Styles

Nah, see, because unlike most of the "moral" leaders, I believe in free speech. So everybody should just be able to say whatever they want and not face any consequences for it? Howard is broadcasting on airwaves that are a public commodity and he knows that fines exist for abuse of the ariwaves. The FCC exists to regulate use. Howard knows the rules. It's not his own private website where he can do what he wants, he's using public airwaves, so he has to play by the rules. Again, you want free speech for everyone? So you don't mind racists and such getting free reign to say whatever they want to whoever they want? Do you believe Trent Lott should have had to step down from his position as a result of his controversial statements? Are you at least consistent in your beliefs?

Think when he was born his birth certificate said something like "F" and then "M"?

Why does everything have to be equated to religion? Because someone is offended that Howard Stern offers graphic details of anal sex at 7 in the morning and allows his callers to ask about "fucking n****r chicks" you must be a religious fanatic?! It's called having some common decency. I'm not the least bit religious but I have enough common sense to realize that stuff is not appropriate especially for children who very easily could listen to the radio, especially at such an early hour before school. Now, you must have been living under a rock for 20 years if you're just now realizing Howard Stern is offensive. But, he can thanks Janet and Justin and MTV for their ridiculous display at the superbowl which created a shitstorm among outraged viewers and advertisers. Howard should have the common sense to realize that the FCC is on high alert and to not unleash some of his most brazenly offensive material ever at this time. It has nothing to do with any type of religious conspiracy. Religion=morality so of course religious leaders are going to be offended by immoral behavior. I hate to tell some of you this, but on issues like cencorship the left meets the right anyway. Just like the religious right, the PC left is just as outraged by this stuff and both sides meet in the middle. And again, this is a movement of normal people who don't think the aforementioned content is appropriate on over the air radio at such early hours. But if you want to run around like beheaded chicken yelling that the sky is falling and we're headed down a road of religious absolutism, save it.

Can we at least have the decency to not make fun of a man's pain, even if you disagree with his political views? Hopefully he's ok and makes a full recovery. And then is replacaced by someone new next term...

How could anyone question his patriotism!? He served in Vietnam! Duder, I dont really think it helps your parties cause to consistently mock the man's service in the Vietnam war. The Republican party itself has already tried to publicly stem the disrespect to Vietnam veterans that has begun. Um, "duder" it's not "my party", as pointed out I'm registered as a Dem with moderate/conservative views, so STFU with your assumptions.

Sure, you are. And I'm the Queen of Prussia...

My passion lies with my own ideals and beliefs and thoughts, and though I will continue to support the things I feel most strongly about...I will vote for Kerry, and get as many others to do so as well, in the incredible hope that the George Bush radical/Christian/warhawk right can be removed from power for the safety of our lives, livelihoods, and freedoms. He's hardly radical, he's a warhawk out of neccesity and I hardly think being a Christian is something to chastise someone for...

Ridiculous. You can thank Janet and Justin for their stupid display at the Super Bowl that has turned the FCC into a witch hunt. Bush has more important things to worry about (OMG LIKE PERSECUTING GAYS!!!!11LOL2004)....

From the sound of it, you HAVE forgotten and how serious it is. I don't know how you could say he "fakes" his patriotism. You can call him a simple man if you like, but I don't doubt that he loves this country and is determined to see to it that we are safe from our enemies. Iraq obviously is a polarizing issue, and there's no doubt he had his eye on Saddam from the start but I feel it does make us safer. I'd like to go in there and invade North Korea, but he has nukes. We got to Saddam before he got nukes and could have been a real threat to us or blackmails us by threatening Israel. Anyway, 9/11 and terrorism deserve to be emphasized because they are the single most important issue to us. Nothing should be more important than the threat of death. I believe he is very sincere. Of course he's using the issue to help his re-election but I believe he is geniune. I honestly do not feel John Kerry makes our country more safe than George W. Bush would.

I know I was listening to game today. Great win by the O's. I'm so disapointed (as an O's fan) because he showed how good he could be with the leadoff hit and 2 consecutive stolen bases but he fractured his finger. I guess Brian Roberts has the job for now. Anyway, as for my fantasy team, I had Polanco as my starting 2nd anyway, and I dont want to drop Hairston because when he comes back I still have faith in him, so I'll wait until he's eligble for the DL.

How could anyone question his patriotism!? He served in Vietnam!

I don't see the problem. Bush's leadership in the aftermath has defined his presidency so reusing the images of 9/11 reminds the viewer how important this election is. Also, I don't get it when some try to say Bush is using "scare tactics" to scare the American people. Like he's just making up or even exagerating the threats mouting against us. How many more buildings need to be hit before people "get it" again? It's like shame on Bush for making people believe there are terrorists organizations plotting everyday against America and that national security and being tough against our enemies is actually an important issue! The President is just trying to scare us! Everything is fine...

Hey, Anglesault, I heard it was your birthday, so here's a little something for my biggest fan... Happy birthday from you favorite future WWE champion, Randy Orton.

I recently got Dio's 2 disc anthology that includes songs from his days in Elf, Rainbow, Black Sabbath and of course Dio. That song is really good. The whole collection is really good, anyone who wants to get into Dio should get Anthology.

His promo on Rick Steiner ruled. That is all.

First of all thanks to Flik for taking the time to put all the teams together. Now for bragging/scouting purposes here's my team: C Javy Lopez 1B Jason Giambi 1B Jeff Conine 2B Placedo Palanco 2B Jerry Hairston SS Miguel Tejada 3B Eric Chavez OF Juan Gonzalez OF Reggie Sanders OF Larry Walker OF Melvin Mora OF Raul Ibanez SP Andy Pettite SP Randy Wolf SP Kip Wells SP Tom Glavine SP Brian Anderson SP Pat Hentgen RP Armando Benitez RP Fransisco Cordero Overall I'm satisfied.

Oh PUH-LEEZE. To even compare the Baseball hall of fame to WWE's hall of fame is a joke in it self. The whole thing is MEANINGLESS, the thing has been dormant for years and all the "inductees" are political. Its just a showcase. I think it's tremendous that Pete Rose will finally be back at Wrestlemania because he consistently was entertaining whenever he showed up to get his revenge on Kane.

You're JUST realizing this?! This guy would be a Lyndon Larouche supporter if he was American, wouldn't he?

Actually I don't think any of those were "will of the people", there weren't referendums voted upon, those were just the standards of the time determined by the Founders. Eventually, the will of the people was considered and constitutional amendments were passed. The will of the people on this issue, disagrees with you. Sorry. We are a government of laws not men, and if the vote of the people is not respected, laws become meaningless.

As Mike has pointed out a billion times in the other thread the issue went to the states and to the people, the people voted "no" and the government is ignoring the will of the people, thus the problem.

I've seen it spelled with an "e" as well. Yeah, I've been taking French (god help me) so you're lucky I didn't spell it with 2 n's either!

Um, or LOSE votes, but I guess liberals live in their own little bubble. from cerebus's thread:

The point is, I'm making the argument of why legally you would have to give marriage rights to multiple couples ("I was born bisexual!") or even to those who wish to lower the marriage age ("I was born attracted to children!"). We need cutoffs to keep society from chaos, because changing the cutoffs just leads to legal justification and precedent for more changes...

You're getting into a WHOLE nother area there. If you are arguing people are born gay, let me ask you something, are people born bisexual as well? If so, then you would be denying their born attraction to a man and a woman if they wanted a 3 way marriage...

It has nothing to do with common sense, it's the legality of it. It's the same reason Nazis can march or crazies can harass doctors outside abortion clinics or NABLA gets protection. Once you set a precedent for one group, you can't deny it to others if they have a case on similar grounds. Fact is, you are changing the traditional definition of marriage to suit the needs of an alternative minority which means if other groups wanted the right for group marriages, courts would have to uphold that right.