$400 million dollars for the KING of talk radio

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by Nommad

And Viagra! (he needs that too. All that fat makes it difficult for the soldier to stand at attention, I guess)

You'd better always be skinny and have no ED. Otherwise, I hope you'll hear me laughing at you.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by MSUber alles

Relax there tiger....

So your way of thinking is you can't judge a person unless you're perfect? So I can't think that the couple I heard on the radio today who threw their newborn in a dumpster is subhuman scum because I've made mistakes in my life too, and so my swearing and speeding tickets all even it out?

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Those were poor analogies. I guess I need to be very clear: Ripping on a guy for having ED or chronic pain with addiction is in very poor taste. You haven't walked in his shoes. You don't know what he faces.

It's worse when it's politically motivated.

I'm 100% sure that if he were a liberal, you wouldn't bring up his problems. So you are judgemental and a hypocrite.

For instance, I haven't heard you talking about keith olberman's small johnson. How about obama and cocaine?

I haven't heard you yucking it up over those issues?

So making fun of a guy for his physical/mental problems in a politically motivated way, smells.

[SpartanStu]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Those were poor analogies. I guess I need to be very clear: Ripping on a guy for having ED or chronic pain with addiction is in very poor taste. You haven't walked in his shoes. You don't know what he faces.

It's worse when it's politically motivated.

I'm 100% sure that if he were a liberal, you wouldn't bring up his problems. So you are judgemental and a hypocrite.

For instance, I haven't heard you talking about keith olberman's small johnson. How about obama and cocaine?

I haven't heard you yucking it up over those issues?

So making fun of a guy for his physical/mental problems in a politically motivated way, smells.

Maybe not but the right would.

Hell its standard on the big stage of politics to poke, hint, paint in a dark light, any and everyone on the other side.

So to stand up for mud slinging....

I learned it from my leaders. ok?

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Originally Posted by Dr. X

The government has no business controlling content on the radio, television or the internet (aside of course from the fire in the theater type of stuff which could be handled by law enforcement). The FCC should be disbanded.

You're wrong. They do have business controlling content on broadcast TV and radio. Businesses are granted licenses by the government. The licenses are valuable and powerful, and the supply is limited.

Imagine if the entire broadcast industry was unregulated. You'd have stations broadcasting on their competitors' frequencies and countless amateurs overlapping each others' signals. It wouldn't take long before over-air radio and television became useless. It's because the government prevents this, and protects the licenses they grant, that they have the right to control the content.

[GRR Spartan]

The GOP thinks Italy has the perfect media. Their Prime Minister pretty much controls the whole shootin' match.

[MSUber alles]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Those were poor analogies. I guess I need to be very clear: Ripping on a guy for having ED or chronic pain with addiction is in very poor taste. You haven't walked in his shoes. You don't know what he faces.

It's worse when it's politically motivated.

I'm 100% sure that if he were a liberal, you wouldn't bring up his problems. So you are judgemental and a hypocrite.

For instance, I haven't heard you talking about keith olberman's small johnson. How about obama and cocaine?

I haven't heard you yucking it up over those issues?

So making fun of a guy for his physical/mental problems in a politically motivated way, smells.

Look you're the one who made the blanket statement of "If you're not perfect who are you to judge".

I just took to the logical extreme that you were espousing.

Please take time to lay down more careful guidelines next time. So far I have the following:

Not OK to dislike in part because of his drug habit, even when he's made a living out of belittling other. Because that makes me a hypocrite.

It is OK though to be disgusted by baby dumpers, even though I'm not perfect because their imperfection is so severe is doesn't matter that I haven't walked in their shoes.

What about all the other things out there? Is it OK for me to judge a wife beater? What about thieves? It there a scale on how much $$$ the theft has to involve. Like something under $5000 isn't judgeable but over 5 grand is legit to judge......Please let me know the parameters for my future comments all knowing ones.

And you seem like a fairly bright guy to let me try and impress this point on you ONE more time. I am neither a liberal or a democrat. I've never joined a party, I've voted republican several times including GWB in 2000 and I think guys like Olbermann are full of crap most of the time. If you want to insist on the whole "You and your side" comments be my guest, it just seems to not speak highly of your intelligence that you, either on purpose or by accident, continue to be in error in this.

I don't like the way this country has headed under the last 8 years of a mostly Republican leadership. Don't know if the Democrats can turn it around but I'm not going to just sit back and watch another Republican administration pile drive things even further into the ground which I'm fairly sure would happen.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Jack's Smirking Revenge

You're wrong. They do have business controlling content on broadcast TV and radio. Businesses are granted licenses by the government. The licenses are valuable and powerful, and the supply is limited.

Imagine if the entire broadcast industry was unregulated. You'd have stations broadcasting on their competitors' frequencies and countless amateurs overlapping each others' signals. It wouldn't take long before over-air radio and television became useless. It's because the government prevents this, and protects the licenses they grant, that they have the right to control the content.

So let me get this straight....you want the government to control who gets to say what when?

The FCC should only regulate the things that you mention in your second paragraph not content.

The only exceptions I would make would be for obscene or pornography broadcasts outside of a "safe harbor" time zone (11pm - 6am). Then the FCC should regulate content. Oh and another thing, they had better leave my satellite radio alone.

[Polynikes]

I don't like the way this country has headed under the last 8 years of a mostly Republican leadership. Don't know if the Democrats can turn it around but I'm not going to just sit back and watch another Republican administration pile drive things even further into the ground which I'm fairly sure would happen.

You don't do your "I'm a moderate" argument any favors when you include that last paragraph.

It really does give you away.

Further, your ability to judge people must be near zero.

For instance, you don't want to "drive things even further into the ground."

Yet, you are going to vote for the guy with the weakest resume I have ever heard of.

Is that how you select your plumber, your lawyer, or your doctor?

"Hey, he works in a different location. He's not so and so. Therefore, he's my guy."

Let's just be honest here: You are a liberal hack trying to sound open-minded.

It's failing miserably.

Now, your party has the famous phrase, "It's only his personal life."

It should read, "It's only his personal life if he's a democrat. If Republican, everything is fair game."

See how that might be a problem to someone who despises hypocrisy?

Again, I must have missed your posts where you castigate obama for COCAINE (by the way, I'm pretty sure that's a harder substance/carries harsher sentences than oxycontin/viagra). Or, you discussing keith olberman's fling where she was laughing at him about his small johnson.

If you've applied the personal attack to them, please provide some examples.

Thanks.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

The GOP thinks Italy has the perfect media. Their Prime Minister pretty much controls the whole shootin' match.

I can't speak for the GOP, exactly. But, I can speak for the Right of Center guys.

We are making it pretty clear we don't want the government controlling the media.

So, your analogy is nonsense.

But, keep trying.

[Roewned]

Good for the addict, who knew appealing to the lowest common denominator was profitable.

Sincerely,

Jerry Springer and Vince McMahon

[MSUber alles]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

You don't do your "I'm a moderate" argument any favors when you include that last paragraph.

It really does give you away.

Further, your ability to judge people must be near zero.

For instance, you don't want to "drive things even further into the ground."

Yet, you are going to vote for the guy with the weakest resume I have ever heard of.

Is that how you select your plumber, your lawyer, or your doctor?

"Hey, he works in a different location. He's not so and so. Therefore, he's my guy."

Let's just be honest here: You are a liberal hack trying to sound open-minded.

It's failing miserably.

Now, your party has the famous phrase, "It's only his personal life."

It should read, "It's only his personal life if he's a democrat. If Republican, everything is fair game."

See how that might be a problem to someone who despises hypocrisy?

Again, I must have missed your posts where you castigate obama for COCAINE (by the way, I'm pretty sure that's a harder substance/carries harsher sentences than oxycontin/viagra). Or, you discussing keith olberman's fling where she was laughing at him about his small johnson.

If you've applied the personal attack to them, please provide some examples.

Thanks.

If you can explain how a liberal hack would vote for George W. Bush I'd be happy to answer your list of long winded nonsense.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by MSUber alles

If you can explain how a liberal hack would vote for George W. Bush I'd be happy to answer your list of long winded nonsense.

A moment of clarity?

gore is not Presidential.

Hope that helps.

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

So let me get this straight....you want the government to control who gets to say what when?

The FCC should only regulate the things that you mention in your second paragraph not content.

The only exceptions I would make would be for obscene or pornography broadcasts outside of a "safe harbor" time zone (11pm - 6am). Then the FCC should regulate content. Oh and another thing, they had better leave my satellite radio alone.

The Republican mind at work: The government shouldn't control broadcast content...What? They showed a boob on TV? Someone cussed on the radio? The government better start controlling broadcast content!

The problem with the FCC now is that it's run by people who only want to protect the corporate interests. They have no problem with concentrated ownership, limited editorial viewpoints, and declining community service in TV and radio. Now the FCC's main functions seem to be watching for nipples and listening for naughty words.

TV and radio stations have to do very little to keep their licenses. Those licenses give them the ability to reach nearly one hundred percent of the people in a market and guarantee a set number of competitors - that's a huge competitive advantage over all other types of media. The government should not grant them such a privilege with no strings attached. Do you believe people should get hunting licenses or driver's licenses without having any rules to follow?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Jack's Smirking Revenge

The Republican mind at work: The government shouldn't control broadcast content...What? They showed a boob on TV? Someone cussed on the radio? The government better start controlling broadcast content!

The problem with the FCC now is that it's run by people who only want to protect the corporate interests. They have no problem with concentrated ownership, limited editorial viewpoints, and declining community service in TV and radio. Now the FCC's main functions seem to be watching for nipples and listening for naughty words.

TV and radio stations have to do very little to keep their licenses. Those licenses give them the ability to reach nearly one hundred percent of the people in a market and guarantee a set number of competitors - that's a huge competitive advantage over all other types of media. The government should not grant them such a privilege with no strings attached. Do you believe people should get hunting licenses or driver's licenses without having any rules to follow?

I laid out in my early posts which rules the FCC should enforce - technical matters and a "safe harbor" for "adult" broadcasts.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Jack's Smirking Revenge

Those licenses give them the ability to reach nearly one hundred percent of the people in a market and guarantee a set number of competitors - that's a huge competitive advantage over all other types of media.

that's 1960's thinking. I believe countrywide, 11% of the population gets their TV using an over-the-air antenna. The other 89% have some sort of cable or satellite service where there are many competitors. As further proof of the reduced value of those licenses, many of the stations affected by the digital transition are taking the opportunity to run digital transmitters with much less power than their analog counterparts to save money, because these stations mainly derive their income from cable and satellite rebroadcast rights, OTA transmission is almost a "cost of doing business" now.

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

I laid out in my early posts which rules the FCC should enforce - technical matters and a "safe harbor" for "adult" broadcasts.

Here are some of the possible results of your "don't let the kids see boobies" approach to broadcast regulation:

A good, God-fearing conservative is running for Congress, but all you ever hear on the radio is negative talk about him because two liberal companies own all of the stations in your market.

A tornado hits your neighborhood in the middle of the night, but you can't find any information on TV or radio because the government doesn't require the stations to provide warnings.

A new car model has earned the worst safety rating in history, but you don't hear about it on radio or TV because a dealership that sells that car is a big advertiser with the two or three companies that own all of the broadcast media.

But at least the kiddies won't hear or see anything "objectionable". Nice priorities.

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

that's 1960's thinking. I believe countrywide, 11% of the population gets their TV using an over-the-air antenna. The other 89% have some sort of cable or satellite service where there are many competitors. As further proof of the reduced value of those licenses, many of the stations affected by the digital transition are taking the opportunity to run digital transmitters with much less power than their analog counterparts to save money, because these stations mainly derive their income from cable and satellite rebroadcast rights, OTA transmission is almost a "cost of doing business" now.

I was thinking mainly of radio with the "nearly one hundred percent" comment. I didn't word it correctly. However, you're a bit off as well. The broadcast outlets do reach many more through satellite and cable, due to being network affiliates. They wouldn't have been network affiliates without those licenses.

[Cym Jim]

Good on you Ira Flatow - you deserve it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by Jack's Smirking Revenge

Here are some of the possible results of your "don't let the kids see boobies" approach to broadcast regulation:

A good, God-fearing conservative is running for Congress, but all you ever hear on the radio is negative talk about him because two liberal companies own all of the stations in your market.

A tornado hits your neighborhood in the middle of the night, but you can't find any information on TV or radio because the government doesn't require the stations to provide warnings.

A new car model has earned the worst safety rating in history, but you don't hear about it on radio or TV because a dealership that sells that car is a big advertiser with the two or three companies that own all of the broadcast media.

But at least the kiddies won't hear or see anything "objectionable". Nice priorities.

So how does that lead to the Fairness Doctrine?

[Nommad]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

You'd better always be skinny and have no ED. Otherwise, I hope you'll hear me laughing at you.

I won't. I weigh 170 lbs, and just conceived my 2nd child a few months ago. I'm slim, and the crank is still working great as I approach middle age.