|
Rapper Jadakiss asks provocative question
Jadakiss, a rapper of some note, has a tune which apparently is being censored, because, he asks why, in his assertion, why did Bush knock down the towers (his words not mine).
"Why did bush knock down the towers" [from the song "WHY"]
The issue of his lyrics and the fact other rappers are asking the same kinds of questions is discussed at:
http://www.counterbias.com/news007.html
"Jadakiss, with his jarring, matter-of-fact pronouncement that Bush played a part in "knock[ing] down the towers", is not the first rap artist to question the Bush administration's—and mainstream media's—story.
Rappers like Paris, The Coup, and Dead Prez, also offer provocative, conspiratorial views in their song lyrics.
Jadakiss's popularity in the mainstream hip-hop community makes his comment even more poignant."
Apparently, our friend Clear Channel has gotten involved in this by censoring out the word "bush" with a beep.
http://www.abstractdynamics.org/archives/2004/06/26/why.html
At this site, they discuss the censorship issue....such as this quote...
"Course Clear Channel holds half the hip hop stations cross the nation. And if you tune in there is a line "Why did *bleep* knock down the towers?"
And behind that bleep? "Why did Bush knock down the towers?"
Why is "Bush" a word you can't say on the radio?"
Here are the UNCENSORED lyrics to "Why" by Jadakiss
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jadakiss/why.html
The question becomes, after you read the lyrics, WHY (appropriate word here) did the folks at Clear Channel, decide the only thing that needed censorship in that tune, was the reference to the word "bush". Given the actual lyrics, the obliteration of the word "bush" with a beep, seems to show a definite political bias.
If they claim they are afraid of a suit for defamation...number one, the lyrics don't say WHAT bush, nor what towers.
Odd.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 1:23 PM
Bleep bleep...
You'll have to figure this one for yourself :) |
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 1:57 PM
I'm afraid I need a translation for most of the lyrics.
Kinda like James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake. |
|
Lachatte
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 2:12 PM
Carla, agreed. I tried. THAT is encryption. |
|
SuitablyTwisted
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 2:34 PM
Clear Channel, as a private company, has every right to censor whatever they want. It's the gov't that isn't allowed to censor.
As to why, it's because the statement is provocative. It is a known and proven fact that Mohammed knocked down the towers, NOT Bush. The statement is merely inflammatory and serves no other purpose.
Personally, I think Clear Channel is overreacting, nobody really gives a crap what some rapper thinks happened. If you get your news from Jadakiss, please don't reproduce. |
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 2:58 PM
If you read all the lyrics, there's kind of a poetic symmetry to the juxtaposition of ideas. I don't understand all the words however.
I don't think he's announcing the news, just using literary license to make you think.
And Mohammed didn't knock down the towers, 12 guys mostly from Saudi Arabia did. |
|
hbkfan
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:03 PM
Clear Channel may have the right to censor. I can't argue that one. But you cannot sit there and say "proven fact that Mohammed knocked down the towers".
If you are going by the 9/11 commission, then you falling for a big lie.
Fact: There have been no proven ties that link the 9/11 attacks with Saddam Hussein
Fact: The Bush and Bin Laden families go back together as friends/investors at least as far as 1979--including the Bin Laden family investing in Bush's Arbusto Energy.
Fact: The Bush family is tied heavily in with the Carlyle group--the country's 11th largest defense contractor (gee, who could profit from war?)
Fact: No steel constructed building has ever come down due to fire. None. Yes the WTC towers fall within 1 1/2 hours of burning.
Fact: After being told about the first plane hitting New Nork, President Bush sat an additional 26 minutes with the kids, then another 29 minutes was spent leaving the school, heading to the airport, etc., before he ordered the military on alert. Time that could have prevented the second WTC attack
Fact: President Bush has given at least 17 reasons for attacking Iraq. Not one has proven correct; nor with a link to 99/11.
I'd love to go on and on, but time does not permit me to.
But my reason for listing those facts are this:
If you buy into the 'official' explanation offered by ANY governement agency, you are falling for a lie/cover-up. You need to do the research.
As for Jadakiss. I may not like rap anymore. But I do like the fact that some artists in the industry are trying to be political and all about b*&ches, and bling bling.
I'd love to find out if Clear Channel has any ties to Congress, or if they would censor the same thing if the line were changed to Mohammed. I give you odds....they wouldn't censor a d&^% thing.
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:03 PM
I heard it's number one...like Fahrenheit 9/11 was number one when it came out...the message in the film and the song is simple..people are starting to ask questions which are "very uncomfortable" for the administration. |
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:05 PM
sometimes I just gotta love the code warrior :) |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:07 PM
Clear Channel wanted changes in a billboard too
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/12/nyregion/12billboard.html?8hpib
also, Mike Moore's fact page on 9/11 |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:08 PM
:)
Hey...check out the blog daily...I really let loose there...
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com |
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:11 PM
And, poetically speaking, you could say that Bush knocked down the towers, because he and his administration avoided information about terrorist threats. |
|
pinemikey
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:14 PM
"Clear Channel, as a private company, has every right to censor whatever they want. It's the gov't that isn't allowed to censor."
Private company...but public airwaves...if they don't show a justifiable reason, within the 1st amendment statutes and I guess FCC rules, then they should be fined or have their licences pulled. Censoring for obscenity is sometimes a tough call to censor or not...sometimes lots of grey in there....but there should be zero reason to censor for political reasons. |
|
Xacksquatch
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:22 PM
That damn 1st amendment, always getting in the way! |
|
Xacksquatch
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:29 PM
hbkfan-
$514,876 according to opensecrets.org. Seventy four percent of that money went to the Republicans. That'll give a little pull... |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:35 PM
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the head of Clear Channel a HUGE Bush and Republican supporter? No WONDER he bleeped the "Bush" word. |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:37 PM
And even though Clear Channel is a private company and has every right to bleep whatever they want to bleep, the air waves THEMSELVES, even though they belong to private companies, are supposed to have the public's interest at heart FIRST, not their own agenda. Of course, recent changes in the FCC rules about the number of media stations a company may own has made that statement laugable. |
|
Xacksquatch
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 3:43 PM
I'm sure that Clear Channel's contributions had no affect on the FCC's decision. Their purpose in to protect the people's interest. |
|
hawk7771
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 4:02 PM
Hang them high and make my day.
"Private company...but public airwaves"
The only public airwaves are college radio stations. The rest are corporate for their own agenda.
|
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 4:48 PM
Interesting site here
http://news.phaseiii.org/article3053.html
Clear Channel is owned by the Mays brothers, and they are linked with the e-voting machines company here in Texas,i.e. Hart Intercivics E-Slate voting machines .
From Buzzflash.com we find:
"One Thing is Crystal Clear: Clear Channel is a Subsidiary of Bush, Inc
It's no coincidence that Clear Channel executives Tom Hicks and L. Lowry Mays have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaign coffers. Or that Clear Channel gave $119,370 in "soft money" to Republicans in 2001-2002, this on top of the $82,850 it gave in 2000. (Democrats, meanwhile, got $25,000 in soft money in that same three-year period.) Or that Clear Channel stations have been known to pull radio ads criticizing Republicans.
So what, if anything, did Clear Channel hope to gain by currying favor with a pro-war Washington? Well, consider that Congress is currently studying the effects of media consolidation and may make changes that could affect Clear Channel's reach. Concerned that media ownership is concentrated in too few hands, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) introduced the "Competition in Radio and Concert Industries Act" in 2002, which would limit further deregulation. The Senate Commerce Committee has held hearings on the legislation, and the Federal Communications Commission has scheduled a vote for June 2." (from April 18,2003 article) |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 6:13 PM
pleeeeeeeassssseee.........
I promised myself I will not get into anymore political debates on this site but I have to say something only once about this article and some of the insinuations presented. to suggest that any political leader of any party in this country knowingly participated directly or indirectly in the slaughter of 3000 innocent people is not free speech. it's irresponsible and slanderous. It falls into the catagory or falsely accusing someone of molesting a child without any evidence.
I am certinly not a Bush fan and have been actively looking for a third party alternitive but if this kind of talk is what Kerry represents I may look at the Bush ticket again.
|
|
lordperrin
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 6:26 PM
>>It falls into the catagory or falsely accusing someone of molesting a child without any evidence.
Funny, myself and thousands of other have seen plenty of evidence. Where have you been? |
|
burner97119
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 6:50 PM
like they say there is one born every minute |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 7:03 PM
all circumstancal and one sided. people who hate someone will always be quick to accept anything reguardless of how incomplete or twisted it is. Like I said I'm not a Bush fan but I'm reconsidering if this is what Kerry represents.
I'm out of here. |
|
hbkfan
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 7:45 PM
comp -
In all fairness, I am not a Kerry lackey (sp?) either. Personally, I would love if the entire country would realize that they could elect a third-party candidate.
I will be one of the first to admit Kerry is a flip-flop artist along the lines of Clinton. But my list against Bush is steeped in fact. Do I insinuate? Yes. But do I offer facts? Yes.
Believe me, I want neither of those guys in office come the next election .(Who knows when that will be.) As soon as I get some facts against Hanoi Kerry, I'll be glad to share them.
|
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 8:07 PM
"Clear Channel, as a private company, has every right to censor whatever they want."
By doing that they are modifying the song, I guess without the agreement of the artist and without being required to do so by law. Does their license allow it ? Is it legal to alter the song this way ?
"It's the gov't that isn't allowed to censor."
Coporations are starting to outweight some small countries. I think it's about time to hold them to governmental standards, not individual ones. They are the true rulers of the US you know... |
|
SuitablyTwisted
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 9:04 PM
By Mohammed, I meant Mohammed Atta, confirmed as on e of the hijackers, not Mohammed the prophet.
Sfolivier:
All they need is the permission of the label to modify the song, and that's covered in all the major labels' pay-for-play contracts. The artist has no say if he's sold the rights to the label. |
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 9:16 PM
"All they need is the permission of the label to modify the song, and that's covered in all the major labels' pay-for-play contracts. The artist has no say if he's sold the rights to the label."
Do you know this is covered in the pay-for-play contract for a fact ? I'm not challenging you, I'm just wondering if it is a supposition or not. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 10:21 PM
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/nocache/9/12285789_F_tn.jpg |
|
JC123
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 11:04 PM
I am really starting to wonder if Kerry truly does flip flop a lot...
observe from the Bush site:
In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. “Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he is breaking party ranks to support most-favored-nation trade status for China … ‘I think the president has some strong arguments about some of the assets of most-favored-nation status for China,’ Kerry said.” (John Aloysius Farrell, “Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status,” The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
Ok everything seems good...
In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)
No sweat... still supports China...
Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. “Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with China and other countries. … On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was manipulating its currency.” (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)
Now he supposedly flip flops... Can't a guy change his mind in FOUR years based on new intel? Especially since money goes into China and doesn't come out? OR the fact that they have sweat shop labor installed so companies of US backing can go in and make a killing?
The Bush site is absolutely FULL of this stuff. And ten to 1 odds are that no one seriously looks at the date that this stuff is said. For your pleasure...
http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
Read what they say and when it was quoted. Have you never changed your mind about something? Or are we always flip flopping our position because of people?
|
|
mroop
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 11:23 PM
"All they need is the permission of the label to modify the song, and that's covered in all the major labels' pay-for-play contracts."
Huh? More details please. What is a "pay-for-play" contract? Links please. |
|
mroop
|
Date: July 13, 2004 @ 11:26 PM
"I am really starting to wonder if Kerry truly does flip flop a lot"
You should. Anyone who buys into the "Kerry is flip flopper" BS has been brainwashed by Fox News. Kerry changes positions as much as any other politician. Like George Bush, for example. I feel sorry for people who watch Fox News and then spout their rhetoric as if it is fact. So sad. |
|
TheSherminator
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:01 AM
"Clear Channel, as a private company, has every right to censor whatever they want."
They do, but they shouldn't. They have too much power, just like a number of other corporations. Clear Channel should not be allowed to do what they want because they are a private company. They should be restricted because they are huge and dominating. |
|
Mike2212
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:09 AM
mroop: I am one of those who believes Kerry is a flip flopper. Particularly when the candidate himself said he voted for the troops before he voted against them. That is from the man's own lips. Then the man first throws his medals away, later those medals turn into ribbons, and finally into somebody else's ribbons. The guy is a politician, like most on both sides, who will say whatever it takes to get elected.
That said, I have not been brainwashed by Fox news since I get my news from a variety of sources such as BBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Financial Times, etc. And, I still don't trust the guy as a future commander in chief. I do not believe that he has the will to make any foreign policy decisions without the blessing of the France or the UN and that concerns me. |
|
dreddsnik3
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:15 AM
"Huh? More details please. What is a "pay-for-play" contract? Links please."
Absolutely.
I bet nearly everyone here would like to visit that link. |
|
mroop
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:16 AM
"That said, I have not been brainwashed by Fox news"
Sorry, but if you believe that Kerry is more of a flip flopper than any other politician than you have been brainwashed. Do some more reading. Here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bush+flip+flopper&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:42 AM
this is so funny.
I see this with pro republican and Pro democrat diehards given the exact same facts.
if you agree with my position you're enlightened. if you disagree then you're brainwashed. is it any wonder americans are so sick of politics that only 30% are voting. |
|
mroop
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:07 AM
Nice failure to comprehend my post doofus. I said all politicians are flip floppers. That is not a pro Republican or pro Democrat statement. |
|
mroop
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:12 AM
And for your information compore you complete drooling idiot, I am not a pro Democrat diehard. Dipshit. |
|
DemandTheTruth
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:13 AM
mroop is right on target with the truth.
|
|
DemandTheTruth
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:14 AM
. . . about politicians (Democrat or Republican) being flip-floppers.
|
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:19 AM
LOLOLOLOLOL what a comedian. Name calling, very unbecoming. the true nature of a lawyer. I can't even take it seriously anymore. besides I was commenting on ALL the partisan bickering, not just yours. your comment about brainwashing just was a nice summary of it all and that's why I used it. I wasn't commenting on you specificly. You're so blinded by hatred you can't resist the personal attacks. That's the only way you can make yourself look important, by tearing others down. |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:20 AM
and by the way demandthetruth, you are right. mroop is right on target with that assesment
|
|
mroop
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:21 AM
Well, I wouldn't go that far. : ) I just finished reading a brilliant critique of Congress titled "Hill Rat" by John Jackley. If you want to know how Congress really works then I highly recommend this book. From the sleeve:
"As a top aid to powerful Texas Congressman Ronald Coleman, John Jackley watched the nation's highest elected officials lie, manipulate media images, and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to stay in power. The mind boggling scope of the abuse of perks and privileges by both legislators and their staffers finally shocked him into reality. What began as a secret journal for his children to clear his conscience has become Hill Rat, a journey behind Congress' closed doors and into the corrupt back alleys of power. With both humor and outrage, Jackley reveals how the promise of Congress has been hijacked and corrupted by the current crop of careerist incumbents."
FYI, compmore - Coleman was a Democrat. |
|
mroop
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:24 AM
"besides I was commenting on ALL the partisan bickering, not just yours."
I was making a general statement. That you would categorize my comments as partisan further demonstrates your lack of comprehension skills. |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:24 AM
there is common sense on both sides. |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:26 AM
again I wasn't commenting on you specificly, just the statement that sums up the bickering, as for the personal attacks.........there you go again
|
|
JC123
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 2:33 AM
Mike2212, he looked at the points and changed his view. From Bush's site once again.
August 31, 2003 -
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With “Whatever Number” Of Dollars It Took. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “No. I think we should increase it.” RUSSERT: “Increase funding?” KERRY: “Yes.” RUSSERT: “By how much?” KERRY: “By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)
Oct 17, 2003 -
Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. “Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
(now the supposed Flip Flop) March 17, 2004 -
Kerry Later Claimed: “I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,” The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
He mainly changed his view from what I can see by how it the war was occurring. How long does he need to keep the same viewpoint until people stop smearing him?
I mean, Bush's smear campaign is attacking Kerry from what he said on the first Gulf War in 1991! Then he talks about it 14 years later and he's to keep the same view based on the same analysis? Seriously, that's some SERIOUS WTF there...
|
|
autodidact
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 8:27 AM
In John Edwards' home state, Bush/Cheney leading Kerry/Edwards by 14 points in new scientific poll -- I think it was USA Today poll. Just thought y'all would like to know. :-)
Yes, mroop, obviously all politicians are flipfloppers. Or, another way to put it is, "Lying is what politicians do for a living."
We accept that politics is the art of compromise. Obviously there are acceptable limits to that, and some people will consider Bush's reversals to be more aggregious and some will consider Kerry's reversals to be worse.
Count me in the camp that considers, all things accounted, Kerry's statements (in context) to be the most unjustifiably incompatible with each other.
Sorry, I've not been brainwashed by Fox. I don't have cable TV, and I really don't get my news from TV anyway. I read the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and the Des Moines Register, which has been proven the most liberal major newspaper in the USA. But I read the Weekly Standard, American Spectator, National Review, and other sources for conservative slant.
One presumes that if Kerry could be defended against these charges, the liberal press would do a credible job of it. But in my judgment, they have not.
Kerry has been documented, quoted, as saying many things that are simply impossible to reconcile except as pandering of the worst kind (or outright insanity). I guess Bush's supporters would consider his flipflops to be pandering of the best kind. :-) Clinton could somehow pull off the inconsistency thing. Kerry just doesn't have it in him. Maybe he needs to have an affair to get people's minds off the nonsense coming out of his mouth!
By the way, in 1987 John Kerry signed a Senate Armed Services Committee plea to Clinton to take military action if necessary, to neutralize "the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Bush did what Clinton refused to do. If people think there were no WMD programs, with serious stockpiles of INGREDIENTS for WMDs (even if we found no stockpiles of the actual WMDs), then they are not staying informed.
I don't know why Clear Channel doesn't play the "song" as it is. It makes no sense bleeped or unbleeped. It is incoherent noise with incoherent words on top.
Why did Bush knock down the towers?
Why does toast always fall butter side down?
Why are brontosauruses thin at one end, thick in the middle, and thin again at the other end?
Why don't people turn off Clear Channel if they don't like their programming, and shut up about it already? |
|
autodidact
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 8:31 AM
Egregious, not aggrecious. Sorry, I'm having a bad spell. |
|
Mike2212
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 8:42 AM
mroop: I guess I will have live with the fact that I have been brainwashed since I don't believe everything that comes from the Communist News Network (CNN), and the big three networks as gospel and they would never slant a story to their point of view would they?
However, I have some serious reasons for not voting for Kerry based on his record in the senate. Particularly his votes on defense spending. Had Kerry been successful, the Air Force would not have had the F-15s that have proved successful in 1991. Instead, they would still be flying F-4 Phantoms, a design that dates back to 1958. The M-1 tank that ruled the battlefield in two Gulf Wars would have never been built, leaving the Army with M-60s that date back to the early 60s. Then, throw in the nuclear freeze, we would more than likely still be locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. When I was on active duty, I was happy to not be forced to fight any future wars with obsolete equipment. So, if you will excuse me, I choose to not be a Kerryphile.
Yeah, I guess I have been brainwashed by Fox News but is that any better than being brainwashed by CNN. Accusing people who have different points of view of being brainwashed is not an effective method for changing their beliefs. |
|
Mike2212
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 8:44 AM
Correction, I meant is being brainwashed by Fox News any worse than being brainwashed by CNN, CBS, NBC, New York Times or any of the establishment news services? |
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 11:39 AM
I'm starting ti agree... There is too much politics on this site... And still no link on the pay-per-play license. |
|
dreddsnik3
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:17 PM
I see Mroop is back to name calling again.
What made you decide to drive on back to belittling folk instead of proper debate.
Compmore said
"You're so blinded by hatred you can't resist the personal attacks. That's the only way you can make yourself look important, by tearing others down."
Compmore you are much more correct in that assessment than you know. Mroop is an angry bitter person, with reason. I'd love to tell you why, but he IS after all a lawyer. As long as he keeps his debates civil, I stay civil, but, as you said, he just can't do it without the bitterness taking over. |
|
Mike2212
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:22 PM
I would like to think there is room for people with different political beliefs. Can't we have a civil debate without turning to name calling?
On a lighter note, anybody know any funny lawyer jokes? |
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 12:36 PM
The complete drooling idiot part was a bit much, but I can see how he gets frustrated with the opinions expressed here.
To base one's support for Kerry on whether he is a "flipflopper" is disingenuous. All thoughtful people are open to modifying their opinions and actions when circumstances change and warrant it.
Being a LIAR is something else however. George Bush is a liar. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:13 PM
Sfolivier
you wanna really see a site with politics...
Check out my blog...If blood were politics, this site has a drop...my blog has enough to fill up 100 weightlifters :)
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:14 PM
"On a lighter note, anybody know any funny lawyer jokes?"
Yeah...Cary Sherman...LOLOLOL
ROFL, LMAO...
:) |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:18 PM
Politics is about Money, Power, and Control.
The RIAA is about Money, Power, and Control.
They are able to go after people with DMCA lawsuits, only because political actions resulted in entry and passage of the DMCA
and this happened because WIPO, a globalist
organization based in Geneva , created
copyright guidelines, and the DMCA is only
a Title 17 implementation of those guidelines.
I once had a good friend who used to live on
Mainland China. I asked Chen something about
the politics in China. Chen told me this...
"In China, if you aren't interested in politics,
politics gets interested in you."
And by the way, even my wife gets tired of my
talk about politics ...lol...
:) |
|
autodidact
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:20 PM
carla, Clinton was a liar, and I bet you voted for him. 'fess up, now.
Whether you did or didn't, lots of people knew he was a liar and voted for him anyway. So that isn't really the point either, is it?
George Bush lied about his DUI. What most people are calling "Bush lies" are not lies, but misstatements of fact which he did not know were wrong. That is a mistake, not a lie.
I think there are a range of issues on which Kerry has real credibility problems. Granted, Bush has problems on some issues as well. I believe Bush's record is more consistent. Not totally consistent, mind you. Our expectations are so dumbed-down, nobody expects perfection in a politician. Nobody expects anything even close. Still, even with the bar being much lower than it used to be, Kerry will have a hard time convincing people he measures up. |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:24 PM
Carla everone gets frustrated with oposing opinions but nothing can justify what he does. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:25 PM
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/3/12281583_F_tn.jpg |
|
dreddsnik3
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:26 PM
"and this happened because WIPO, a globalist
organization based in Geneva , created
copyright guidelines, and the DMCA is only
a Title 17 implementation of those guidelines."
And THIS Kerry supports to the point of banning opposing viewpoints on WIPO from his site.
|
|
carla60626
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 1:35 PM
Clinton's "lies" as far as I can tell had to do with whether he told the truth in a deposition in Paula Jones' harrassment lawsuit (who prompted her to do that, I wonder).
I don't think he lied about anything else.
Clinton was a great president, is brilliant and I'd do him in a second. And I voted for him both times.
Maybe Bush's lies are predominantly expressions of not knowing what he's talking about.
|
|
DemandTheTruth
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 3:01 PM
"Clinton's lies, as far as I can tell, had to do with whether he told the truth in a deposition in Paula Jones' harrassment lawsuit . . .
I don't think he lied about anything else."
You're right; he didn't lie about ANYthing else. All other times, he consistently told the truth. That's what I admired about him - truth, integrity, character...
what a paragon of virtue the man was!
|
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 3:44 PM
"you wanna really see a site with politics..."
Yeah I've checked your site a couple if times :) Nice, by the way.
I like political "fights" but I think it dilutes the issue when posted on this site. It divides us and even if RIAA lobbying is political, we should pay attention not to drift so much.
I actually think that those political fights attack the credibility of this site. It makes some of us look like a rabid pack, not rational interlocutors. Not like a valid counter-power to the ideas of the RIAA and other coporations in the same vein. It may drive some visitor away and it might upset some potential supporters because of RIAA-unrelated points that are made here. We are supposed to gather and "educate" not upset people and drive away the ones who could provide a grass-root movement against what the RIAA represents.
If this site was called "communists against RIAA" nobody would support it. Let's try to keep it neutral so everyone feels they want to contribute and represented.
This thread is about Clear Channel and censorship. It is a bipartisan issue and I think that people should focus on what Kerry and Bush think of censorship and media.
Anyway. I'm trying to stay out of general politcal talks when I am here. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 4:00 PM
I would support the site if it were called Communists Against the RIAA...lol...am, to quote the defense most commonly used before that worm Joe "Tailgunner" McCarthy (and rumor has it the Tailgunner sobriquet was not used because of his position as a tailgunner in the war...just look at his second in command, Roy Cohn)..."I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Communist"...
"Stick you head out the window and yell..I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore." - from the movie NETWORK |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 4:03 PM
My point about my blog is that when someone says something is too "x", I always think you have to look at something far more "x" than the one you are talking about. For example, if you are from Alaska and think 90 degrees is hot...visit where George the Z lives in Arizona this summer...it was 108 in Phoenix a day or so ago.
So, my point, is if you think THIS place is political, what must one think of my blog.
BTW..an interesting piece there today about an old disabled man in Colorado killed by a cop by one shot in the chest because he thought the man's soda can was a gun...and so it goes. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 4:06 PM
BTW...just because I am anti-King George the W...does not mean I like Kerry.
To me..it's an election between two bonesmen..but..one bonesman is driving us toward the edge of the cliff at 120,and playing chicken with oncoming cars by hollering "bring it on" ... but hopefully, bonesman number two, will only hit 30 mph as he heads us toward globalism.
I'm voting for Michael Badnarik...as an old Englishman once told me...
"A pox on both their houses." |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 4:09 PM
Veuillez excuser mes fautes de frappe antérieures. |
|
Sfolivier
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 6:47 PM
"So, my point, is if you think THIS place is political, what must one think of my blog."
I got your point. I just meant the place might be more political than needed. I realize it could be a loooot more LOL. I'm just advocating to keep the site friendly to people from all political obediences, since all are needed in this fight against the RIAA misconceptions.
Your point of view about Bush is close to mine, althought, well who cares about mine since I don't vote!
Vos fautes des frappe sont excusees ;) |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 7:00 PM
sfolivier is sooooooooo right on. |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 7:43 PM
Actually I do care about what you think whether you vote or not. And, I figured you got what I meant...I just have a habit when I even think I've been misunderstood...to explain the hell out of what I mean so that no question remains.
By the by, thanks for the nice words on my blog...
You're always welcome to join/visit/contribute at
http://codewarrior.mvhosted.com
http://patriot.mvhosted.com
http://patriotic.mvhosted.com
http://freespeech.mvhosted.com
http://members.lycos.co.uk/warriorcode/
or any of the seven or eight more discussion boards/content sites I have up which cover all kinds of topics... |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 7:45 PM
:)
merci beaucoup |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 7:54 PM
and I guess Code is
sooooooooooooooooooooooooo Left Off...
:)
LOLOLOLOL.....
The dust in the house is getting to me...nothing like disturbed 10 years of dust when you're moving to fill your brain with silica...and too much silica, as well all know..makes you silllllllllly ! |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 7:55 PM
that last post confirms it...i am now completely looney! |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 8:27 PM
haha code. nothing personal at all. I just like to see our focus more on the RIAA and the industry that's all |
|
pepe512000
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 9:27 PM
Hi Code,
I just want to jump in here and mention that I got over to your newest site http://members.lycos.co.uk/warriorcode/ and joined up. It is really awesome, it's great, but folks, PLEASE!!!, go there, join up, I'm starting to feel like a stalker! :) ~pepe~ |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 9:59 PM
Pepe you are Wonderful!
Now...if we could just convince Compmore to come over to the Light...comp...you can even post Pro-Bush commentary (shudddder) if you join :) |
|
CodeWarrior
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 10:01 PM
actually...I have several sites and I really did do them so people could freely engage in discourse, posting articles...etc...
I haven't had time to update the site(s) and I apologize for that...but you guys are free to join like Pepe did...and share your News and Views....
and best of all...
It's FREE!
:) |
|
compmore
|
Date: July 14, 2004 @ 10:42 PM
Thanks Code. I'm not a Bush fan so I don't know how well I could do pro Bush commentary's. I'm just one of those millions of Americans who have had to deal with children for years and don't want to see the same behavior in Washington or on the threads. sadly I contribute to it myself without realizing it
|
|
autodidact
|
Date: July 15, 2004 @ 6:20 PM
"Clinton's "lies" as far as I can tell had to do with whether he told the truth in a deposition in Paula Jones' harrassment lawsuit (who prompted her to do that, I wonder)."
Well carla, I thought promising a middle class tax cut and never delivering it would be considered as much a genuine policy lie as the previous George Bush's "read my lips." In fact, as soon as Clinton got in he was floating a trial balloon for a 50 cent gas tax. If that ain't a regressive tax on the poor and middle class, I don't know what is.
Yes, Clinton lied like a rug, about anything and everything. Public, private. Pathological.
"I don't think he lied about anything else. "
I guess you weren't really paying attention.
"Clinton was a great president, is brilliant and I'd do him in a second."
I'm sure you would never lie. So, of this, I have no doubt. :-)
|
|
DemandTheTruth
|
Date: July 15, 2004 @ 8:28 PM
DemandTheTruth (yours truly) had written:
"You're right; Clinton didn't lie about ANYthing else. All other times, he consistently told the truth. That's what I admired about him - truth, integrity, character...
what a paragon of virtue the man was!"
The truth of the matter is that this comment was made in abject satire.
Obviously I would concur with autodidact.
|
|
independentm...
|
Date: July 15, 2004 @ 10:05 PM
"Clear Channel, as a private company, has every right to censor whatever they want."
No they fucking don't. They do NOT own the airways. WE THE PEOPLE own the airways that they were granted license to use. The airways are a public utility.
And besides, it is a breakdown in our system of managing (FCC) those airways that allowed a single company/corporation have control over far to much of the spectrum.
NEVER FORGET FOLKS, THE BROADCAST SPECTRUM BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE CORPORATIONS THAT WE ALLOW TO LICENCE THAT SPECTRUM! |
|
|
Navigation
