…which is what you are proposing. If that happens, all you WILL have to watch is Pat Robertson, Dr. Schuller, Jerry Falwell, and Ernest Angley.

          Evidently, there *is* a standard…and…they rate shows to tell you what’s in them on broadcast TV so that you can decide what is in those shows and if they meet your level of viewing.

          BTW…nice personal comment on my “visual”. I am sure you’re the pinnacle of manhood. Class move there.

          “You don’t expose children to vulgar language or YOU are not a moral person.
          You do not expose childred to excessive violence ang gore or YOU are not a moral person.
          You do not expose children to highly sexual content or YOU are not a moral person.”

          You took 2 of the things I started out my last post with, bud. No exposure to gratuitous sex or violence…remember me saying that? Thanks for validating my points.

          Now…do me a couple favors:

          Define vulgar language to a standard that suits all Americans.

          Define excessive violence to a standard that suits all Americans.

          Congress has been trying it for years…you’ll do no better.

          “You do not have a RIGHT to be a pervert in the public view.”

          Now you’re implying I want the right to be a pervert in public view? How nice. And, since when is my television (on which I have cable) in public view?

          “The rules ARE different for pay channels because they aren’t open for kids to get. You have to make an effort to bring that into your home and is THEN the responsibility of the parent to control. (when I say pay channels, this is all cable, satalite and XM radio)”

          Possibly not for long, since now Congress (along with “advisors” from the religious community) has been holding meetings on how to even regulate cable, satellite and pay channels of all sorts.

          As for whose responsibility it is what children listen to on a radio or television…it is ultimately the parents’. You have a right and responsibility to control what your children listen to and watch to make SURE that it conforms to YOUR standards, as well as to tell others what you don’t want your kids exposed to.

          “Holding people to standards makes them better people. The less you expect out of people the less you get. That is why there are so many kids today that are punks. They see the glamorization of the “gangsta rappa” and other degenerates and buy right into it all.”

          However, you have no right to put YOUR standards on ME which is what you want to do in MY home. I, again, do not advocate or promote having children exposed to gratuitous sex or violence. Never have, never will.

          And, I tend to think that the leading reason that there are so many “punks” out there is because of lack of discipline caused by inadequate supervision of children and them not learning limits…not because someone says “crap” or “hell” on the air.

          “During the day on free airwaves, YES IT IS totally their responsibility. Do you remember they USED to not run the more mature content until after 9pm?”

          9pm isn’t “daytime”. That is “primetime”. And, hopefully if your kids are at home at 9pm you’re there with them and watching what they’re doing.
          They still have a standard not to run certain situations until after 10pm US ET, and uncensored language television after 1am US ET (for eastern and central time viewers).

          Have you ever watched television during the day? Some of the daytime soaps are as racy as the primetime lineup. People sleeping around on their spouse, doing drugs, people involved with the mob being successful businessmen. If content is your concern, go attack All My Children or something.

          And again, it’s not totally their responsibility to micronize standards. They set a common ground for which broadcasters must conform, then they have ratings for every broadcast show so that you can get a general idea what’s involved. You must decide still if that show you are watching meets YOUR standards…and if not, then YOU micronize by changing the channel.

          Next thing you know, you’ll want them to read your mind and change the channel for you.

          “Even the best raised and watched kids will get curious and if they can’t get the show on at home they will go to someone elses house where it isn’t blocked. Not every kid that watches this is a neglected child, but EVERY programer that provides this access to children is an immoral person.”

          So…you’re tellin me…if your neighbor has cable…and…their kid invites your kid over to watch…and the other kid shows them South Park or The Howard Stern Show or NYPD Blue…it’s the cable company’s fault? Not the other parent who is supposed to watch their kid and yours too??

          I’ve broke into “blocked” stuff before man…and I was a teen. Personally…if your kid(s) go to some other kid’s house and he shows em that stuff…I’d say it’s the other kid’s parents’ fault for not making sure your kids are protected while in their care.

          “It saddens me that you think we should be a standardless society.”

          I’ve never said we should be standardless. I just think it’s silly to put all the responsibility for what children watch on the government and/or broadcasters. Parents get out too easy nowadays.

          I guarantee you…if you have cable or satellite, you have a way to prevent your kids from watching channels. And, I bet odds are that you haven’t set the ratings blocker and/or the channel blocker on yours so that your kids can’t get to anything rated TV-G or worse, since TV-G is the “General Audiences” rating for all family levels and would meet your standards for what is appropriate.

          Of course, you’d probably deny it if you hadn’t just to save face. Otherwise if you hadn’t protected your kids from what you think is reprehensible programming with technology provided to you on your service and that I’ve even told you about that it exists so you could protect your kids, you’d be just as guilty as your local stations and cable company would be for broadcasting it.

          OK…now…you go back to listening to Rush and getting ideas on how to exaggerate things.

          I’m going back to being normal and not trying to make everyone’s living room a tabernacle of ultra-conservativism.

        • #3064955

          A few points

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          If something having a rating system to identify it is a solution, isn’t that exactly what I said of anything goes as long as you lable it? Yes, it sounds like it to me.

          And I am not talking about cable or Satalite, remember? So that doesn’t even come into play here. I gave them a pass on this.

          As for the visual not being appealing, is would be the same to me for ANY guy so it wasn’t personal! :\ I like girls. lol!

          Listen to Rush? Actually I listen to Ed Schultz, the Air America liberal guy. I already know the concervative side, so I spend more time listening to the views of the liberal side. Still don’t understand some of these people. Pure emotion and no rational thoughts.

          “I’ve never said we should be standardless.”
          Right, just put a lable on it and everything is good.

          Public radio and TV are different than cable and satalite (for now) because you are PAYING to bring it into your home. You are free to pay to bring in anything you want to your home without hearing boo from me. (just pull the shades) :^O

          As for determining standards. Tell me the value of every saying the “F” word on tv. how about people saying the “n” word? It is accepted and almost expected these days from black comedians these days. Why is that accepted? Is it religious to think either of these have no place in a civilized society?

          As for a previous comment you made about a week ago about finding somethign to watch. When I have the tv on, it is usually history channel or discovery. Oh yeah, sometimes on mondays I will watch wresteling. Use to be good fun until they had to get stupid with chairs and slegehammers, and turn it into a pantie contest.

        • #3064943

          now you’re just being silly

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          “If something having a rating system to identify it is a solution, isn’t that exactly what I said of anything goes as long as you lable it? Yes, it sounds like it to me.”

          No…you’re ASSUMING I mean to replace…when, I say the standard is already there…and the ratings to decide what within that standard is right FOR YOU. Evidently, you don’t use the standard because you want everything on TV to conform to what you want so you don’t have to take the time to look up the ratings or program the box.

          “And I am not talking about cable or Satalite, remember? So that doesn’t even come into play here. I gave them a pass on this.”

          Cable companies carry local broadcasting, so they are involved in this too. Not to mention, your buddies in Congress are listening to the religious right when setting “moral standards”…and, trying to find a way to regulate cable and satellite.

          “Listen to Rush? Actually I listen to Ed Schultz, the Air America liberal guy. I already know the concervative side, so I spend more time listening to the views of the liberal side. Still don’t understand some of these people. Pure emotion and no rational thoughts.”

          And…your assumption I want kids exposed to porn and killing is rational thought when I’ve told you repetitively it’s not? Pot to kettle…pot to kettle…you’re black. Pot out.

          “Right, just put a lable on it and everything is good.”

          Once again…I never said replace the standard with a label.

          “Public radio and TV are different than cable and satalite (for now) because you are PAYING to bring it into your home. You are free to pay to bring in anything you want to your home without hearing boo from me. (just pull the shades)”

          Technically, I pay for all those broadcast networks to be put on my cable. If paying for the programming is the defining item, I should get to see Dave Chapelle on ABC.

          “As for determining standards. Tell me the value of every saying the “F” word on tv. how about people saying the “n” word? It is accepted and almost expected these days from black comedians these days. Why is that accepted? Is it religious to think either of these have no place in a civilized society?”

          Because sometimes, the “F word” isn’t always an insult, or a slur, or a depiction of a sexual act. Sometimes, it is expression of emotion. This is a typical example of you being so different from the Irish…and evidently different from your FCC and what says determines what is indecent and profane(even tho it’s being more and more ultra-conservativized daily by Pat Robertson and others).

          Indecent, as from the FCC website:

          “The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as ?language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.? Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.”

          Profane, as from the FCC website:

          “The FCC has defined profanity as including language that ?denote[s] certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.?”

          Notice…it involves “context” …and…”the public”…not just a small portion of the public…or a group within the public… it is a standard amongst the entire community.

          Using the “N word”…well…that’s a politically correct thing. I think the word “n*gger” has a use, because to me it’s not someone who is black. It is someone with no redeeming value who is a low-life. So, it’s just like the word “sh*t” or “h*ll”. In the right context, it has an application in the English language.

          Besides that, you should realize: For a word to be in the English language, does it have to have a “value”? I don’t think that “trousers” does. Can we eliminate it as well?

          “As for a previous comment you made about a week ago about finding somethign to watch. When I have the tv on, it is usually history channel or discovery. Oh yeah, sometimes on mondays I will watch wresteling. Use to be good fun until they had to get stupid with chairs and slegehammers, and turn it into a pantie contest.”

          WHAT??????? And wrestling isn’t excessive violence? For God’s sake, man…when those guys get hit with a chair and get their skin ripped open and they bleed…that’s not excessive? But, a police shootout on NYPD Blue is?

          Talk about irrational thought. You really need to rethink your viewing habits.

          As for what I mainly watch:
          History International
          Science Channel
          Sci-Fi Channel
          TBS
          Discovery Channel
          Fox Soccer Channel
          BBC America
          Travel Channel
          Discovery Times

          I watch little broadcast television…mainly because I can’t get the news when I want it…and…there’s always some stupid “news break” or “special report” that interrupts programming…like…state of the union addresses.

          I mean…what…like a president is gonna come on and say “Ladies and gentlemen…members of Congress….esteemed guests. The state of our country…well…it sucks!”

          Personally, I think that’s what PBS and CSPAN are for…to show that public interest stuff. Networks are more for variety and situation programming.

          Nonetheless…if there’s one thing you need to take away from this post…it is:

          I don’t think they should remove programming standards to implement just “labels”. They have set them to a community standard. They should just let them be and not tighten them down like a friggin noose on everyone, but now leave it up to the public to:

          1) Learn the rating system
          2) Review their television programming and its ratings
          3) Decide what is appropriate, within the general standard and ratings set, for you and your family to view.

          Otherwise…realistically…you’re eventually gonna get stuck watchin Barney and Pat Robertson and Shining Time Station 24/7 if the religious right gets their way…and with all the money they’re dumping into Republican coffers…they will.

        • #3064909

          Silly? Me?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Tell me oh master of the airwaves. Is the FCC making NEW regulations when they fined Stern or did they chose to enforce existing regulations?

          I put it to you that the rule was already there just not being inforced? If this is the case, then you are wrong in your assumption. If this is not the case, then you are wrong in your conclusion. 🙂 (heads I win, tails you loose!)

          And just because you don’t like barny, doesn’t mean that you should go around and trash the show! Its songs are more complex and better thought out than country music is! ;\

          I am not sure if you don’t understand what I am saying or if you just disagree with me. I don’t think it is just a matter of being a religious nut to expect some kind of moral standard on abc,cbs, nbc, the radio and public forums.

          This is extremely funny coming from people that want the government to step up and solve all the other social woes of the world. The lower you set all acceptable standards on behavior, the easier it is to excuse bad behavior.

        • #3064895

          yes…sorry…too silly…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          “Tell me oh master of the airwaves. Is the FCC making NEW regulations when they fined Stern or did they chose to enforce existing regulations?”

          Actually, it’s a little of both. The FCC modified its stance under chairman Michael Powell in 2004 on how it interprets “indecent” material and modifying the description of what legally constitutes it under regulation. Then, it went back to a 2002 broadcast and began to fine Stern. They dug back 2 years to address issues…not recent complaints.

          It’s essentially the equivalent of cops not enforcing the speed limit. They enforce what they want when they want. Except, they were arbitrarily enforcing it against those they did not like. And unfortunately for Stern, his “speeding tickets” on the air cost him hundreds of thousands, not hundreds.

          Plus the problem is that when the FCC makes these decisions and they are proven wrong in court, they are in violation of someone’s right to freedom of speech.

          Plus, the FCC also changed their policy to impose fines onto the personality for the infringement *as well as* the station who carried the program so they could intimidate station owners with their new $750k fine for each incident so that would be less likely to fight it in court. Plus, the FCC broadened its power through Congress to be able to yank a station license on first offense of the indecency regulation.

          All in all, it’s been both…so, I’m not wrong

          And basically, the FCC has become a tool for the religious right to push their religious, moralistic agenda.

          “And just because you don’t like barny, doesn’t mean that you should go around and trash the show! Its songs are more complex and better thought out than country music is! ”

          I never liked Barney. But, he was better than New Kids on the Block. And, you should know I’m not into country music…except for staring at Faith Hill and Chely Wright…yeah baby!!! ]:)

          “I am not sure if you don’t understand what I am saying or if you just disagree with me. I don’t think it is just a matter of being a religious nut to expect some kind of moral standard on abc,cbs, nbc, the radio and public forums. ”

          I totally understand what you’re saying. You want all public broadcast television to be “kid-friendly television”. Whereas, I think that broadcast TV doesn’t have to be all Barney and Shining Time Station and sanitary.

          If anything, I’d say the rule for 6am to 10pm ET is stupid because the kids here in FL are always up past 10pm and watchin television. And, I can tell you that most people in urban and suburban areas have cable or satellite, not a TV antenna. So, the broadcast rules do you no good unless the parents enforce their what-to-watch rules and use the FCC guidelines and set-top box technology (and parental intimidation) to enforce it.

          “This is extremely funny coming from people that want the government to step up and solve all the other social woes of the world. The lower you set all acceptable standards on behavior, the easier it is to excuse bad behavior.”

          I want a reasonable government…not an over-controlling one.

          Besides, you always talk about how you want government control in your life less…then, you want them in your house dictating what comes over the airwaves to a level that would restrict anyone without the money to have cable or satellite from seeing Dave Chapelle, Ron White, Jeff Foxworthy, Elaine Boosler, or Drew Carey do stand-up, etc.

          The fact is, you advocate no-tolerance broadcast standards that hold the station responsible. I, on the other hand, make them responsible to keep the worst content off and then let the parent decide within that what is appropriate for their children.

          BTW, would you let your children watch a National Geographic special that involves showing babboon mating? I mean, that shows animals having sex…is that inappropriate?

          PBS had a show on animal mating habits once and showed all sorts of animals having sex, describing their organs and their shapes, etc. I mean…can you validate that it’s appropriate for a child of 6-8 years old to know why a pig has a corkscrew-shaped penis? Does this show have a “value” for a small child and be on PBS?? Should PBS be shut down for this??

          Really…there has to be a *common* standard…and within that…you decide what YOU and YOUR family watch, rather than sanitizing all of television and taking the right for others to determine what is appropriate and not appropriate for them and their family and their household. And, the ratings is what lets you know how your FCC rates those shows…including telling you what has nudity, sexual content, sexual language, and graphic violence.

        • #3064890

          JD – wrestling

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Hulk Hogan was wearing no more than panties — AND NO TOP!!! 20 years ago.

          My casual observation is that Christians, and faithful of most religions, consider sex almost always sinful, acceptable only in marriage, but never condoned or celebrated. The emphasis on censoring sex acts but permitting gunplay and ax-murders in television fiction strikes me as absurd. I hate sex on TV because I think something that feels so good should be portrayed as good, not as mischief, or examples of human “weakness”, giving into “lower” urges. Pleasure is good. Death is bad. If the FAT women in panties, such as on Jerry Springer, were the norm on broadcast TV, I’d share your concern. Mostly, though, healthy women in revealing outfits are pleasant to behold. I’d like to see them in more compelling stories, though, instead of being there just to distract us from the weakness of the stories!

        • #3064880

          speaking of Hogan

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Man…have you seen his daughter???

          I hear she’ll be 18 soon…and she’s tall.

          hahahaha…SWILLISHNESS FOR THE DAY…DONE! ]:)

        • #3064598

          back where it belongs…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          now…jdclyde.

          no pay channels (HBO, etc) involved at your request…remember? You conceded that. I only ever argued about cable/satellite because you said that if I paid for it, I should get something on what I paid for…and that the local public stations were on my cable that I pay for. And, that Congress was trying to regulate pay stuff now, in part due to Howard Stern moving to satellite radio, and in part due to the religious right nutbags pushing their morals on everyone else through the ears they have bought over the years in Congress, of which the majority are in the Republican party who control Congress.

          You also said there used to be an “after 9pm” thing. Still is, and I pointed out the FCC site that shows their reg for that.

          Now…when it comes to public broadcast television stations/networks:

          If it is best to find a “middle ground”, why does every show they carry during the day have to “protect” children? Is “child friendly” television really a middle ground?

          And if it’s the case that publically broadcast televisioon should be so sterilized, how can you not adamently complain about soap operas on during daytime hours where (even tho there is no frontal nudity) they depict personas of poor moral character who could affect how your children perceive drug use, sexual affairs, drinking, and smoking?

          How about “World’s Wildest Police Videos”? Or “Cops”?

          How about NYPD Blue showing Rick Schroeder’s ass?

          Would these not be just as possibly damaging ethically/morally/psychologically to how your kids think and perceive things?

          Like I said…I’ve never advocated gratuitous sex and violence on public television…ever.

          But if a “middle ground” (as you posted in the other discussion) is important to find, shouldn’t public broadcast television also be included in that to have shows that depict police situations, real life family situations, etc? Isn’t some of that part of life’s education? Isn’t it safer for you to view shows with little or no “values” where there are shootouts and be able to talk to your kids about it, rather than them learning it on the street without your supervision?

          That’s all I’m saying, man. If you don’t teach your kids about things…including the birds and the bees…and drugs…and guns…and all that…other people will…and they may not teach them the way you want them taught. And, sterilized TV will give you no opportunity to give your child input in the home, other than reading, writing, singing songs, sharing with others, and other basic “core family values” topics.

          Otherwise if our country continues to let the government determine our individual and family standards, our children will grow up without our standards.

        • #3064455

          Question jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          Do you not see a difference between parents teaching kids a moral value, and kids not being bombarded with immoral values all day long?

          I still just don’t get how you and AB think it is some grand thing if this no-holds-barred aproach were to continue and complain that the FCC has finally decided to enforce the existing standards.

          Was it not enforced before because they knew they would not be backed up by the previous administrations? Not a hard one there.

          When you leave your home, your rights are compromised. This is a fact of living in a free society that protects the rights of ALL citizens, not just the loudest or the strongest. Your rights END where another persons rights START.

          AB can go on about this not being in the Constitution, but then again neither is income tax and I get shafted with that every year. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Government to use that same tax money to support the “arts”. Get over it, there is nothing you can do about it.

          I just feel subjecting children to “mature content” is wrong.
          Is this because I am a religious nut of some kind? no.
          Is it because I am a parent? no, I always supported kids organizations such as koats for kids and toys for tots.
          Is it because people from the liberal progressive left feel “to hell with kids with bad parents”? That one seems to be closer than anything.

          My kids are doing good, because they have proper guidance. Many are not so lucky, and thanks to people like you, they are hung out to dry because their parents use TV as a babysitter. I am amazed when I see people that don’t have the time of the day for their kids, and because THEY don’t care, we shouldn’t?

          Yes, the porn and such was intentionally taking things to an extreme to get a point across, that you just didn’t seem to get. Must be my poor comunication skills for not being able to get you to at least UNDERSTAND what I am trying to say, even if you don’t agree with it.

        • #3064436

          I don’t have time to discuss it as extensively as I’d like

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          You went to an extreme…I knew that.

          Brief point (cause it’s after 5pm and I’m going home):

          What you choose to show your children in your home is of no concern to me. It might be to law enforcement, if you’re showing them obscene materials.

          If you were, would I care? Of course. I’d think you a slimy greaseball and totally be unworthy of being swill.

          But within the bounds (of what the FCC is continually becoming more conservative with daily) of the programming standards, you have a right to choose what you and your kids watch…just like anyone else.

          If you further restrict materials from being broadcast that are not “obscene” under law, then you are taking away someone else’s right to choose what they watch.

          You can always push a few buttons on the cable box and restrict your kids from watching something.

          You can’t just go up and add content to your programming if the FCC bans it or runs people off the air with $750k fines.

          And consider this: Multi-billion dollar broadcasters such as ABC, Fox, Infinity, Viacom and Clearchannel fear these FCC mandates now so much that they tell their air personalities if they’re fined, they’re immediately fired. There is no recourse. And, those corps don’t go to court on it because they fear even more legal ramifications because the FCC changed its own rule that they can yank a station license now on the first offense. No second chances now if the FCC doesn’t like you.

          Plus, the FCC will fine the air personality directly in addition to the broadcaster.

          Essentially, the FCC has become like a big intimidating mob thug under Michael Powell. I don’t know if the new guy is gonna be any better, but I doubt it if Bush placed him.

          I just see the big book piles burning at a Nazi rally in my head when this kind of moralistic conservative powermongering crap happens. And, it is the religious right behind it whether you like to admit it or not. You can go to several sites on the web and see how many faith-based groups donated money to Bush-Cheney.

          It scares me, man. Really. It scares the crap out of me.

          Oh well. I’m going home. 5:15pm and I need a beer.

          Later.

        • #3064427

          The one means the other?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          [i]You can go to several sites on the web and see how many faith-based groups donated money to Bush-Cheney.[/i]”

          No kidding, like any faith based group would support the party that has followed a fairly clear anti-religion mindset?

          Does that mean that they are now in control of the FCC because they gave money to suport a candidate?

        • #3064419

          Porn FOR SALE, to those who CHOOSE to buy it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          “Free porn for all” is not a liberal agenda, it is a conservative fabrication used to scare parents into voting away their rights.

          My current job is to investigate software piracy, and for anybody who doesn’t know, websites that offer pirated software also peddle two other types of files: video games & porn. My professional experience is that although software is sometimes available for free, “there ain’t no such thing” as free porn. The delusion of a “free porn for all” society is nothing but a smokescreen, whose purpose is to convince 50% + 1 of US citizens to decide that humans do not, after all, possess the wisdom to decide what is good for themselves, and that their right to do so is less important than their wish to prevent their fellow citizens from exercising that right, because everybody else wants “free porn for all”.

          Where do you get the idea that kids are “being bombarded with immoral values all day long?”

          “I still just don’t get how you and AB think it is some grand thing if this no-holds-barred aproach were to continue and complain that the FCC has finally decided to enforce the existing standards.”

          It’s just me, jck is willing and eager to have all sorts of extra laws for nudie flics. I think that I am morally obligated to allow other people to choose what is good for themselves, just as I value my own right to choose the particulars of my pursuit of happiness. When somebody claims the right to control what they don’t own, for example the “airwaves”, I perceive a threat to individual rights as a principle. You haven’t once explained why you think you have the right to control what’s being broadcast instead of which of the available broadcasts your television displays, but your support of censorship means you are generally willing to exceed your rights in pursuit of a goal that means more to you than your belief in self-reliance and personal responsibility. Protecting your kids from what’s on TV is your sole responsibility, and the same thing goes for every parent. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to put a TV in your home.

          “Was it not enforced before because they knew they would not be backed up by the previous administrations? Not a hard one there.”

          Previous administrations like Nixon’s?

          “When you leave your home, your rights are compromised.”

          Right, and in my home, you have NO rights because you aren’t invited!

          “This is a fact of living in a free society that protects the rights of ALL citizens, not just the loudest or the strongest. Your rights END where another persons rights START.”

          You mean ALL citizens except pornographers, who according to you do not have the same right to free speech as everybody else. You have the same right to prohibit porn in your home as I have to prohibit jdclyde in mine.

          “AB can go on about this not being in the Constitution, but then again neither is income tax and I get shafted with that every year. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Government to use that same tax money to support the “arts”. Get over it, there is nothing you can do about it.”

          You mean that because you FEEL shafted, you also FEEL entitled to govern others’ use of their own shafts. It’s ironic that you expect the same government that shafts you to do your shafting of others for you.

          “I just feel subjecting children to “mature content” is wrong.”

          You’re right, and if you were to subject anybody’s children to porn, your own kids or anybody else’s, you’d be a terrible person. But in the long run, you cannot effectively defend your right to dominion over your own home by voting away others’ rights to dominion over their homes and property, including their broadcasting equipment.

          “Is it because people from the liberal progressive left feel “to hell with kids with bad parents”?”

          I’m a classic liberal, not a leftist, but you almost got the rest of it right. My actual feeling is “to hell with bad people who use their kids as an excuse or an entitlement.” You don’t have the right to vote on what’s on TV, and neither do your kids. You do have the right to 100% control over your TV, and all the rest of your property. If that isn’t enough to keep porn out of your house, then to hell with you, too.

          “My kids are doing good, because they have proper guidance. Many are not so lucky, and thanks to people like you, they are hung out to dry because their parents use TV as a babysitter. I am amazed when I see people that don’t have the time of the day for their kids, and because THEY don’t care, we shouldn’t?”

          It isn’t my place to decide how other parents raise their children, and it’s not your place either. We can agree that there are better ways for children to spend their time than watching TV, and raise our own children accordingly, but that doesn’t give either of us the right to limit free speech on TV except incitement to violence, slander and libel, the same limits on free speech for every medium.

          You have the right to change the channel or turn off your TV. Any questions?

        • #3064269

          religious influence in government

          by jck ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          In control? Of course not. That would violate seperation of church and state. Republicans would *never* allow that *cough cough* 😉

          However, they are the primary group whose words the Republican party follows on moral issues because of:

          a) their campaign contributions
          b) their voter support

          Point is though, the religious right looks to enforce their Christian value set upon all Americans. Not only does their value set look to filter programming in a way that takes away the right for others not of their value set to choose what programming they wish to view which is not of an “obscene” nature, but it also is slowing creeping toward infringing on others’ rights to freedom of religion by not allowing others to decide what is proper to watch within the reach of their own religious beliefs.

          As I said before, a Christian person or otherwise persons of “higher morals” can always choose to turn off something they do not want to view or listen to. I, however, can not go to the local ABC affiliate and get a show put back on if it’s deemed unsuitable for viewing.

          They basically want to take away might right to choose by choosing for me what they think I should view on television and/or listen to on radio.

          So long as that material is not “obscene”, then why should I be kept from listening to or viewing something which is not banned?

          And, why should broadcasters fear airing “Saving Private Ryan”? It’s not a story about violence and glorifying macabre acts. It was a story about wartime. Yet, many ABC stations didn’t air it for fear of being fined $750k because the FCC wouldn’t tell anyone if it was not banned.

          Anyways…bunch of silliness. They’re not only catering to the vocal ultra-conservatives, but also inadequate at evaluating broadcast material based on a national ethical standard.

        • #3064232

          A final comment to each

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Free porn for all?

          First, yes I CAN vote down your rights to watch what ever you wish. Thanks to the “progressive movement” straying so far from the true meaning of the constitution, the Government now looks at this not as a list of what it’s powers ARE, but rather as it can do anything that isn’t forbidden. Kind of sad.

          It is in the best interests of this Nation to have health, well adjusted children grow up into productive adults. Rap “artists” have been allowed to sell their verbal obsenities under the pretense of art. What a load of crap.

          Saving Private Ryan IS graphic violence. There is no way any sane person watching that in high def, with the lights dimmed and surround sound kicking can not be moved by it. It has been said to be the single closest thing to really being in that combat situation in the movies EVER. Definately not for kids.

          The idea of being bombarded with immoral values. I guess that would be a subjective thing as different people have differnt ideas on what is immoral or not. Guess we just have a different view on what is immoral.

          It isn’t in the Constitution for the Federal Government to take money from me and pay for education, but it is done daily for the better good of our country. You have complained about teaching opposing views to evolution in public schools, but not that we are being forced to pay for the public schools in the first place? Show me that in the constitution AB, as you like to use that as a justification for not doing other things. Or do you agree that it IS in our countrys best interests to have an educated population?

          And jck, don’t even get me started on the myth of “separation of church and state”. Just can’t indorse a SINGLE religion, NOR hinder ANY religion. Now if funding was open to ALL religions, no indorsement would be occuring and you would have no say in this, correct? Just think of all the money we could get for the church of swill? Communtion would be several times daily, with a pint of beer and pretzels. You would get your prayer bib out of your desk and HAVE to have a beer and pretzels in observance of your religion! I could think of worse things.

          Bottom line, just like we don’t let people starve in America by the use of social programs, neither should we look at kids as disposable and not our problem until they are old enough to lock up in a prision somewhere.

          I have stated my position, as well as tried to explain it. I will not convert you to my point of view, and we all know that none of us really walked into this with an open mind, but rather just stated our own OPIONIONS/beliefs and stood in bewilderment that other people just didn’t “get it” when it is so clear to us.

          I will watch for your closing statement.
          [b]
          Please address if other people kids are not yours or my problem now, how they won’t be OUR problem later on in life? Also how your WANTS outweight the NEEDS of others. Not a simple “you can’t do that”, because I CAN do that. You have seen it happen. Ask Howard Stern if you don’t believe me that it can and will happen.

        • #3065051

          “because you are CHOOSING to bring it”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to And that has what to do with this conversation?

          That actually applies to [b]everything[/b] on your TV. If you don’t like the character of what’s broadcast, you can kill your television. The Constitution makes no provision for limiting free speech according to “community standards” of “decency”, nor for respecting an establishment of religion by enforcing religious beliefs related to sexuality.

        • #3064986

          I still don’t understand

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to “because you are CHOOSING to bring it”

          how this is going back to religion.

          What are non-christian beliefs about sexuality? Do non-christians teach their children to have sex as early and often as possible? What ever makes you feel good is good? If not, why not? If this is only a religious belief about sexuality as you claim, it wouldn’t apply to non-religious people, correct?

          Believe it or not, I really am not a very religious person and do not back up my beliefs with bible quotes and such, so it suprises me to have this thrown at me as if I was some religious zelot trying to crusify the sinners.

          Discuss the merits of exposing children to bad behavior without trying to distract from the point by going on about religion. [b] Is it healthy for children to see and hear this or not? Should children be protected or not? Should we get rid of the age limits for sexual concent as just another religious nutcase idea? I hope not.

        • #3064894

          My mistake.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I still don’t understand

          I just associate censorship with the popular censorship advocacy groups, which are pretty aggressive about their Christianity. Leaving aside the freedom from religion argument, since you aren’t offering a religious-based censorship argument, the issue of free speech remains. Basically, you have the right to govern what speech occurs in your home, and nowhere else, including television & radio broadcast. If you don’t like it, your option is to turn it off, and even get rid of the devices, but not to dictate what may or may not be broadcast. I understand that the FCC and the Supreme Court disagree, but their decisions violate the Constitution.

      • #3055293

        All jokes are about someone else in

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to Now you have done it!

        pain. That’s why they are funny, you either laugh at your own or laugh becuase it’s not your own. I’m with you on the GWB jokes, I rarely find anything about the guy that makes me smile, grimace maybe.

    • #3047181

      Jean Chretien would be truly missed

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      I’m sure some American comedian would be able to do a riff on neck-grabbin’ Jean Chretien (thanks for the spelling jaqui) if they had ever heard of him, or if they could stay awake long enough to actually write a few jokes about him.

      And don’t even get me started on that crazy Paul Martin dude – I could go on for nanoseconds.

      • #3047158

        Chretien..

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Jean Chretien would be truly missed

        it’s to bad that senility hit before he retired.

        but you are right.
        martin is as big a joke as bush.
        ( not for all the same reasons )

      • #3047075

        I miss Brian Mulroney

        by montgomery gator ·

        In reply to Jean Chretien would be truly missed

        He and Ronald Reagan got along well, and US-Canadian relations were a lot smoother when Mulroney was the Canadian PM. Mulroney had some very kind words when he spoke at Ronald Reagan’s funeral service.

        • #3047071

          but Mulroney

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I miss Brian Mulroney

          is guilty of commiting an act of treason.

          He had federal refferendum about free trade agreement.
          60% of voters said do NOT do it.
          he did it.
          going against the will of the people.

          that is treason.

    • #3047087

      No apologies needed..

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      ..except maybe to African American men, comparing Bill Clinton to them!! 🙂 Most black men I know have a lot more integrity than Bill Clinton. And I know one who is married to a white woman who is quite attractive, not ugly or fat.

      Besides that, I thought it was hilarious!!!

    • #3064860

      I will admit..

      by montgomery gator ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      Bill Clinton makes a pretty good ex-President. I do respect the work he is doing with George Bush the Elder for the Tsunami and Hurricane relief efforts. He and Bush the Elder have shown they can put aside politics for the greater good.

      (Still stand behind my decisions to vote against Bill Clinton both times he ran for President.)

    • #3064764

      LMAO…now thats hilarious

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      LOL.

    • #2559756

      Sterotyping the Black Man

      by greg_evans37 ·

      In reply to Bill Clinton is truly missed!!!

      The issue here is not in the spelling of the words. It is much worse than that. This is the type of ignorance that is unecessary whether or not if it is comedy. Stating that Bill Clinton is more accepted in the Black community because he somkes weed or plays the saxaphone. What nonsense! So Black men don’t work huh? Every Black man I know has a job in the corporate world. Why not say he stole something or speaks ebonics too. All blacks steal right? Hey you started with the sterotyping. I guess we all are on welfare too. Last but not least remember just because a black man makes a statement does not mean that it is accepted by all blacks!

Viewing 6 reply threads