The United States became less free today. Free Speech ripped from it's citizens! [Archive]

View Full Version : The United States became less free today. Free Speech ripped from it's citizens!

Meter

02-26-2004, 07:30 AM

Posted by Grayrage (mailto:grayrage@darkenbane.com)

If you live in the U.S. you already know you have freedom of speech....as long as you watch what you say. Today, however, it has gone further with the removal of the famed radio host, Howard Stern from the airways. This is not just a sad day for Americans, but also a frightening one as we see our freedoms whittled away by those who believe their morals, ethics or ideas should be forced on others. This is not just happening to folks such as Stern, but also the gaming industry, television and the movies where there are constant pushes by the foes of freedom to force their values on the rest of humanity. I am frightened by this and shaken that it even happened.

So here I am, a loyal Bush supporter for standing up and getting shit done around the world. I ignore some of the things that bug me about him like his abortion stance and other conservative ideas because I often grow weary of the Democrats "bribing" the population with government moneys and their usual weakness abroad. This, however, is to much for me. Bush lost 1 vote this day and likely several million more as folks realize who is responsible. Yes, it IS Bush and his admistration doing this! Some of you may or may not know that that Colon Powell's SON is the head of the FCC. WTF? Yes, that's right, the son of the Secretary of State is in charge of censorship for our beloved country. Talk about "who you know, who you blow". What the fuck experience does he have to run this agency? Jesus.

Fact is, it does not matter whether you like Howard Stern or not. No one HAS to listen to him. Even those who do NOT like Howard Stern have to be concerned about what's next? If we let them get away with this, they will just keep right on going until it will be illegal to miss church on Sundays. Fear them for they are the enemy, folks. They are trying to turn you into them. They are trying to borg us. They want to FORCE their will on us like a prison inmate does to his bitch. I for one, will not stand for it. If there was ever something to fight for since the Civil War or even the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, this is it people! This time the Regime' change will be OURS! Bye bye Bush. And farewell to your Fascist bullshit.

So what do we do? Well we need to support any opposition to our current president, remove him and his fascist like regime and also need to boycott Clear Channel radio which is the monolithic media organization responsible for caving to them. Our message boards will begin to list all of their radio stations so you can avoid listening to them or remove your advertising! Please folks, don't ignore this. Today you have become less free. FIGHT BACK! DO NOT LOSE OUR FREEDOM! Participate in the discussion on our boards about what can be done and will be done to fight back!

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 07:43 AM

Guys, I am so pissed off about this. That show get's me through 4 or 5 hours of work everyday. I laugh, learn and enjoy the company of the people on that show and feel utterly helpless to do anything as it was yanked from me and 17 million other people for the simple fact that some religious fuckers think their values are better then ours. FUCK THEM.

I do not give a SHIT IF THEY ARE STUPID AND THINK SOME FUCKING GOD WILL SEND THEM TO A FAKE HEAVEN IF THEY DON't CUSS and Don't FUCK 20 people! BUT for the love of God (which i don;t believe in) DO NOT FORCE IT ON ME!

OMG. WTF can't they just change the channel? Why do they have to shut it off so people who WANT to listen can't too? Are you fucking HAPPY NOW? You forced your fucking WILL on US, you assholes.

Before I just thought of you all as nut cases. I did not care about you as long as u did not fuck with me. Well now you FUCKED WITH ME. Now I know who my enemy is just like the assholes who bomb us...u are no better. Forcing your beliefs on others is WRONG!

Anyhow, sorry for the massive rant...but i am sooo pissed off right now. It hurts when i get fucked in the arse without lube and I get grumpy.

So what to do? Let's start by listing Clear Channel radio stations and boycotting them.

A search can be done here for your city/state:

http://129.79.148.32/cc/ccradioform.html

Please keep the info coming guys. I am emailing the show to to see if there is anythign we can do to help.

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 07:45 AM

Jeez. In South Florida, they own everything....

http://129.79.148.32/CGI-BIN/AAOwwwDB.acgi

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 08:31 AM

That is fucking horrible =(

AD Nnuk

02-26-2004, 08:32 AM

We lost Stern several years ago when he made fun of French Canadians (but didn't apologize like O'Brian did).

I personally enjoyed Stern's show in a big way. Back in January of 98 I was caught in the middle of an IceStorm (freezing rain for several days) which lead to 3 weeks without electricity -- Whenever the army guys would drop by to see if we needed anything fresh batteries for the radio was always in the top 5 (right after food, water and "get the fucking power back on, dammit!").

I don't know what the circumstances are behind his removal from the airwaves in the States but unless something major took place (ie: They replaced the usual lesbians with kindergardeners) I don't see how it can be justified.

Then again... If it helps get that psycho out of the White House it'll be worth it.

Nnuk

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 08:41 AM

More links:

To tell the Clear Channel faggots what you think go here:
http://www.clearchannel.com/contactus.php

To tell the Nazis...errr FCC what you think click here:
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

Dynamic

02-26-2004, 08:50 AM

Holy shit I can't believe that, Howard Stern has been on the radio forever. I can't say I listened to him much but I thought the show was funny. This is fucking bullshit. Being in south Florida, did you hear about Bubba the Love Sponge?, we get him up here. Clear channel fired him as well in the past week, I head about it on NPR.....he was similar to Stern, and funny as hell. I used to listen to his show every morning on the way to school, now no more. All of a sudden that radio station plays music in the morning again. What the fuck is going on here? Thats two great shows I've heard about in one week, im not really sure why Bubba was cancelled though.

I have been supporting Bush since day one, I fully support what we are doing in Iraq even if we don't find one fucking weapon of mass destruction; we still liberated the Iraqi people (same goes for Afghanistan). But now im shocked, if what you say is true I don't know who I will vote for in November. I will never vote for Kerry, Democrats are the #1 reason we have so many illegal aliens in this country (democrats let them become citizens so they will vote for them). There are numerous other reasons I am anti-democrat as well....

However this bullshit has totally changed my opinion in about 5 minutes, if a libertarian candidate ever had a chance I would vote for he/she in a second.

The amount of stupid censorship we have in this country is rediculous. People freakout if you say one curse word, or show a tit on TV. Yes it may be disrespectful, but big deal, you don't have to pay attention to it if you don't want to. No one forces you to watch TV, and if you are a parent it is YOUR repsonsibility to censor your kids from what you dont want them to see. It should never be the government's and thats that. IMO our government is getting too big and gaining too much power, so many bullshit organizations that all Americans have to pay for. Bush won me over with his war on terror and tax cut. Even though Republicans claim to be for less government that isn't true. I always knew that but it nevered bothered me until now, I have no idea what to do. It seems like we are becoming babies to our government more and more every year. I could list so many reason why but this post is just getting too long.

Remember one thing, if our right to bare arms is ever questioned, go out and buy as many guns as you can.

-Bear

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 08:51 AM

He didn't do anything different then he has done for the last decade or more. He follows all of the gay FCC rules as well. Fact is, the senate is having hearing on "broadcast decency" and have been on a witch hunt which seems to be the reult of this retard super bowl half time show.

I am so sick of these psycho people trying to force their morals on me. I really am.

Oh and bush? Yes he is done. I WaS GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU, YOU STUPID ASSHOLE. He already had all the reilgious freaks voting for him, so he is not getitng MORE votes by doing this...all he did was lose them.

BTW...for the record. Since the relifgious fanatics just took away something I enjoyed which was not hurting them at all...it's time for me to treat u like a enemy. As such...I will now speak out against you and why you are the stupidist fuckers in the universe.

HELLO! ATTENTION ALL RELIGIOUS NUTS: Just so you KNOW, you are living a fucking LIE! There is NO GOD! There is NO HEAVEN! There is NO HELL! It's just a fucking FANTASY made up as way of controlling STUPID SHEEP. Yes, u got it morons....RELIGIONS WAS THE FIRST AND EARLIEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL CONTROL!

How do you think these nut fuck ISLAMICS kill themselves? They get them to do it by BRAINWASHING them into believing they are goin' to some kind of fucking heaven which does not exist. It's for STUPID PEOPLE! What do think CONFESSION IS ALL BOUT, YAH STUPID ASSES? It's so the priests know what u dumb fuckers are doing. "Oh, if you confess u go to heaven" DUH! ROFL. If you see a religious nut, u are looking at a stupid WEAK MINDED person who cannot think for themselves and believe anything to make their lives easier and make the fear of death go away.

No, u cannot BUY your way to a better place after u die. No, u cannot BUY your way to a better place by doing what your religion tells you is right. DUMB FUCKS!

You want to force you shit on me? Then say HELLO TO THE DEVIL MOTHER FUCKERS, because who I AM! Goddamn it i am pissed off. We need to send these psycho fucks to Iran where they will fit right in.

To all you guys who believe in your religion...or believe in god...TO FUCKING BAD!. Freedom of Religiono just means one thing...YOU ARE FREE TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION! Not FORCE IT ON ME! Fuckers.

I just do not understnad why they don't just turn it off? Why do they have to make it so no one else can listen to it? I just do not get why they think they have to force their crap on other people.

ASSSSSHOLES!

Now this is a war I would get into. Imagine if we had a revolution where half the folks wanted to fight for our freedom...and the other half wanted to restrict it......oh wait....didn't we already do this...TWICE?!! WTF?!!!

Illusive

02-26-2004, 09:13 AM

The scary part is, imagine what this wacko is going to do if he gets re-elected to a second, final term?????? I'm thinking something along the line of mandatory GPS tracking/ID implant chips... fuck that, I'd rather be a Canadian.

I was always kinda faithful to the Republican party even though I'm registered independant, but this moronic administration crossed the line. I know of at least 5 people so far that have resistered to vote for the sole purpose of voting against Bush.

Dynamic

02-26-2004, 09:19 AM

Bush has done some good things in his administration, however I don't know what to think of him now. Give me a week or two to think about this bullshit.

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 09:21 AM

Here is my email to Clear Channel:

If you desire to remove our freedoms, then be prepared for us to fight back. You know what I am talking about. Removing Howard Stern's show was cowardly and a direct assault on the freedoms we supposedly enjoy in the United States. I am willing to fight for my freedom and my country which you seem bent on attacking.

As such, expect that not only will I do the following, but also our guild and community online and off):

1. No longer listen to any Clear Channel station.
2. No longer use any products advertised on Clear Channel Stations.

We will all cheer the day your company is ruined by attacking the very doundations of our freedom and way of life. Shame on you and hopefully you will get what's coming to you.

Scornfully,

GrayRage D'Bane

Fuckers.

Dynamic

02-26-2004, 09:26 AM

Clear Channel owns so much though, it will be hard....Im suspecting someone high up in Clear Channel was paid by someone in the government to get rid of Bubba and Stern...

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 09:26 AM

And if you don;t think we are at war here, look at what has already found it's way to my email:

Virus e-mail

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mrsdoofus1@aol.com
To: grayrage@darkenbane.com
Sent: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:19:32 +0100
Subject: fake
Virus: W32/Netsky.b@MM (Search for more information about this virus)
Attachments: ps.zip (most likely a virus)

Full headers: Show headers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Body: you are a bad writer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pathetic fuckers are not only attacking our freedom, but now, when we fight back and voice our opinion (OMG someone voiced their OPINION...KILL THEM!), attack us physically with stupid shit like this gimp virus?

Illusive

02-26-2004, 09:45 AM

Here's the best part:

If you protest, Bush has the power to hold you indefinately as an enemy of the state, without any right to council, thanks to the Patriot Act.

He's played upon people's fears of 9/11 to justify two wars and strip our civil rights right from under our noses.

Medicare lost funding and had to cut back on coverage, he cannot fund his own education legislation, and now even social security is getting driven into the ground.

All the while this is happening, Iraq is reopening schools, getting a new army, police force, etc. etc.

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 09:55 AM

Well, i dunno bout' most of that other stuff and i suppose did not care until now. One thing i DO care about is the government telling us what we can and cannot say. They are kicking someone off the air simpply because he voices a different point of view then those in power?

You know yesterday he openly voiced disagreement with the Bush administration and made fun of the republican party for quite some time. Suddenly he is off the air? What's next? I disapeer for voicing MY opinion here? If i disapeer u know we are in trouble cause the secret police got me!

Mazer2k4

02-26-2004, 10:19 AM

Good article about this here http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20040225-1911-media-clearchannel-decency.html

Illusive

02-26-2004, 10:29 AM

Well by the sounds of that article, any other company can feel free to pick up his show and air it.

Arillious

02-26-2004, 11:13 AM

I live in Tampa so I have been listening to Bubba for like 9 years. It makes you wonder when America is gonna grow up about these things(and other things like marijuana and prostitution, but we won't get into that). People have the option not to listen to bubba or howard. They know what kinda show they run. At any point there could be a sexual refference or a racial comment. What the events after 9-11 have taught us is that Americans are willing to sacrifice all thier freedoms in order to feel safe. And that a president can morph one thing into another if he want's to get something done.(the same way he morphed iraq into afganistan) Bush did not have my vote in the first place and he sure is not gonna win me over by letting shit like this happen.

Illusive

02-26-2004, 11:21 AM

"Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for
temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Noelm

02-26-2004, 11:23 AM

Good article about this here http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20040225-1911-media-clearchannel-decency.html

It fucking sucks altho the article made it sound a helluva lot more like this was due to corporate policy than anything to do with Bush or our current regime. Based on the article, it wasn't the FCC or anyone in the government who had anything to do with this--it was probably some old pseudo-religious conservative fucker on their board or directors, or the like, who disliked stern on a personal level and knew the company could afford to drop him. I would bet a substantial sum of money Stern is reinstated or (more likely) picked up by a different group shortly. After all, we live in a capitalist society, and Sterns style, well, sells :)

Gray, could you clarify how this has anything to do with Bush or the government? I'm not a huge fan of bush, but I'm also less of a fan of the democratic party, much for the same reasons you listed earlier on in this thread ;) I don't honestly see how this is in any way his fault, unless there is a key fact im missing from the discussion/an article somewhere.

As a side note religion == omgwtfpwned ;) I had *one* friend at my school (virtually all engineers) go do the stupid ash-whatever bullshit yesterday and have mercilessly derided him since. "Come on dude, engineers are supposed to know better than that! What the hell is wrong with you!" I actually fowarded him select quotes from your rant b/c it was so fucking hilarious ;p

Malignancy

02-26-2004, 11:46 AM

It fucking sucks altho the article made it sound a helluva lot more like this was due to corporate policy than anything to do with Bush or our current regime. Based on the article, it wasn't the FCC or anyone in the government who had anything to do with this--it was probably some old pseudo-religious conservative fucker on their board or directors, or the like, who disliked stern on a personal level and knew the company could afford to drop him. I would bet a substantial sum of money Stern is reinstated or (more likely) picked up by a different group shortly. After all, we live in a capitalist society, and Sterns style, well, sells :)

Gray, could you clarify how this has anything to do with Bush or the government? I'm not a huge fan of bush, but I'm also less of a fan of the democratic party, much for the same reasons you listed earlier on in this thread ;) I don't honestly see how this is in any way his fault, unless there is a key fact im missing from the discussion/an article somewhere.

As a side note religion == omgwtfpwned ;) I had *one* friend at my school (virtually all engineers) go do the stupid ash-whatever bullshit yesterday and have mercilessly derided him since. "Come on dude, engineers are supposed to know better than that! What the hell is wrong with you!" I actually fowarded him select quotes from your rant b/c it was so fucking hilarious ;p

It doesn't really have to do with bush, except for the fact that Clear Channel is slowly monopolizing the airways with no bar from the FCC or Ashcroft. I'm sure the Bush administration tipped their hats to this, but its not the end of Howard Stern - at least not in my area (NYC motherfuckers!).

EC

P.S. Notwithstanding, Bush is a pile of dogshit and I sincerely hope he is not reelected. And I used to be a registered republican...

Xondio

02-26-2004, 11:47 AM

I disagree, I support the decision, and here's why; Long have I myself worried about my nieces flipping through channels (cable), and seeing things like that self promoted moron Howard Stern. You will probably ask, why do you let them watch T.V. then? My answer to that is, why shouldn't they be able to watch T.V. without me worrying they are going to find 1.2 million shows offering sex to perverts and pedophiles. When I was growing up, sure there were sex shows, but they were constrained to HBO, Cinemax, Late night ect ect. These shows now are prime time T.V., and even Howard Stern shows are shown at day time as reruns. Sex sells to the 50 million guys who are too much of losers to actually go out into the world to find a girlfriend, and because the demand is so large, T.V. shows to get better ratings feel they need to cater to them.

I'm tired of complete and utter losers decided what indecent shows are going to be shown so that kids will flip to them. I know some of you don't care about children, but for the majority of Americans, we do. I care about things like the Superbowl stunt, I care about my nieces being influenced by complete sluts like Madonna and Britney Spears, I care about my nieces going to see a PG movie and it having sexual dialogue or even hints.

And about swearing on T.V. *DO NOT GET ME STARTED*.

Censorship doesn't win, parents do. (I'm not a parent, but I'm very close to my nieces.)

Mindgames

02-26-2004, 11:54 AM

Its the responsiblility of the parents to keep children things they shouldnt hear and watch.... Xondio here is where you are wrong.. I do believe yea they show some things on the radio and tv that may be inappropriate but hell go to austrailia and france or japan or sweden. They show nudity in comericials and people blatently having sex in some of them.. People have to realize that taking howard stern off the air isnt going to change anything what the government needs to do is pass a law that forces parents to spend some time with their children.

2) If you child is too young to listen to the Howard Stern show and is somewhere where he/she is able to actually listen to it, his parents should be shot.

This is a clearly breach of the consitution and Bush can go fuck himself. I honestly think he is insane as Ronald Reagan was.

Maule

02-26-2004, 12:03 PM

Here are my random thoughts concerning some of the material posted here. While Janet Jackson's boob is what started this, I don't see the Super Bowl and Howard as 1 and the same. With Howard, Bubba, etc you know exactly what your getting when you tune them in. When I watch the Super Bowl, I don't watch it for grinding or flashing. Now I know im a tad on the conservative side, I was watching the Super Bowl with friends that have children 2 to 14 and all ranges in between. That was an inapproiate place for that behavior. I, nor they, were "looking" for this behavior at that time. Now I LOVE Howard and when I listen to him I am "looking" for that behavior.

GOD; I believe in GOD and heaven. There is a book written just about GOD and Jesus. If it could be disproved, there are millions of people that would do just that. It hasn't been disproved nor will it ever be. To not believe in GOD I guess you just have to believe dumb luck brought you here. I don't believe that. But, if you can believe in "dumb luck" bringing you here, why can't you believe that GOD brought you here? Is one miracle harder to believe than the other?

While im not a hugh fan of George Bush, I'm absolutely terrified of John Kerry. I probably would have voted for Howard Dean :(. While I didn't like everything he said, he had a reason for saying it and, as best as I could tell, was truthful with why he said it. Even when the truth hurt. I'm not sure we will ever have a truthful person make it to the White House again. Jimmy Carter was probably the last one. It didn't end so well for him.

Dynamic

02-26-2004, 12:08 PM

Does it actually hurt little kids even if they see the Stern show? Honestly they would have no idea what he or anyone on the show says is. Even if they did, who cares? Kids are going to find out that the apparently evil thing known as sex exists through their peers or from reading etc. When I was about 9 years old I stole a porno mag from one of my friends. Being the ignorant kid I was I hid it in the garage thinking no one would find it. My parents found it, and instead of getting mad they laughed and made fun of me, implying that they didn't care and it was no big deal. So I continued looking at that magazine and watching late night cinemax etc. Today I have a girlfriend who I respect more than anyone, especially when it comes to sex. I am not a pervert, and would never do anything "evil" involving sex. So I don't understand how seeing perverted things can even hurt children. But I guess if my kid was watching "Anal Assault 3" or something along those lines I would not approve of it. However something like that would never get shown on TV, in fact nothing even close to being perverted as that would be shown. If a child sees Janet Jackson's boob on TV do you think it hurts the child? Will the kids grow up to be maniacs because they see a couple boobs or naked people on TV? I think not. Even with it being censored the way it is, any child who is interested will still find a way to see it.

Now as far as cussing on TV, a child might mimic that. A child might also mimic some drunken asshole'ss spew of cuss words they hear out in a public situation. Or maybe their uncle cusses a lot on accident in front of them, or their neighbor....It is still a parents job to smack or dicpline their child for using such language. It is not the governments job, nor anyone else's too keep them from hearing it, because no matter how hard you try, they will still hear it.

Flame away...

Arillious

02-26-2004, 12:32 PM

Arillious

02-26-2004, 12:45 PM

Marqus

02-26-2004, 12:49 PM

No one is forcing someone to listen to Stern. The MARKET should decide who is on and off the air. If there is a market of people willing to listen, let them listen. Fuck the government mucking around in shit like this. No one is going to listen to Stern and then kill 14 babies because STERN MADE HIM DO SO!

Fucking government in our bedrooms, fucking government in the media we see... its BS!

Jawdog

02-26-2004, 12:55 PM

I value freedom of speech and action very highly, although I tend more towards liberty than freedom (I see liberty as absence of restriction, whereas freedom is empowerment to action). I don't agree with Bills of Rights, as you cannot draw a sensible line for what should and should not be included. I see liberty guaranteed in practise by seperation of powers, by legislature, executive and judiciary being clearly separate. I see practical things, like adequate disclosure of vested interests, as also important. Most importantly though, I place great importance on keeping State and Religion separate. We don't have a president, the monarch is a figurehead, the prime minister is the first amongst many ministers, he cannot make decisions without cabinet backing.

Checks and Balances and Constitutional Procedures are the key to safeguarding liberty.

On a slightly separate point, but still connected, I read today that people in the UK are less likely to believe in God than those in any other country (BBC-commissioned global survey of religion UK 34% don't believe in God or anything like it, US it's 8%). In the same survey, 29% of those polled in the UK said they thought the world would be a more peaceful place without religion (US 5%).

If I was to summarise these two points, I would say that in the UK we value real people and their real liberties, rather than any abstract ideas of what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

None of this French Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite merde de cow. None of this Bill of Rights, what shall we add now? Just common sense, practical, constitutional protection for everyone who's a citizen.

Sometimes, I am so DAMN proud of my country!

Britannia Rules!

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 01:29 PM

I don't see how you can be so suprised. George Bush has been rubber padding America since 9/11, and it scares me how little people have protested. Howard Stern being taken off the air is just a drop in the ocean. For gods sake, get a new president =).

Noelm

02-26-2004, 01:32 PM

GOD; I believe in GOD and heaven. There is a book written just about GOD and Jesus. If it could be disproved, there are millions of people that would do just that. It hasn't been disproved nor will it ever be. To not believe in GOD I guess you just have to believe dumb luck brought you here. I don't believe that. But, if you can believe in "dumb luck" bringing you here, why can't you believe that GOD brought you here? Is one miracle harder to believe than the other?

DISCLAIMER: The below is horribly oversimplified and basically just me parroting what one of my more interesting professors recently lectured on ;)

There is no dumb luck about it. The universe is a big place. Assuming the universe is infinite and regular (which to our best knowledge we know to something like 99.9bar probability) then any event or chain of events with a non-zero probably will happen somewhere, sometime. In fact, it would happen in an infinite number of places, an infinite number of times. Looking at things that way, no, we dont need some made up concept like "god" to explain our presence. "Dumb Luck" could explain our existance a million million times over ;p

--end of disclaimer;p

MIRACLE is such a terrible word. Its a cop out answer for shit we don't understand. TO answer your question, YES, *dumb luck* is much easier of a "miracle" to believe in considering it is at least based somewhat in relatively sound science. Last time I checked, the only proof we had about god is some really long book some asshole wrote a long time ago. Hardly evidence of anything, unless yer gonna tell me the grand canyon is evidence supporting the bible. Now don't laugh, I've actually been told, with utter seriousness, that the grand canyon was created by the flood from the noahs ark story:)

The only point I'll concede is that there is no specific damning proof/fact that specifically denies gods existance. Just a complete and utter dirth of any support :)

Finally, I respect your beliefs in religion, and you're hardly likely to get much support on a gaming forum like this. I'm honestly not trying to knock your personal beliefs. But you asked why I could believe one thing over another, and I'm confident my reasoning above is a little stronger than basing our existance off of an old piece of dubious fiction:D

Marqus

02-26-2004, 01:44 PM

Funny you should say this Stoff...

and it scares me how little people have protested.

I think what you mean is.. it scares me how little media coverage I see of people protesting. People DO protest G W.. A LOT! We did it so much he made.. get this.. FREE SPEECH ZONES... conveniently far away from wherever he goes. In order to legally protest you have to do it in the FREE SPEECH ZONE. Often miles away from where he will be. If you are a supporter.. ho ho ho you can display your free speech right where G W is. But if you are protesting you are pushed aside.. .often miles away from his parade route or speech location. It is the biggest bunch of BS ever. They CLAIM it is for safety.. ect.. but if you are pro bush you can display this right where he is talking or right along the parade route. Uhh huh.. like an assassin wouldn't just carry a "Go bush go" sign or something to get close? Like I said.. TOTAL bs.

Noelm

02-26-2004, 01:44 PM

None of this French Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite merde de cow. None of this Bill of Rights, what shall we add now? Just common sense, practical, constitutional protection for everyone who's a citizen.

The only problem with that is the use of common sense. Everyone's definiton of what is common sense is different. Really there is little common sense in common sense :) That is why we have the bill of rights ;p

I have a hard time believing those statistics. Now I live in the northeast, which is hardly represenative of our country as a whole, but only 8% not believing in god sounds *very* low. I would like to see their sampling methods, and I would be very unsurprised if there were major confounding problems in the studies methodology.

Then on the other hand, I may just be completely wrong. Maybe everyone here really is that religious :(

Xondio

02-26-2004, 02:06 PM

Its the responsiblility of the parents to keep children things they shouldnt hear and watch

Unfortunately Mindgames, not all of us can watch the children 24/7. And obviously they will have to grow up sooner or later. But the fact is, they shouldn't show fucking and swearing on cable.

.... Xondio here is where you are wrong.. I do believe yea they show some things on the radio and tv that may be inappropriate but hell go to austrailia and france or japan or sweden.

Yes, and look how great those countries have become.

People have to realize that taking howard stern off the air isnt going to change anything what the government needs to do is pass a law that forces parents to spend some time with their children.
Agreed.

If you child is too young to listen to the Howard Stern show and is somewhere where he/she is able to actually listen to it, his parents should be shot.

Howard Stern has a T.V. show, but even he didn't, there are plenty of cable shows that show people blatently fucking, and now swearing.

This is a clearly breach of the consitution and Bush can go fuck himself. I honestly think he is insane as Ronald Reagan was.

We could always reinstate Bill Clinton and have him capture and release Osama Bin Laden again.

Berdy

02-26-2004, 02:17 PM

The fact is the FCC has had the same rules in place for forever but only now are they doing something about it because of the liberial wishy washy stance over the years. Clear channel is sole to blame for dropping Howard Stern so they may invest, purchase or aquire additional stations that presently the FCC is questioning. In other words the are pleasing FCC today to have pull tommorow.

Grey I dont understand your post about Bush, he is doing a fine job and if the only opposition is an idiot like Kerry than lets hope to god that Bush is reelected.

Hamadryad

02-26-2004, 02:18 PM

Haven't read the entire thread yet....I can't stand Howard Stern personally, but they shouldn't have taken him off the air. They're going way too far and that thing with Janet Jackson's boob was just the tip of the iceberg. WOW ITS A BREAST, WHO GIVES A SHIT EVERYONE HAS SEEN ONE, HALF OF US HAVE THEM.

I actually didn't even know they had taken Stern off the air in Canada...

Noelm

02-26-2004, 02:26 PM

WOW ITS A BREAST, WHO GIVES A SHIT EVERYONE HAS SEEN ONE, HALF OF US HAVE THEM.

!!!!!!!!!!

that is all.

ps sup berdy!

Maule

02-26-2004, 02:57 PM

WOW ITS A BREAST, WHO GIVES A SHIT EVERYONE HAS SEEN ONE, HALF OF US HAVE THEM.

yea, but the half of "us" that don't have them spend a whole heck of a lot of time "trying" to get the other half to share.

Eyepatch

02-26-2004, 02:57 PM

I watch Howard Stern on the E! channel about 3 times a week. I love that show.

This is bullshit.

Immolatus

02-26-2004, 03:22 PM

I don't really know the whole story behind Stern being kicked of the air or anything, but it sounds like it is truely a travesty. That being said, im not sure Bush deserves the blame for it. Its not like he ordered it to happen.

Even if he did, i would still vote for him, as a case of the lesser of two evil scenario. Too me, im more afraid of a liberal national goverment which will take away my freedom to bear arms, attack my right to drive any damn vehicle i want, and any other number of freedoms, and tax the hell out of me.

Although everyone by now is used to the wall of seperation between church and state, but that was also protected by the 1st amendment, which was taken away from american citizens on the basis of political activism practiced by the supreme court in the late 50s.

Many people do not understand the fact that states in themselves had the right to declare a STATE RELIGION, which of course i dont think is good, but to extrapolate the 1st amendment seperation clause to bar all forms of religion from any sort display in state or national goverment sanctioned area (ie schools, courts etc) is ludicrous. Ben Franklin himself, an atheist, motioned to make prayer a permanent part of congressional procedings.

Anyways, i agree its fuckin bullshit what happened to Howard Stern. But i wouldant be so quick to point the finger at Bush. Nor, even if, would i vote for a democrat, because they already have a track record for taking way freedoms, and an agenda to increase the role of the national goverment, and take away even more of my freedoms.

Peace,
Immolatus

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 04:20 PM

this shit has been going on for years dude, the government has gone so far as to shut down entire radio stations MANY MANY times, you just didnt hear about it because the media of course is controlled by them.

the only reason your hearing about this is because it is stern, you have no rights in america anymore because nobody is willing to defend them, your rights are bent or obliterated at the whim oif politicians because for the last 70 years americans have done nothing as restrictive law after law was slowly shoved down their throats and now, you see it coming to a head.

look at the past 50 years of legislation, how much has given you MORE freedom?

exactly.

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 04:25 PM

Or maybe it's because Bush and homeland security is limiting free speech at a rate not seen in years?

(well that and it's Stern =)

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 04:28 PM

OH NO CABLE TV INTENDED FOR ADULTS SHOWS FUCKIGN AND SWEARING OMG, LETS MAKE IT SO THE 200 MILLION ADULTS IN THE COUNTRY CANT FUCKING WATCH WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE OF THE CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELDREN!

get a fucking v chip or any of numerpus other parental controls on your tv, problem solved.

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 04:35 PM

Xondio, no offense, but for anyone that watches the Howard Stern show KNOWS you have NOT watched it and it makes you look like an imbecile. Perhaps if you actually listened to the show and (and don't lie to me like a moron because it pretty obvious you have not listened to it) you would not be saying the silly bullshit you say.

First of all, Howard Stern almost completely and utterly is a reflection of the very guild you are in right now. If you think he should be censored then you think we should be censored as well. Altho his show has sex stuff on it, it surely is not all about sex. It's about people, politics, humor, entertainment...EVERYTHING.

Now I have seen your posting and know your opinions on alot of things. I also know you have no clue what you are talking about as someone who has obviously heard fromn his momma or daddy that Howard Stern is the big bad devil and have not had the chance to get this imbelcilic ideal out of you head. All I can suggest to you is listening to his show for 1 week then come back here and apologize for being an idiot.

If, on the other hand, you claim to have listened extensively to his show and still stick with your what you say, then you need to seriiously consider your membership to this guild and look for some fucking catholic school principal to diddle your fucking weiner.

I am sorry, but I am not int he mood for any stupid bull;shit people talking out their ass without at least knowing what they are they are talking about. At least I LISTEN TO RUSH LImbaugh...so I can say he is a moron. I KNOW you have not listened to Howard Stern...so spare me your bullshit.

To anyone who believes in God and Religion. More power to you. Not everyone will agree with me and that's fine. I do not FORCE my beliefs on others (or lack theron) and thus would appreciate the same consideration. Unfortunetly people like XONDIO seem to think their beliefs or morals should be forced on me and they need a fucking cucumber stuffed up their asses.

Xondio...the next time u breath censorship in my direction u better fucking run. Don't spew that bullshit to me here.

Ok about the connection of Bush to whats goin on now. Here is a link to alot of the stuff goin on the show: http://www.marksfriggin.com/news04/2-23.htm

Basically, the bush administration (republicans) are goin nuts right now with retarded congrassional hearins about obscenity on the airways. Oh who cares that 500+ plus of our soldiers are dead in iraq...it's time to worry about Howard Stern saying "ASS". The FCC is fining anyone who says or does anything indecent (including Clear Channel several times) and the hearings are being run by republicans (u know...Bush's party).

Yes, he CAN get on another radio station, but the fact is they are bleeping out almost his entire show even when he is online (well alot of stuff). They are censoring him so much he is having a hard time even saying anything. This, again, is the FCC and congress (republicans). So if you want a link to what's goin on with Howard and the Bush administration...there it is. Fact is, Bush and Colon Powell for that matter have the power to tell Colen Powell's son to back the fuck off...instead they are doing quite the opposite. All of this attention by the law makers has given the executive at Clear channel with his cucumber still in his ass the opening he needed to get rid of Howard.

Immolatus

02-26-2004, 04:36 PM

freedoms are taken away, because people want them to be. Theres millions of people who want the gov to take away the freedom to abort babies.
Other millions want the gov to take away the right to bear arms, and the right to practice religion openly, ANYWHERE (freedom of speech)

Some people are morally self righteous and want to force their beliefs on others (as in the case of abortion). Others swing the other way, and want to take away peoples rights in other regards.

The republicans and democrats are doing what their constituents want. Its not like there is some conspiracy to destroy everyones freedom. THe people want them to.

In regards to your media theories (dar) , i find it funny that the media can simultaneously conspire with both democratic and republican goverments.
Democrats claim the media is ruled by the republicans. Republicans claim its ruled by democrats. Yet somehow, in the end, its controlled by the institution collectively known as "the goverment."

Anyways, the goverment to a large extent, does what the people want. People want freedoms taken away from them. Just their is differing opinions as to which freedoms.

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 04:42 PM

Quote:

.... Xondio here is where you are wrong.. I do believe yea they show some things on the radio and tv that may be inappropriate but hell go to austrailia and france or japan or sweden.

Yes, and look how great those countries have become.

This is on the top 5 of my stupid quotes list.

Quote:
This is a clearly breach of the consitution and Bush can go fuck himself. I honestly think he is insane as Ronald Reagan was.

We could always reinstate Bill Clinton and have him capture and release Osama Bin Laden again.

As opposed to George Bush never actually capturing him?

Immolatus

02-26-2004, 04:47 PM

Well to be fair, its not like Clinton has uber terrorist tracking skills either. Id say osama is quite a bit more worried about his neck now, than then~

Immolatus

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 04:55 PM

Absolutely, but using Osama Bin Laden as an example to glorify bush is hardly the thing to do.

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 04:56 PM

clinton was a treasonous piece of absolute shit, who aside from innumerable illegal laws and executive orders, stands out as having......

1> sold missile guidance technology to china, technology which now allows their missiles to hit our country. this is only the tip of the sword with regards to his dealings with china, a rival and hostile country.

2> started the attack on kosovo makign up bullshit and throwing around buzzwords such as "mass graves" and "ethnic cleansing" on the very eve of the impeachment vote as a distraction because there was enough support to have him impeached.

Marqus

02-26-2004, 05:00 PM

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 05:03 PM

Any president that uses a cigar on a young chippy (no matter how ugly) is worthy IMHO ;p AT LEAST IT WAS NOT UNDER HIS REGIME WHEN THEY TOOK AWAY FREE SPEECH!

Everyone has ton's of opinions about all of this. I am happy, tho, everyone is in agreement that censorship blows and should not be tolerated (except for Xondio). The scariest thing about all of this is where it stops. Ok...they get rid of Howard First. Then suddenly HBO has to censor their showes...then Movies cannot have cussing.....and then we are next.

Oh yes...Imagine if the FCC got ahold of US. Yepper...each time one of you said FUCK, me and Meter would have to pay $20,000.

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 05:08 PM

2> started the attack on kosovo makign up bullshit and throwing around buzzwords such as "mass graves" and "ethnic cleansing" on the very eve of the impeachment vote as a distraction because there was enough support to have him impeached

Are you out of touch with reality? Saying that Bill Clinton made that up is like a Nazi saying that no jews were killed during WW2.

Thousands of people were executed, and Milosevic is currently on trial for genocide, a case he has about 1% of winning.

Immolatus

02-26-2004, 05:10 PM

i agree stoffer. Bringing up osama bin ladin is indeed irrelevant.

Immolatus

02-26-2004, 05:23 PM

The universe is a big place. Assuming the universe is infinite and regular (which to our best knowledge we know to something like 99.9bar probability) then any event or chain of events with a non-zero probably will happen somewhere, sometime. In fact, it would happen in an infinite number of places, an infinite number of times. Looking at things that way, no, we dont need some made up concept like "god" to explain our presence. "Dumb Luck" could explain our existance a million million times over

Actually our best theores deny the infinite nature of the universe. In fact, we have proven that the universe is expanding, and since it is expanding it cannot be infinite. To illistrate, using numbers and staring at 0, counting from 1 2 3 4 (representing the expanse of the universe a long time ago)..... up to say, 1 gazilion. Just because the number is large, doesnt mean its infinite. Anything that has velocity is approaching infinity, but can never reach it. Furthermore, since infinity is an abstract idea, nothing with matter can ever be infinite. Logically, any thing (including the universe), which has momentum is thereby finite. Because the very nature of the infinite suggests a perpetual state of being.

An expanding universe not only suggests a begining (big bang theory for example), but it suggests velocity. As such, according to Newtonian physics, any force has an equal and oposite force. Therefore, there must be an equal or opposite force that initiated the known universe to corrolate with human understanding at this point.

Furthermore, the material making up the universe is finite. Thus, it had to be made. As matter by all our understanding, not only decays, but is in the very nature finite. By all our human understanding, finite matterial cannot exist without infinite means.

In conclusion. You can argue that either a) something caused the universe to happen. or b) humanity, at this time, does not have the scientific understanding to explain existence as we know it.

Just something to think about.

Tashern

02-26-2004, 05:33 PM

Clear Channel represented 8 out of 80+ stations airing Howard Stern, Howard Stern isn't shut down in anyway :P They are just covering their asses for more 700,000 dollar fines.

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 05:50 PM

i am not in favor of beating off in ira either marqus, so *shrug* lol.

uh, stofferr, lets see where to begin.........

ok first of all lets start with what the kosovo conflict was about.

3 primary countries involved:

serbia
kosovo
albania

http://www.commondreams.org/kosovo/kosovoimages/bceurope1.jpg

now, serbia is a fairly well off country as far as countries in that part of the world go.

kosovo is a part of serbia, thus serbian territory.

albania is a poor country.

over decades millions of albanians immigrate to serbia in search of betteriong themselves rather than fix their own country.

they settle primarily in the area of serbia known as kosovo, as it borders their country.

fast forward a few decades, when the albanian immigrants in kosovo outnumber the serbs there they decide that they are taking over kosovo and making their own country.

serbia responds with military action the way any country would.

meanwhile back at home clinton is facing impeachment charges and is about to be thrown on his ass out of the whitehouse.

the albanian upstarts are getting their asses beat by the organized military force of serbs and start making claims of genocide and attrocities from the serbs, the way every side in any revolutionary or civil war type engagement has since the dawn of history.

clinton sees a convenient loophole to postpone the impeachment as the proceeding can not continue while in a "time of war", on the exact same eve of the impeachment proceedings he orders the attack on kosovo to "save the albaians from ethnic cleaning and war crimes"

we spend the next 2 months dicking off until the impeachment is conveniently old news and has lost its wind, then we never hear anymore about kosovo.

did some executions and such happen there? yes certainly, happens in EVERY war, however the serbs had EVERY JUSTIFICATION to destroy the albanian resistance by any means necessary, additionally if you recall they were primarily making the albanians move out of their homes in kosovo, homes which they were not supposed to be in in the first place because they had no claim to fiucking being there.

the situation pisses me off a good deal because i see something very similar here in the united states.

we are a rich country.

mexico is a poor country.

over the years millions of illegal mexicans have flooded across the border into parts of the united states known as TEXAS, ARIZONA and CALIFORNIA.

there are militant mexican groups that advocate taking over the southwest united states, groups such as aztlan.

ten years form now what happens when MEXICANS outnumber AMERICANS in the southwest and decide they are taking over, just like the ALBANIANS did in KOSOVO when they outnumbers the SERBIANS.

are we not to respond with military force? or do we just let the mexicans take over the southwest portion of our country?

or should we kill the militants and evict the illegals, the exact same way the serbs did to the albanians?

getting involved in kosovo was the biggest load of shit of a "war" i have witnessed since being born, and it makes me fucking sick that one piece of garbages political maneuvering to save his own ass cost not only billions of dollars spent on blowing away serbs trying to defend their country, but all the grief and hardships to our soldiers who had to go fight the war, and to the serbs whose country is still in turmoil.

Noelm

02-26-2004, 05:59 PM

Tashern

02-26-2004, 06:09 PM

Hey Darwoth, don't stab anyone in the coming weeks if a Us soldier dies in Haiti while the liberal press blames Bush and hides the fact Clinton put that retard dictator in power rofl.

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 06:16 PM

ill try not to, but no promises!

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 06:27 PM

All sources from encyclopedia.com are marked with ".

now, serbia is a fairly well off country as far as countries in that part of the world go.

kosovo is a part of serbia, thus serbian territory.

albania is a poor country.

over decades millions of albanians immigrate to serbia in search of betteriong themselves rather than fix their own country.

they settle primarily in the area of serbia known as kosovo, as it borders their country.

fast forward a few decades, when the albanian immigrants in kosovo outnumber the serbs there they decide that they are taking over kosovo and making their own country.

1."In 1986, Slobodan Milošević became leader of the Serbian Communist party. He and his supporters revived the vision of a “Greater Serbia,” comprising Serbia proper, Vojvodina, Kosovo, and the Serb-populated parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina. Beginning in 1989, Serbia ended Kosovo's autonomy, which had been granted in the 1974 constitution, and sent in troops to suppress the protests of Kosovo's Albanian majority."

So, we have established that the Albanians have been living there all the time, and Milosevic took over the area in a way that went against the constituion. In conclusion, the albanians lived there to begin with, and didn't as you claim "immigrate to a richer country by the millions"

2. "(kô´sôvô-mĕtô´khēä) or Kosovo-Metohija , Albanian Kosova, Serbo-Croatian Kosovo i Metohija and Kosmet, province (2002 est. pop. 1,900,000), 4,126 sq mi (10,686 sq km), S Serbia and Montenegro, in Serbia. Priština is the chief city. The largely mountainous region includes the fertile valleys of Kosovo and Metohija and is drained by the Southern Morava River. Agriculture, stock raising, forestry, and mining are the major occupations. Kosovo's population before 1999 was about 80% Albanian; ethnic Albanians now make up about 88% of the inhabitants."

So you're telling me it's wrong that 88% of the voters are calling the shots? Yes, do indeed send in the army like "any country would". Oh and btw, the reason they are muslim is because it was governed by Turkey till 1913.

3. "Harsh Serbian repression and a breakdown in negotiations to settle the issue provoked NATO into attacking Serbia by air in Mar., 1999. Serbia responded by forcing hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians to flee Kosovo, creating an enormous refugee problem; perhaps 1.5 million Albanian Kosovars were expelled from their homes or fled."

Nothing like those modern democratic armies that force millions to flee their homes eh?.

the albanian upstarts are getting their asses beat by the organized military force of serbs and start making claims of genocide and attrocities from the serbs, the way every side in any revolutionary or civil war type engagement has since the dawn of history.

1."In the 1990s, in reaction to war atrocities committed by various parties during the breakup of Yugoslavia , the United Nations established a tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, and attempted to gather evidence for prosecutions; Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have been charged, including top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders. The highest ranking official to be tried is former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević , whose trial began in 2002. In 2000 the Hague tribunal officially established rape, which was rampant during the Yugoslav civil strife, as a war crime."

2."In 1995 top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders were charged by an international tribunal with genocide in the killing of thousands of Muslims during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia."

These people came into villages and killed every single male muslim over the age of 5.

did some executions and such happen there? yes certainly, happens in EVERY war, however the serbs had EVERY JUSTIFICATION to destroy the albanian resistance by any means necessary, additionally if you recall they were primarily making the albanians move out of their homes in kosovo, homes which they were not supposed to be in in the first place because they had no claim to fiucking being there.

Of course civilians will get killed, that's a part of war. But rounding tens of thousands of civilians up like cattle and murdering them is not.

are we not to respond with military force? or do we just let the mexicans take over the southwest portion of our country?

or should we kill the militants and evict the illegals, the exact same way the serbs did to the albanians?

Immigration can be stopped politically, look around you, not every country has that problem. And the fact that you suggest letting the military have a go and the mexican civilians living in the US sickens me.

Arkons

02-26-2004, 06:35 PM

Lol, this is nothing compared to the shit the FCC has been doing since Bush got into the white house. First they lifted the ban on Media conglomorates owning say a T.V. station, newspaper and radio station in the same area. Then in mid 2003 they increased the ammount of media one company was allowed to own in a certain area from something like 20% to 40%. Now there was a movement to get 3 million signatures that would allow a vote in the house and senate to overturn the resolution (there were many other things in this packet, and was kinda snuck in). The house voted for overturn by 55 to 40 (which beleive it or not is considered an overwhelming bipartisan majority). But when the bill was going to house republican majority leader Tom "I am the Federal Government" DeLay blocked the bill by declaring it "dead on arrival" which meant there would be no vote. see people democracy really does work! HAH... Btw this is what Democrats mean when the say "Special interest"
Now im not sure on the rest of this, but I heard it about a month ago or so that the FCC repackaged the resolution lowering the new ownership percentage to 33% or something... Not sure tho,

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 06:38 PM

Oh I forgot to add that it's estimated that he murdered about 10,000 people.

Thats a rough number, again sources are encyclopedia.com, cnn.com and bbc.com

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 06:38 PM

i am completely not bothering with replying to the revisionist propaganda crap =P

cant fault you for buying into the media outlets, most people do.

edit: actually i might reply to this later if im bored enough to dig up sources and stats from an actual news source rather than CNN and BBC lol, busy painting right now though, ive already spotted 2 holes in your argument.

Arkons

02-26-2004, 06:40 PM

revisionist propaganda crap???
that's all fact right there... I didn't spin it at all...
You can try to justify it all you want, but not even Tom DeLay tried that, he just denies it ever happened.

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 06:41 PM

i am completely not bothering with replying to the revisionist propaganda crap =P

cant fault you for buying into the media outlets, most people do.

Oh yea, take the easy way out because I just pwned you're home made facts.

edit: actually i might reply to this later if im bored enough to dig up sources and stats, busy painting right now though, ive already spotted 2 holes in your argument.

No, you have allegedly spotted two holes in www.encyclopedia.coms facts (which I sincerely doubt), and remember, your local militia leader does not count as a source.

Edit: Notice I named 3 sources, which btw all give the same number.

GrayRage

02-26-2004, 06:49 PM

What was that movie called with the crooked nosed actor who was apilot shot down over serbia? Pretty good movie. I wonder how accurate that was.

Anyone see Xondio around? I really wanna tell him off ;p

Arkons

02-26-2004, 06:51 PM

btw on the universe thing, we know it's not infinate, and there is no clear definition of it. There is a beleif of things outside of this universe, and why I won't get into that is because no one would understand the explanation. However, there are two opposing theories, one is that the universe is collapsing, and on that its expanding. Both have some good ground to stand on. Me personally, and at last look mr. hawking agrees with me, is that we are still currently expanding, but at the same time collapsing. The eventual ending of the universe will be collapse into a sigularity. In fact, if you want proof, we are currently consuming another galaxy. This will eventually happen all over the universe and the universe as we know it will cease to exist.

"Behind Enemey lines" is the movie, and Owen Wilson is the actor. As far as accuracy, I beleive it's based on a true story.
And about the Kosovo conflict, no one really knows what the fuck is going on. Take for instance Slavadon Milosivich was supported by, and is friends with General Wesley Clark (many pictures of Mr. Clark and serbian murderers). Milosivich ran for the Serbian senate at the start of this year, and Mr. Clark missed the Arizona debate because he was testifying to Milosovich's innocence.
Fact is I can't figure out the truth, because everyone says something different.

Stoffer

02-26-2004, 07:14 PM

Fact is I can't figure out the truth, because everyone says something different.

Could you be more specific than "everyone" ?.

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 07:14 PM

wasnt talking to you arkons was talking to stoffer about kosovo conflict, and i will get back to this later tonight/tomorrow morning stofferr.

its not that your quoted stats are wrong, its that there is lot more to it than that, i will elaborate later, feel free to start a new thread on general board for this if you want.

Xondio

02-26-2004, 07:55 PM

Xondio, no offense, but for anyone that watches the Howard Stern show KNOWS you have NOT watched it and it makes you look like an imbecile.

No, in fact I have watched it. It is a trashy show, and needed to be taken off the airways anyway.

Perhaps if you actually listened to the show and (and don't lie to me like a moron because it pretty obvious you have not listened to it) you would not be saying the silly bullshit you say.

Dave, I'm saying I don't personally like the show. But hey, if you like watching a moron on television that's your perogative.

First of all, Howard Stern almost completely and utterly is a reflection of the very guild you are in right now.

.

If you think he should be censored then you think we should be censored as well.

There's a slight difference. Had this been a community where children would pass by (like television where they flip the channels), and it was in a public forum, then yes I would definitly agree with you Dave.

Altho his show has sex stuff on it, it surely is not all about sex. It's about people, politics, humor, entertainment...EVERYTHING.

90% sex
10% politics (he may know about sex, but he doesn't know politics.)

That's like listening to Madonna give us advice on politics. If we don't trust what's going into her mouth, why would trust anything that comes out of it?

Now I have seen your posting and know your opinions on alot of things. I also know you have no clue what you are talking about as someone who has obviously heard fromn his momma or daddy that Howard Stern is the big bad devil and have not had the chance to get this imbelcilic ideal out of you head.

No, I've recieved my opinions from the misfortune of watching his show.

All I can suggest to you is listening to his show for 1 week then come back here and apologize for being an idiot.

I've watched his show a couple of times actually, and my opinion has, and will stand.

If, on the other hand, you claim to have listened extensively to his show and still stick with your what you say, then you need to seriiously consider your membership to this guild and look for some fucking catholic school principal to diddle your fucking weiner.

I wouldn't call a couple of shows extensively, but enough. I find it hard to believe you founded the guild off of the principles of Howard Stern.

I am sorry, but I am not int he mood for any stupid bull;shit people talking out their ass without at least knowing what they are they are talking about. At least I LISTEN TO RUSH LImbaugh...so I can say he is a moron.

/Agreed

He is also a hypocrit, but I wont get into that.

To anyone who believes in God and Religion. More power to you.

Thanks.

Unfortunetly people like XONDIO seem to think their beliefs or morals should be forced on me and they need a fucking cucumber stuffed up their asses.

You're right Dave, fuck them, instead of Comedy Central, let's replace it with pure hardcore porno, fuck those religious bastards trying to force morals on us! And instead of barney, we'll let them watch whatever porno they want instead, because why should we have morals in this country.

Xondio, no offense

None taken, but it was a good laugh.

In conclusion though, I think radio and T.V. ought to be treated as two seperate entities. He should have full reign to do whatever he wants on the radio waves, just not on T.V.

BTW, Darwoth, send me some cash for the V-chip and i'll have it working ASAP, dumbass.

Darwoth

02-26-2004, 08:26 PM

well since half of the fucking 150 dollar tvs already have them or something similar installed my only response is to save your welfare checks you stupid nigger.

Xondio

02-26-2004, 08:31 PM

well since half of the fucking 150 dollar tvs already have them or something similar installed my only response is to save your welfare checks you stupid nigger.

Trolled.

Tashern

02-26-2004, 08:40 PM

One episode I watched on Howard Stern, they were giving away breast enlargement operations (like 10k) away if the gal could sniff this guys farts.

God bless America!

Daefuin

02-26-2004, 11:44 PM

I haven't read the whole thread but..

What does this have to do with President Bush?

Clearchannel terminated the Howard Stern show. Oh nos, it's a conspiracy.

Sounds like a business decision, not the use of presidential powers.

Arillious

02-27-2004, 12:10 AM

Our government is fucked up... but it's still better then anyone elses. That's not a excuse not to do anything to make it better though. I think a lot of people are feeling like the governement is crossing the line lately on limiting our freedoms so hopefully something will be done about it.

Xondio

02-27-2004, 01:09 AM

I agree, but this is what makes our country better than anyone elses; the ability to change it. While I do agree with some of the censorship, some parts do violate freedom of speech.

It just irritates me when all the stupid fucking hippies come running out of the wood work screaming 'BLAME BUSH HE SUCKS HE IS CONSPERIZY THEORIYY COMINGS TRUE'. If you want sex on T.V., rent a porno.

Although I do have to agree, fight for whatever you believe in, because if you don't no one else will and the meaning of democracy is useless. Just don't be a fucking moron about it and start blaming all republicans and Christains.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 06:08 AM

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 212
I haven't read the whole thread but..

What does this have to do with President Bush?

Clearchannel terminated the Howard Stern show. Oh nos, it's a conspiracy.

Sounds like a business decision, not the use of presidential powers.
You did notice the congressional hearings yesterday.....the very day Stern was removed...where the head of Clear Channel testified he has removed the big bad Howard Stern and they applauded his move (the repuvlican congress). You do realize the FCC has been levying fines to radio stations pretty much arbitrarily and the new head of the FCC is Colen Powel's son? Do you truly believe the President of the US is not behind the restrictions on free speech?

No matter, the fines the FCC has recently been levying against Clear Channel and many other stations) basically gave the head of the company (a republican) the opening he needed to dump stern.

No, in fact I have watched it. It is a trashy show, and needed to be taken off the airways anyway.
Well XONDIO thinks it's a trashy show, so damn well it better be taken off the air. You know what, Xondio, alot of people do not like Darkenbane either....we better remove our website too. Who the fuck do u think u are? U think because YOU think it's a trashy show no one should get to watch it?

Ok everyone. New rule added to the Charter. NO MORE CUSSING. Cause god for fucking bid Xondio's nieces get online and see it. Oh...Xondio...just a little tidbit of info...our forums have so much more "trash" as you call it, then Howard Stern's show...it's not even close. Your other comments about him are just so unimformed it's pathetic. I still cannot believe u have the nerve to talk shit about something u have no clue about.

That is scary shit and is a real good example of why we have to watch our asses in this world...people forcing their....UNINFORMED wills on us. Sad.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 07:23 AM

Ok read for yourself what's goin on and why it's not a business decision to take him off the air.

http://www.marksfriggin.com/news.htm#thu

One quote that pops out...
He said he learned some stuff off the air and he won't be talking about any congresswoman today. He said that it's obvious that free speech isn't so free. He said he was going to try and be smart and try to get them back on the air on the Clear Channel stations by Monday but it's possible he'll be fired from those stations

He was making fun of that psycho congress woman who was crying in the congressional hearings about the Janet Jackson boob. CRYING. He really made fun of her...and ...well....some other law makers. RUh row. Anyhow check it out.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 07:30 AM

more quotes i like...

Howard said that Mel Karmazin spoke to Clear Channel and told them they're in breach of contract but they apparently don't care. He said he really doesn't know what's going on and what he can talk about on the air. Robin said it was like they woke up in a different country with all of this stuff going on. Howard said he doesn't think he'll last a month on the air with all of this stuff. He said Cabbie was ready to go on a commando mission down to Washington DC
It's a business decision to breach a contract? Hello censorship!

Scott said that he's embarrassed to live in this country after this. Howard said that he has been silenced because he talked about a congresswoman (Heather Fucking Wilson) and it's censorship.
This was the nut case congresswoman Howard made fun of. God forbid u talk about about someone in the republican party!

Howard said that Clear Channel admitted to him that they did this, not because of anything he said, but because they are being dragged in front of congress. He said that they're being forced to say that Howard said something racist on Tuesday and that's why he's being kicked off the air on those stations. Howard said it was a caller who used the N-word that people are talking
Business decision my ass.

He also said that all of these radio stations are going to be obsolete in 20 years anyway because satellite radio is going to take over.
hmmm investment opportunity anyone?

alot more good stuff on the link i provided.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 07:38 AM

Tons of good stuff at that link.

Howard said that he's going to be the sacrificial lamb in all of this indecency stuff. Artie said it's pretty scary that they're not allowed to talk about a politician. He said that it's frightening
This is what I am talking about.

Howard took some more phone calls and one of them was from Dominic Barbara who told Howard that this could help get Bush out of office if the fans use their power to vote him out. Howard said that this whole thing has gone berserk and it all has to do with Bush and Michael Powell. He said that people are being thrown off the air without a trial.
yep.

Xondio

02-27-2004, 11:05 AM

Well XONDIO thinks it's a trashy show, so damn well it better be taken off the air. You know what, Xondio, alot of people do not like Darkenbane either....we better remove our website too. Who the fuck do u think u are? U think because YOU think it's a trashy show no one should get to watch it?

I'm not a stupid fucking hippie that's for sure. Sure people should be able to watch it... on HBO, Cinemax, or any other channel like that.

Oh...Xondio...just a little tidbit of info...our forums have so much more "trash" as you call it, then Howard Stern's show...it's not even close.

Here is the difference, when I flip the channels I *have* to pass howard stern show, just like every kid in America. When I go online, I pick a specific website to go to, and I would have to do a search on this website had I not known the URL.

Your other comments about him are just so unimformed it's pathetic. I still cannot believe u have the nerve to talk shit about something u have no clue about.

Your right, I am misinformed about a guy who has people touch his ass, smell peoples farts, swears, and blatently shows sex on his public T.V. show. You are completely right, what was I thinking, I better go join the hippie brigade to bring down 'the man'.

That is scary shit and is a real good example of why we have to watch our asses in this world...people forcing their....UNINFORMED wills on us. Sad.
Yeah, next thing you know, we will be giving MURDERERS the death sentence! I for one wont stand for other peoples morals, I mean cmon, stop forcing your moral of not being able to murder someone in cold blood on me. I blame bush, all republicans, and Christains. Those assholes and their morals!!!

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 11:17 AM

Well Xondio, u have your opinion and i have mine. The beauty of the world is we can still at least chose who we wish to associate with based on interests and views.

Xondio

02-27-2004, 11:59 AM

/Agreed

Arkons

02-27-2004, 01:05 PM

I agree, but this is what makes our country better than anyone elses; the ability to change it.

You sound almost like you actually beleive that. You have no more ability to change this country than me or my dog. Beleive that.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 01:57 PM

LoL that sig is classic ;p

Ekimus

02-27-2004, 02:38 PM

I dont like to get into these threads but freedom of speach, and the whole 'political correctness' that has taken over this country is something I hate with a passion.

No, in fact I have watched it. It is a trashy show, and needed to be taken off the airways anyway.

Theres two things that bother me with this statement. One is have you watched the E! channel for more then the howard stern show? The channel has a show where they send 2 hosts around the world to places with crazy partys and people running around naked for half the shows. The howard stern SHOW fits right in with the other content on the channel.

The other is you say airwaves, but the fact is cable is a lot different then 'normal' television. I remember when cable was first available in my area I went over my friends house who had cable like right away and HBO was a normal channel on his lineup (of about 30 stations total hah). Cable was almost completely uncensored when it came out, but after years it has been broken down that basic cable now has a lot of rules and premium cable has none, how long untill its all cencored away?

theres a local radio show much like the howard stern show, they talk about everything from politics, sports, and sex ocasionally. I really enjoyed listening to thier show up untill about a week ago. What happened? They had planned to have a bunch of unknown rappers come on the show to have some kind of "Rap battle" where they would pick the best one and send him to new york for something. This was a long planned thing, but 30 mins before the show came on air they got a call and said they wern't allowed to do it because "someone" was scared a rapper might just cuss on air.

Ever since then the show has been DULL, they yell at every caller for saying anything that might be fineable. They arn't really sure what they can or cannot say now and they are just a small show and can't take a risk like someone like Stern or they will end up like Bubba from florida. They have talked about this constantly on every show for a week. Afraid thier own show, or normal callers might just get THEM in trouble, it's disgusting.

If you want to protect yourself or your kids from this kind of stuff, you need to cancle the cable, get Cyber Patrol for your computer to block 80% of the webpages on the internet, and lock yourself in the hosue so you dont hear someone cuss while walking down the street. Have a good life protecting yourself, I think I can live with it.

Illusive

02-27-2004, 04:38 PM

Amen.

Don't want your kids to hear stuff on the radio? Sell your radio(s).

Don't want your kids to see stuff on TV? Don't subscribe to cable.

They're your kids. YOU should have to make sacrifices if you want to protect them from it. Not take away from adults who currently enjoy whatever is going on.

Maybe your kids will actually go out and do things, and not weigh 250 lbs by age 16.

GrayRage

02-27-2004, 09:42 PM

Yar, i get nervous when people do thing in the name of "it's bad for the kids!" What's bad for the kids is bad parenting.

Azriel

02-28-2004, 03:40 AM

Gray you should move to Montana and become a freman (sp?) Im right next door to them and its sounding like a good idea.

Too bad they dont play corporate video games though :(

SnakkpackJihads

02-28-2004, 09:13 AM

To make things easier for you all , these are the E-mails listed at the link by GrayRage In case you cant access it for a day or two like i was unable to.
webmaster@clearchannel.com
ContactUs@clearchannelint.com
info@clearchanneladvantage.com
lisacdollinger@clearchannel.com
crystalfischnar@clearchannel.com

IMO this is a god damn Load of SHIT

SnakkpackJihads

02-28-2004, 09:16 AM

Yar, i get nervous when people do thing in the name of "it's bad for the kids!" What's bad for the kids is bad parenting.
For the first time i na long time someone agrees with me, If your kid goes off and kills a shitload of people dont blame it on DOOM, Blame it on the fucktard parents sitting around looking for sympathy after their neglegance to teach their kids morales and values screws up.

SnakkpackJihads

02-28-2004, 09:27 AM

[QUOTE=Xondio]No, in fact I have watched it. It is a trashy show, and needed to be taken off the airways anyway.QUOTE]
Well Xondio, Here in america, (im really not sure where anyone is from, Not trying to be sarcastic, or an asshole for that reason) we have this uber thing called, Freedom of speech,It is under the First ammendment, the very first article states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

This means, we have the right to state what we want, and its legal, and that its a complete load of shit to remove howard stern off the airways for specifically one reason : Its a radio show, you do not at any time HAVE to flip your radio dial over to the channel he is on, and listen. That means, to me at least, that this would be breaking the constitutional right of Freedom of Speech.

GrayRage

02-28-2004, 11:20 AM

Yeah, to be honest with u, i do not understnad how the FCC is even a legal entity. At least it's ability to fine people based on what they say should not be legal.

GrayRage

02-28-2004, 11:23 AM

Gray you should move to Montana and become a freman (sp?) Im right next door to them and its sounding like a good idea.
I am an American. I was born free and will not let some religious freaks take that away from me....at least not whilst i breath!

Immolatus

02-28-2004, 06:01 PM

"Yeah, to be honest with u, i do not understnad how the FCC is even a legal entity. At least it's ability to fine people based on what they say should not be legal. "

Well law in place to impose some sort of ... order. I don't think its bad to keep things decent. And the whole premise of keeping things decent is inherently moral, and inherent in any form of law. (For example, we have moral laws against poligomy, dueling, and countless other things. The ban against dueling is completely based on morality, for whose to say two individuals shouldn't have the freedom to consentfully kill each other; or, consentfully marry more than one person)

We as a people have given the FCC authority to hold radio and tv programs to a certain standard. Should anyone break those standards, we have given them the authority to issue fines. The FCC is perfectly legal, until the American society decides that they dont want any form of decency on the radio or the tv.

Immolatus

Immolatus

02-28-2004, 06:05 PM

i want to make clear that i, too, enjoy Howard Stern, for brief periods of time. It can be funny, and it is a travesty that he is off the air.

druik

02-28-2004, 10:42 PM

you running for office or something?

Casaubon

02-29-2004, 09:31 PM

ok guys
1: howard stern was put a suspended by clear channel. For all intents and purpuses his boss. They are paying him thus they are in effect his boss. He was still on the air the next day JUST NOT IN ALL MARKETS.
2: the fcc etc did not take him off the air. They had nothing to do with howards suspension.
3: being taken off the air by your boss is not censorship. the government did not take sterns rights away. stern can still stand on the highest mountain in neon underware and yell at the top of his lungs what ever he believes. What he doesnt have is a platform on radio paid for by someone else...at least not for the term of his suspension.
4: like it or not clear channel has the right to put on or off anyone they want on thier radio stations. And honestly as long as stern has good ratings he will stay on the air.

Patriot act: some things said here are out in out lies and misinformation.
1:L the gov cannot put you away indefinantly for protesting. In order to get the guantanimo treatment (to make it short) you have to
a: be shown as a active participant in an organised conspiricy against the US government by a declared enemy or enemy entities. These include al queda, various communist groups, hamas, etc
b: must be caught in combat, acts of sabotage against US goverment, terrorist activities etc
2: if you are a US citizen the rules completely change. Unless you are caught as a combatant and you still get many legal beneifets from your citizenship. (a la john walker)

I am not a fan of the patriot act for various reasons. But it has not been a all and out bad thing. It did close some loopholes that criminals and terrorist were using to get by wiretaps etc. BTW a judge still has to sign off on a wiretap in any form and the police have to have probible cause.

what i dont like is that a bunch of over zelous lawyers charging common thugs with terrorist crimes from the pat act. this isnt how the laws were ment to be used and they need to be refined.

Marqus

02-29-2004, 10:20 PM

2: the fcc etc did not take him off the air. They had nothing to do with howards suspension.

Besides, of course, that Clear Channel suspended Stern the day before they were to go before the FCC. NO CONNECTION AT ALL, NOTHING TO SEE HERE!

And the Patriot Act. No there is no fucking protection for US citizens. You do not need to be declared an enemy of the state or any of that shit.

druik

02-29-2004, 11:44 PM

I have heard, literally, hysteria from some people concerning the patriot act. Will someone show me to a link that has the verbatium copy of the patriot act and where it suspends the RIGHTS of american CITIZENS(I don't give about non citizens).

Marqus

03-01-2004, 12:26 AM

Will someone show me to a link that has the verbatium copy of the patriot act and where it suspends the RIGHTS of american CITIZENS(I don't give about non citizens).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:

Thats a link to it. It is around 1000 pages of this stuff...

Sec. 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records';

(B) in subsection (c) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);

(C) in subsection (c)(1)--

(i) by striking `(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service may' and inserting `A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to';

(ii) by striking `covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to any person other than a governmental entity.

`(B) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a) or (b) of this section) to a governmental entity' and inserting `)';

(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as paragraph (2);

(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;

(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) the following:

`(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).'; and

(D) in paragraph (2) (as redesignated) by striking `subparagraph (B)' and insert `paragraph (1)'.

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The table of sections for chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 2703 and inserting the following:

`2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records.'.

It is basicly undefinable. It gives broad ranging definitions and powers.

Some examples:

"The complaints concern the way the Justice Department has enforced the 2001 Patriot Act, a law passed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks that granted wider powers to federal law enforcement officers to conduct surveillance and detain immigrants.

It follows another report by the inspector general that found "significant problems" in the Bush administration's actions toward 762 foreigners held on immigration violations after Sept. 11. The FBI took too long to determine whether they were involved with terrorism, as dozens endured "lock-down" conditions 23 hours each day and slept under bright lights, the report found.

The report comes as Attorney General John Ashcroft seeks a further expansion of power from Congress in a bill dubbed Patriot Act II, and was likely to be ammunition for opponents of that bid.

"This report shows that we have only begun to scratch the surface with respect to the Justice Department's disregard of constitutional rights and civil liberties," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "

And..

"By Sam Stanton -- Bee Staff Writer - (Published December 21, 2003)

Becky Foster isn't a terrorist, but her bank didn't want to take any chances.

Before she could open a new account, bank officials told her, the USA
Patriot Act required them to run her name through a government list of
suspected terrorists.

The public corruption probe known as "G-sting" is aimed at strip-club
owners, but that didn't stop the FBI from using the Patriot Act to secretly
obtain reams of banking information for its investigation.

Originally sold to Congress as a means of fighting terrorism in the wake of
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Patriot Act has been used in numerous
criminal cases unrelated to terrorism probes, officials say.

In addition, some financial institutions have been citing it to explain why
they're now asking for sensitive personal information from their customers.

Citizens looking to join college savings plans, for example, have been told
they must provide extra information under the act.

And under its auspices, hotels and airlines have compiled personal
information on customers and turned it over to the government.

Although the federal government defends its use of the law as appropriate
and necessary, some elected officials and civil liberties advocates say the
practices bear out their concerns that the scope of the law is too broad.

"It was never my intent to have the Patriot Act used as a kitchen sink for
all of the law enforcement tool goodies that the FBI has been trying to get
for the last decades," said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Nevada Democrat
who voted for the act in October 2001.

"It's a classic case of bureaucratic overreaching. It is Patriot Act creep."

The act became law six weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New
York and Washington, D.C., passing overwhelmingly out of the House and
Senate after administration officials said it was necessary to ensure the
nation's safety.

The primary focus of the law is to fight terrorists, and the name itself --
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- helped propel it through Congress.

But it also contained specific language about money-laundering cases that
gained virtually no notice at the time it was passed, and the Justice
Department says there is every reason to use that language to further its
investigations, even if the probes are not related to terrorism.

"If a tool that is legal and constitutionally valid is good enough to use
against organized crime or drug dealers, it ought to be good enough to be
used against terrorism," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo.
"Conversely, if it's good enough to be used against terrorists, it ought to
be used against other kinds of criminals."

Corallo noted that the financial and money-laundering provisions of the act
came at the request of Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, who sits
on the Senate Banking Committee.

Sarbanes' office did not respond to a request for comment. But the senator
has said in the past that tough new tools are needed to fight money laundering.

"We had nothing to do with those provisions," Corallo said. "They were not
promulgated by the administration, particularly not by the Justice
Department. We don't have any problem with them. We think they're fine and
useful."

Berkley, who represents the Las Vegas area in Congress, has learned in
recent weeks that her district is a prime example of the Justice
Department's efforts to use the law in investigations outside of terrorism
probes.

Last month, controversy erupted in Nevada when the FBI acknowledged it had
used a portion of the act for the first time in a public corruption case.

The probe is known in Las Vegas as "G-sting" and seeks evidence of ties
between a Las Vegas strip club operator and local politicians. As part of
the investigation, the FBI used a section of the law that allows
investigators to seek detailed financial information about suspects.
Justice Department officials say such a move is a prudent means of getting
information it needs quickly.

But opponents of the law say the tactic validates the concerns they have
voiced about the potential for the government to abuse the powers it
received under the law, which allows for secret searches and
information-gathering.

"It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, which is why it's so
troubling," said Gary Peck, executive director of the Nevada American Civil
Liberties Union.

"The Patriot Act was sold to the American people and sold to the Congress
as a tool to fight terrorism. We were told by the attorney general in the
days and weeks after the horrifying events of 9/11 that it was an
absolutely necessary tool in the war against terrorism, and that anyone who
opposed its passage was unpatriotic and giving aid and comfort to America's
enemies."

The ACLU voiced concerns at the time of the act's passage that it could be
used to enhance the FBI's powers to investigate citizens in nonterrorism
cases, and officials contend its recent use in Nevada underscores that point.

Kevin Bankston, a fellow with the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation
in San Francisco, which lobbies to protect computer users' rights and
privacy, said the Patriot Act allows financial institutions to cooperate
with the federal government in a wide array of investigations, including
money laundering.

"Money laundering is very, very broad," he said. "There is no probable
cause here. There is no judicial oversight. Yet the government can
immediately query financial institutions across the nation to find out
where you have an account or who you've done business with.

"It's not just if you have an account there, but any record of a financial
transaction."

Bankston said the definition of "financial institution" in the act is very
broad, and can include pawn brokers, real estate sales companies and others.

Federal officials acknowledge that the law greatly expanded the
government's ability to seek financial records from a variety of businesses.

"Traditionally, we had a core group of financial institutions," said Judith
R. Starr, chief counsel of the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network. "The statute goes out much further than it has gone
yet. It goes out to travel agents, vehicle sellers, pawn brokers. It's a
broad statute."

Starr said critics who say the Patriot Act shouldn't be used for money
laundering are missing the larger picture of how many different types of
crime can help finance terrorist activities.

"We want to make sure we're combatting crime as well as terrorism,
particularly because the two feed each other," she said.

Under Section 314a of the Patriot Act, law enforcement agencies can go to
FinCEN and ask it to identify all the financial institutions that a suspect
has a relationship with.

"We came up with a system that was supposed to be a pointer system or
locator system ... in terrorist cases or significant money-laundering
cases, where you didn't have a financial trail," she said. "You ought to be
able to get one in real time on a nationwide basis. It was one of those
things, after Sept. 11, where you hit yourself on the head and say, 'Why
don't you have this?' "

Under the system, names of suspects are sent to financial institutions,
which report back on whether they match anyone doing business with them.

The center does not provide financial documents to law enforcement,
however, and the Justice Department notes that kind of information can be
obtained only with a subpoena.

FinCEN data show that most of the 314a requests to which the agency
responded didn't relate to terrorism, but to money laundering. The
government has used the provision in 167 instances between February and
October of this year, with 60 involving terrorism cases and 107 money
laundering, according to figures compiled by federal officials.

But Starr warned that some of the money-laundering cases might turn out to
be terrorism-related in the end.

"Sometimes it's going to take a while to find out," she said. "I went back
and looked at some of the money-laundering cases. I can tell you that they
resemble cases that turned out to be terrorist-financing cases."

In the winter and spring, the network proposed including travel agencies,
vehicle sellers and people involved in real estate settlements as financial
institutions, a proposal Starr said still is being reviewed.

As criticism of the Patriot Act has gained momentum nationally over the
past year, the federal government and Attorney General John Ashcroft have
said repeatedly that ordinary Americans have nothing to fear from the law.

But law-abiding Americans have been affected, since some banks and other
businesses tell customers that the act requires them to collect personal
information on the government's behalf, for things like opening a bank account.

Becky Foster counts herself among those. A court clerk who lives in a gated
community on the outskirts of Las Vegas, Foster is president of her
homeowners association.

When the association recently changed banks and tried to open a new
account, board members received notice from the bank that under the Patriot
Act, the "law requires banks to check all signers on all accounts to
determine if there are any terrorist links."

"In order to comply, we are required to obtain Social Security numbers,
driver license numbers and date of birth from each signer, to check them
against the government's terrorist list," the Community Association Banc wrote.

"When they sent us the letter, we just all kind of looked at each other,"
Foster said last week, standing outside her split-level suburban home near
Nellis Air Force Base. "We didn't take a vote on it, we just said we're not
going to do it.

"This is another example of how far the tentacles reach into private
people's lives. I had no idea it was going to affect us on a level like
this, at a homeowners association. It's silly, I think."

The case had little real impact on the homeowners. They simply ignored the
bank's request, began writing checks on their account and never heard
anything about the matter again.

But furor over the case has increased attention in Nevada about the Patriot
Act, and spawned rallies in Las Vegas and Reno.

The outcry there adds to the criticism law enforcement already faces over
its undercover infiltration of peace and advocacy groups, and its demands
for access to records of nonprofit groups that aid immigrants.

Hotels and airlines also have been affected by the law and related new
federal policies, with some struggling to figure out what they are required
to report.

Representatives from the travel and other industries gathered in
Washington, D.C., in March to discuss these challenges for a conference
sponsored by a group called Privacy & American Business.

Among the speakers was Chris Zoladz, vice president for information
protection at Marriott International, who described changes the corporation
has been navigating in the wake of new federal policies.

His comments were included on an audio tape from the conference obtained by
The Bee. Marriott officials declined to discuss his comments when contacted
for this story.

"Things in general for Marriott have changed very significantly" since the
Sept. 11 attacks, Zoladz told those attending the session.

"The Patriot Act, in addition to the many provisions that it contains,
basically turned Marriott into a financial institution," he said. "We are
now considered a money service business because we cash checks and we do
currency exchange."

As a result, he said, Marriott now reports "suspicious" transactions to the
government.

But the definition of "what suspicious is isn't so terribly clear," he told
the conference.

Zoladz also complained that the company still has difficulty understanding
how to follow all aspects of the Patriot Act and related federal policy
changes.

"Someone walks in off the street, goes to the lounge and orders a
cocktail," he told the conference. "Are we supposed to ask them who they
are and then go to Treasury's Web site and do a name search and see what
happens?"

Ordinary citizens also are perplexed by facets of the law, civil
libertarians say, noting that people across the country have complained
about banks asking them to provide personal details to open accounts.

"One problem that we tried to point out when the Patriot Act was first
being considered was that many of the powers of the Patriot Act were not
limited to terrorism in any way," said Timothy Edgar, the ACLU's
legislative counsel in Washington, D.C. "Although it was sold as a bill to
go after al-Qaida and other terrorists, it was really making changes that
would broadly affect Americans' privacy."

The Justice Department says that simply is not true.

"The fact is that when you're talking about the provisions of the Patriot
Act, they are governed on a case-by-case basis by federal judges," Corallo
said. "We can't get authority to do surveillance, to do searches or to get
records without the authority of a federal judge.

"We then have to report to Congress twice a year on all of our activities
on the Patriot Act. That does not exist anywhere else in our law."

But concern over the amount of information the government can access under
the law has spawned moves in hundreds of communities in the United States,
including Sacramento, to pass resolutions opposing the act.

That concern extends to Congress, where Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., and a
dozen other members have called for hearings next year on whether the
Justice Department is misusing the law.

"Critics representing a wide range of ideological perspectives have raised
serious questions about how the Justice Department has used its legal
tools, including the Patriot Act, to investigate individuals with no
apparent link to terrorism," Meehan said in a letter to the House Judiciary
Committee, citing the Las Vegas strip-club case as an example.

In Las Vegas, Berkley's office hears almost daily from constituents angry
about the issue.

"My constituents are up in arms," she said. "Las Vegas has always had a
tenuous relationship with the FBI.

"People who move here are kind of independent-thinking people, and they
want to be left alone. They don't believe in government interference with
their lives."

There are about 10,000 other stories :)

Basicly the Patriot Act is so ill defined and so open ended the govermnet is using it to do anything it