posted on August 24, 2005 03:31:42 AM new
"Ya did know Me and Barry Manilow write the songs that make the whole world sing, ,right? {winkie-dinkey smiley}"
Barry Manilow...God I hate that guy-makes my f*ucking skin crawl..my wife made me see him twice....now I know she hates me.
Hey DB ya wanna know a little music trivia?
Barry Manilow never wrote the song "I write the Songs" It was written by Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys.MANILOWS A FRAUD!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Golfer:Stop checking your watch all the time,its too much of a distraction.
Caddy:Its not a watch, its a compass
posted on August 24, 2005 04:25:21 AM new
hahaha classic, I am aware of your love for Manilow..and I said that just for you . So he didnt write the songs that make the whole world sing? Did he even write the music for it? lol!
kraft, you need a personal assistant not a manager...a manager still makes you do all the work! But yea, know what u mean, I have often thought I could use one myself!
.
posted on August 24, 2005 05:31:19 AM new
Hugo Chavez was democraticaly elected by a landslide. The only thing he is guilty of is refusing to sell out his country to foriegn oil interests(US).
This and this only makes him an ememy of American Big Business.
posted on August 24, 2005 06:00:37 AM new
We should be on guard that the FCC may use cases such as this one as an excuse to increase their control of cable TV. That possible consequence of Robertson's hate speech could open the door to large scale censorship. Right now, FCC rules do not generally apply to broadcast content and that's the way it should remain.
Cable television system operators generally make their own selection of channels and programs to be distributed to subscribers in response to consumer demands. The Commission does, however, have rules in some areas that are applicable to programming -- called "origination cablecasting" in the rules -- that is subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.
posted on August 24, 2005 06:46:58 AM new
::I find it very ironic that when she supported it herself::
I am sorry but that's a rather dramatic misrepresentation of the truth.
::that she's so offended when Robertson says the same thing.::
That's an even bigger one. I'm not offended Linda. Like I said in another thread, I'm not even surprised. I just think that like any other public figure that goes on national airwaves and calls for an assansination he deserves to be investigated and subjected to questioning as any other individual would be.
::I think this is once again because he's religious many any here are not at all tolerant of the religious::
When have I EVER voiced a lack of tolerance for religions Linda? If you are going to assign motive to my feelings, could you at least pick a motive that is consistant with the attitudes that I have voiced here for the past two years.
What you have not answered Linda is whether or not you afford the same level of freedom of speech to representatives of religions that you don't agree with. If tomorrow a Muslim leader goes on TV and says that "we have the capability to kill Bush and should now do it" are you going to voice your defense of his freedom of speech as vehemently as you have done for Roberts?
Or is it simply that you think Roberts is such a crackpot that no one would takle him seriously anyway? (any BTW - I'm not saying he's a crackpot because of his religion. I'm saying he's a crackpot because of the dumbass statements that he has made that have nothing to with God or religion.)
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 24, 2005 09:09:15 AM new
Helen, I dont really know what your point is here then.
... "origination cablecasting" in the rules -- that is subject to the editorial control of the cable system operator. The rules generally do not apply to the contents of broadcast channels or to access channels over which the cable system operator has no editorial control.
So what is your worry?
And as far as orignation cablecasting stands, so far the FCC has not changed their terms of what origination broadcasting is defined as.
From: http://www.dwt.com/related_links/adv_bulletins/05-04_FALL.htm
Due in part to the nascent state of the cable industry in 1971 and because the only non-broadcast programming carried on most cable systems was programming originated by the cable systems themselves, the FCC's rules implementing the change applied only to "origination cablecasting," which is defined as programming carried on a cable system "subject to the exclusive control of the cable operator." Consistent with this approach, all of the Commission's political programming rules that apply to cable television expressly target cable systems, not cable networks. The statutory language, legislative history, and constitutional considerations all support the conclusion that Section 315 does not apply to cable networks, but the FCC has never clearly addressed this issue.
"Origination cablecasting," the focus of the 1971 amendment, clearly does not apply to the programming carried on cable networks. Although cable operators make editorial decisions about network carriage or channel placement, they do not exert editorial control over most networks or the content of particular programs. In a typical affiliation agreement, a cable operator simply agrees to distribute network programming "without delay, addition (excepting local availabilities), deletion, alteration, editing or amendment." In this regard, affiliation agreements for cable networks are quite different from those entered by broadcast networks, which are governed by the FCC's "chain broadcasting" rules.15 Those rules, which accord broadcast network affiliates the specific right to reject or refuse a network program and to substitute their own content, do not apply to cable networks.16 Accordingly, cable networks and the programs they present should fall outside the scope of Section 315.17 Indeed, because of this fundamental difference in the regulatory treatment of broadcasting and cable networks, it would be implausible to suggest that the Commission has ancillary authority to extend Section 315 to cable networks. The legislative history of the 1971 amendment includes little discussion of its scope, but what exists supports the conclusion that Congress was concerned with programming a cable operator originates, rather than network programming it retransmits.18
Similarly, while Commission interpretations of these regulations are sparse,they support the straightforward understanding that cable networks are excluded from Section 315 requirements
So what youre saying about the FCC using this as a means to flex more control over the cable operators does not really apply they way the laws are written.
Believe it or not, I once had my FCC license that I kept for a few years. Not that I can remember a damm* thing about it anymore, but back then I knew some things about it....
posted on August 24, 2005 09:53:30 AM new
Ron - I am disagreeing that this is ONLY hate speech. We have hate-speech laws in our country...
This is calling for continuing MURDER/jihad's of innocent people. That makes it much different in my opinion.
The countries listed on my link find this calling for mass murders of the non-believers of the muslin religion serious enough to be deporting them from their countries.
I don't think some here are understanding the difference between 'hate speech' [which it is, agreed] and calling for groups to form to kill people because they're not of their religion.
posted on August 24, 2005 09:58:13 AM new
For an example....of American's not really being allowed TOTAL free speech. That we really CAN'T say anything we might want to.
We would not allow groups of Christians to stand in any public places and call for the death of all black people....all gay people....etc.
In other countries this was being allowed....these radical clerics were doing just that.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:17:03 AM new
fenix - ::I find it very ironic that when she supported it herself::
I am sorry but that's a rather dramatic misrepresentation of the truth.
Okay...I might not have worded it like you would prefer I'd done....but since you won't answer my question...we really can't continue to discuss it. It is my recollection that you did offer this suggestion, as a means to take him out without putting our troops on the group. I remember it being discussed ...those who would agree to that...as opposed to those who wouldn't. I call you agreed and I even think you were the one who suggested it in the first place.
::that she's so offended when Robertson says the same thing.::
That's an even bigger one. I'm not offended Linda. Like I said in another thread, I'm not even surprised.
Yes, you did say that....I read it. Doesn't change at all that you previously were agreeing to doing just what he was suggesting. Robertson said [paraphrasing here] 'IF he's worried that we're [the US] going to take him out...then maybe we should do it[/i]. He was agreeing, like some posters here did with your previous offer of a solution on saddam, on how it MIGHT be dealt with. He wasn't calling for a jihad and telling others to go kill him.
Lots of people have talked/discussed whether or not they'd like to see the law changed, that was passed in 1975, to allow agains allow for assassination of US enemies/world leaders.
To me this is no different...a discussion/his opinion.
I just think that like any other public figure that goes on national airwaves and calls for an assansination he deserves to be investigated and subjected to questioning as any other individual would be.
Again, I think the way people word their statements....is taken differently by different people....just as you have done here, by objecting to how I worded my post to you.
::I think this is once again because he's religious many any here are not at all tolerant of the religious::
When have I EVER voiced a lack of tolerance for religions Linda?
fenix...you and I go through this all the time....I didn't say YOU. re-read 'many, many here are not'....no where does it mention YOU.
YOU continue to take everything I say personally. I have never seen YOU be intolerant of religion but there's no foolin' anybody here...many here HAVE been VERY anti-religion.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:27:46 AM new
::It is my recollection that you did offer this suggestion, as a means to take him out without putting our troops on the group.::
What I said was that if the only reason we we invading Iraq was to get rid of Saddam it would be more reasonable to just have him assasinated. I put that out as a suggestion to avoid a monstrous military action that would result in ten of housands of deaths. On the other hand you have Roberts that thinks we should assasinate the democratically elected leader of a country that poses aboslutely no threat to us simply because he does not like him.
Both would be illegal but at least one had some reasonable justification behind it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:31:00 AM new
Ron So if some of Roberts followers went to Venezuela and killed their president, that would be ok?
Why would you jump to that conclusion because of what Robertson said? Do you jump to that conclusion when anyone else is discussing the issue of assassination of world leaders? I sure don't.
He was discussing what our own government, elected officials and probably MILLIONS of US citizens discuss....this subject. Would you really think that about everyone who just broaches the subject?
I understand where you are coming from, however there is hate speech in this country everyday. Some radical group or other hates other parties, saying and doing are two different things.
Ron....no you aren't understanding what I'm saying. I can see that from your above comment.
Do you honestly believe if a group of people from any Christian church, along with their preacher [cleric] stood in a public place and called for the murder of innocent muslims....nothing would be done? That, in your opinion, we [the US] would allow that to continue? I sure don't see that happening. Heck we're so PC you can hardly say anything any more without some group from the ACLU complaining about it.
If you were understanding what I am trying to say....you would realize that there is a HUGE difference between 'hate speech' and calling for murder....calling for buildings to be burnt down....calling for attacks on our rail system, our airports....etc.
After all this wasn't about a "group" of people, this was aimed at one individual.
Yes, Ron....read Robertson's OWN quoted statements. You'll see, imo, that it's nothing more than what is often brought up for discussion even on political discussion shows. Our own elected officials have discussed it. Do you believe none supported doing just that in different situation? Like I said...even the clinton administration discussed it as a possibility to remove saddam, binladen....who knows who else.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:36:54 AM new
::fenix...you and I go through this all the time....I didn't say YOU. re-read 'many, many here are not'....no where does it mention YOU.
YOU continue to take everything I say personally.::
Well then let me make a suggestion... if you do not want me to assume that you are making a comment regarding me, don't make it in a post that is about something I have said. You especially might want to avoid making the general comment that does not pertain to me the third sentence in a paragraph where the first two paragraphs have quite specifically been me or my opinions...
I find it very ironic that when she supported it herself....that she's so offended when Robertson says the same thing. I think this is once again because he's religious many any here are not at all tolerant of the religious, as you will see later.
Those are YOUR words Linda and they very clearly seem to be about me and my opinions which you then justified by assigning a motive that even you now admit is something that I have never voiced. If it is not about me Linda, and you aknowledge that you have never seen be display religious intolerence then why in the world would you say that you believe that my opinion was based in it?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:44:15 AM new
::even the clinton administration discussed it as a possibility to remove ... binladen...::
Could someone please tell me when Bin Laden became the leader of a nation? I could of sworn he was a just a terrorist. Not quite sure why one would liken the discussion of the killing of a terrorist to the assisination of a democratically elected president.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:46:22 AM new
LInda - and you don't see any difference in the two situations? Or is it just that you don't want to because it might result in having to admit that Roberts was out of line?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 24, 2005 10:51:56 AM newWell then let me make a suggestion... if you do not want me to assume that you are making a comment regarding me, don't make it in a post that is about something I have said.
Fenix - if someone makes a post calling others neocon maggots, like rusty has done....I don't ASSUME he's saying it TO ME....unless he addresses me specifically. YOU choose to put yourself in whatever statement is being said. That is not something I can change. YOU can though...you can quit assuming when I make a statement about there being many anti-religious posters here....that it doesn't apply to fenix....because fenix KNOWS she doesn't fit in that catagory.
You especially might want to avoid making the general comment that does not pertain to me the third sentence in a paragraph where the first two paragraphs have quite specifically been me or my opinions...
LOL....sorry, it's my lack of proper grammar. You've been used to it for HOW many years now....but you've decided to start complaining about it now? lol
I find it very ironic that when she supported it herself....that she's so offended when Robertson says the same thing. I think this is once again because he's religious many any here are not at all tolerant of the religious, as you will see later.
Those are YOUR words Linda and they very clearly seem to be about me and my opinions which you then justified by assigning a motive that even you now admit is something that I have never voiced.
Yes, fenix, I SHOULD have done as you say to help clarify it.
If it is not about me Linda, and you aknowledge that you have never seen be display religious intolerence then why in the world would you say that you believe that my opinion was based in it?
I think I've already explained that. You too, imo, carry some responsibility because you keep 'placing' yourself in my statements...when you KNOW they don't apply to you...weren't meant to address your positions....but DO represent whatever group I'm referring to. Like the anti-religious posters here. I don't 'place' myself in the group when posters here make general statements about being liars, or neocons or...whatever. Because that's not me...I know that's how they see me....but it's not how I see myself...so I ignore them.
posted on August 24, 2005 11:05:03 AM newOr is it just that you don't want to because it might result in having to admit that Roberts was out of line?
lol....nope....I'll say it for the last time.
I see no difference between YOU proposing assassination of saddam - and all those who agreed with you....or clinton, robertson or anyone else proposing the same thing.
We all have our own opinions of whether we agree or disagree with the US law that was passed in 1975.
It was a subject being discussed...and he gave HIS opinion....just like millions have done before him.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
. So he didnt write the songs that make the whole world sing? Did he even write the music for it? lol!