Thank you HOWARD STERN, great American entertainer, freedom lover, and defender of our beloved FIRST AMENDMENT. It appears that he is position to strongly influence the election in favor of our great future President John F. Kerry:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGV47EUPL1.DTL
Full Version: Howard Stern
Howard Stern will soon be out of a job, except perhaps on HBO, and not because of Bush. You have to blame Janet Jackson here. This is his last hurrah, and he knows it, and he is blaming Bush for it. The same will be true for Imus.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jul 2 2004, 03:22 AM)
Thank you HOWARD STERN, great American entertainer, freedom lover, and defender of our beloved FIRST AMENDMENT. It appears that he is position to strongly influence the election in favor of our great future President John F. Kerry:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGV47EUPL1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGV47EUPL1.DTL
He is opening his own forum.
About time he woke up. Ever since he had become Bush b--ch a few year ago, he had become boring. Maybe he will change now for the better.
QUOTE (ft.niagara @ Jul 2 2004, 11:42 PM)
Howard Stern will soon be out of a job, except perhaps on HBO, and not because of Bush. You have to blame Janet Jackson here. This is his last hurrah, and he knows it, and he is blaming Bush for it. The same will be true for Imus.
Indeed.
QUOTE
Thank you HOWARD STERN, great American entertainer, freedom lover, and defender of our beloved FIRST AMENDMENT.-thaiquila
This is a classic example of the "friend of my enemy............" thing. But not only are ideologues like your glad to accept his favour, you have the aucacity to laud his sophmoric, and outrageous behavior: All in the name of the 1st Ammendment.
And what is so important to this forum, is not Howard Stern, but the extent that you will stretch your ethics so thin, so as to defeat "Dangerous Dubya". In other words, you are willing to debase yourself, to accomplish your perceived goals. Yes, the Communists, Fascists, and even Saadam were very good at this.
And I am not painting with a broad brush here. The simple fact that you did not state that "although I do not support his antics, or listen to him, I still support his Liberty to speak out". By not doing so, your goals, ethics, and character are most revealing here.
QUOTE (John L @ Jul 4 2004, 05:57 PM)
QUOTE
Thank you HOWARD STERN, great American entertainer, freedom lover, and defender of our beloved FIRST AMENDMENT.-thaiquila
This is a classic example of the "friend of my enemy............" thing. But not only are ideologues like your glad to accept his favour, you have the aucacity to laud his sophmoric, and outrageous behavior: All in the name of the 1st Ammendment.
And what is so important to this forum, is not Howard Stern, but the extent that you will stretch your ethics so thin, so as to defeat "Dangerous Dubya". In other words, you are willing to debase yourself, to accomplish your perceived goals. Yes, the Communists, Fascists, and even Saadam were very good at this.
And I am not painting with a broad brush here. The simple fact that you did not state that "although I do not support his antics, or listen to him, I still support his Liberty to speak out". By not doing so, your goals, ethics, and character are most revealing here.
Spare me your holier than thou lecture.
I have listened to Stern and find him midly entertaining. The movie about him seemed to explain his life philosophy.
I fully support his fight to preserve his own first amendment rights and by extension, all of our first amendment rights. I also enthusiastically welcome his leadership to communicate to his core fans the critical importance of throwing out the worse president in American history, W Bush. No apologies to your hypocritcal ilk, one who claims to be indpendent but may as well be a paid Bush operative.
QUOTE
No apologies to your hypocritcal ilk, one who claims to be indpendent but may as well be a paid Bush operative.-thaiquila
I trust that you were looking at yourself whilst you typed those words. Or perhaps while you were pointing you plastic finger at me, you failed to see the other three that were pointing back at the pointer.
For the last two presidential election cycles, I voted for Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate. But I am definately going to vote for GW because he is the ONLY one who is willing to use force and take it to the enemy, rather than quaking at home, hoping that the enemy will see fit not to kill us.
And I suppose, anyone who does not follow your Collectivist Line and collect within the Democratic party is lower than the low. AND, any who is a registered Democrat and supports GW Bush is not a REAL Democrat. So, based upon that previce, the former Mayor of NYC, Edward I Kock, is not a REAL Democrat. Because he has stated in Bolting For Bush,
QUOTE
I am a lifelong Democrat. I was elected to New York's City Council, Congress and three terms as mayor of New York City on the Democratic Party line. I believe in the values of the Democratic Party as articulated by Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and by Senators Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Our philosophy is: "If you need a helping hand, we will provide it." The Republican Party's philosophy, on the other hand, can be summed up as: "If I made it on my own, you will have to do the same."
Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.
Nevertheless, I intend to vote in 2004 to reelect President Bush. I will do so despite the fact that I do not agree with him on any major domestic issue, from tax policy to the recently enacted prescription drug law. These issues, however, pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation. President Bush has earned my vote because he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism.
Now, take the time to read the finish of the article, if you dare.
QUOTE
President Bush was correct to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty would have exempted China and India, which have a combined population of more than 2 billion and are among the world's largest polluters.
As for the new International Criminal Court, it would be downright irresponsible to give this new tribunal the right to indict and try our military personnel for war crimes, given all the enmity directed at the United States nowadays. Instead we should continue to rely on our military justice system, which has an excellent reputation.
President Bush also was right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. That treaty would have prevented the United States from deploying a shield against nuclear missiles that could be launched by rogue states or terrorists. The president's critics can pontificate about the importance of international institutions all they want, but we have to face facts. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, but is suspected of having provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The two recent assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf highlight the dangers we face. Should Musharraf be removed or killed, no one knows who will ultimately control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It would have been negligent for President Bush to allow our hands to remain tied at a time when we need to be exploring every option to defend ourselves.
This record and the Democratic candidates' irresponsible rhetoric are the reasons why I will vote for a second term for President Bush. This does not mean, however, that I have given up on my party and its principles. To the contrary, I will continue to fight against the president's domestic agenda. I also hope to support the Democratic effort to take back the presidency in 2008, but it is up to the Democratic Party to show that it can be entrusted with our nation's security.
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
As for the new International Criminal Court, it would be downright irresponsible to give this new tribunal the right to indict and try our military personnel for war crimes, given all the enmity directed at the United States nowadays. Instead we should continue to rely on our military justice system, which has an excellent reputation.
President Bush also was right to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. That treaty would have prevented the United States from deploying a shield against nuclear missiles that could be launched by rogue states or terrorists. The president's critics can pontificate about the importance of international institutions all they want, but we have to face facts. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pakistan not only has nuclear weapons, but is suspected of having provided nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. The two recent assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf highlight the dangers we face. Should Musharraf be removed or killed, no one knows who will ultimately control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It would have been negligent for President Bush to allow our hands to remain tied at a time when we need to be exploring every option to defend ourselves.
This record and the Democratic candidates' irresponsible rhetoric are the reasons why I will vote for a second term for President Bush. This does not mean, however, that I have given up on my party and its principles. To the contrary, I will continue to fight against the president's domestic agenda. I also hope to support the Democratic effort to take back the presidency in 2008, but it is up to the Democratic Party to show that it can be entrusted with our nation's security.
Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.
So, I guess that Mayor Koch is not a REAL Democrat, hmm? Oh, that's right; if you don't follow completely, or if you dare to critizise, or if you split your vote, you aren't a REAL Democrat.
You may call me a hyppocrate if you wish. But I will call you intellectually lazy, and willing to stick your nose up anyone's "back side": as long as it is a leader in the Democratic Party. I think I can live with my principles a great deal easier than you can, my little Collectivist Acquaintence.
Such dramatics.
I like Ed Koch personally.
He is a real democrat. He is also a crusty, lovable, old crank.
I strongly disagree with him about the success of Bush in fighting terrorism, so I do not find his argument to abandon his party and support Bush over Kerry is credible.
Zell Miller, on the other hand, is NOT a real democrat at all, and I wish he would just switch his party.
You are correct about one thing. I have a strong passion, as due many millions of mainstream Americans, to unseat W Bush.
I like Ed Koch personally.
He is a real democrat. He is also a crusty, lovable, old crank.
I strongly disagree with him about the success of Bush in fighting terrorism, so I do not find his argument to abandon his party and support Bush over Kerry is credible.
Zell Miller, on the other hand, is NOT a real democrat at all, and I wish he would just switch his party.
You are correct about one thing. I have a strong passion, as due many millions of mainstream Americans, to unseat W Bush.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.