Yet another reason Cincinnati sucks

[Grendel]

Because they're public airwaves. Just as there are standards of behavior and practices on what is acceptable on a public street, there should be similar standards for broadcast. If I am seeking something raunchy I should have to go into a comedy club or a porno shop. I shouldn't subject others to that behavior.

You need technological devices to pick up these transmissions; they are not analogous to a streetcorner. You must voluntarily turn on the radio or TV, and it's easy to change the channel.

Isn't it every bit as easy you or I to change the channel? If, as you suggest, changing the channel is so easy then why can't you or I change it to what we want to hear instead of forcing others to change it away from what they don't?

Rules which are not objectively defined are a joke. How do you decide what is "offensive"?

I don't know, but I think that regardless of your opinion on the subject they ought to be defined. Personally, I think they ought to be done on a local basis.

Well, they aren't defined in an objective manner, so they should not be strictly enforced. The idea of strict enforcement of subjective standards is ridiculous.

But stations agree to this each time they renew their licences. They voluntarily subject themselves to those "standards" and as such I have no problem with fining them each time they break the rules. If they have such problems living up to their ends of the agreements then they should get out of the broadcast business.

[Darth Wong]

You need technological devices to pick up these transmissions; they are not analogous to a streetcorner. You must voluntarily turn on the radio or TV, and it's easy to change the channel.

Isn't it every bit as easy you or I to change the channel? If, as you suggest, changing the channel is so easy then why can't you or I change it to what we want to hear instead of forcing others to change it away from what they don't?

Because we can't. Censoring the airwaves means that the materials is removed from ALL broadcast channels, not just one. So now I have to pay extra money and perhaps buy extra equipment to see this material. If I live out in the country with no cable service, I have to buy a satellite, and satellite equipment is not easy to route to multiple TV sets in the house.

Well, they aren't defined in an objective manner, so they should not be strictly enforced. The idea of strict enforcement of subjective standards is ridiculous.

But stations agree to this each time they renew their licences. They voluntarily subject themselves to those "standards" and as such I have no problem with fining them each time they break the rules.

That's absurd; it's hardly "voluntary" when refusing to agree means you are forced out of business.

If they have such problems living up to their ends of the agreements then they should get out of the broadcast business.

So we can put any arbitrarily unreasonable rule on any industry we want and justify it by saying that they agreed to it by virtue of being in this industry? That makes no sense at all.

[RedImperator]

I'm not sure I'd consider "agree to follow our arbitrary guidelines or go out of business" voluntary.

EDIT: Damn it, Mike beat me to this point.

[Grendel]

Because we can't. Censoring the airwaves means that the materials is removed from ALL broadcast channels, not just one. So now I have to pay extra money and perhaps buy extra equipment to see this material. If I live out in the country with no cable service, I have to buy a satellite, and satellite equipment is not easy to route to multiple TV sets in the house.

Instead of you being forced to pay extra money to seek out offensive materials, you want to force others to shell out that same money to avoid it? If you're so concerned with the extra few bucks involved, then split the airwaves. Everything below 100 has to be family friendly and anything goes above 100. That way parents can buy family friendly radios that don't go above 100 and you and I can ignore everything below the 100 range. Whatever.

IMO, if you want to hear something but can't find it then no harm, no foul. However, if you don't want to hear something but hear it anyway, then the damage is done and nothing can undo it.

Well, they aren't defined in an objective manner, so they should not be strictly enforced. The idea of strict enforcement of subjective standards is ridiculous.

But stations agree to this each time they renew their licences. They voluntarily subject themselves to those "standards" and as such I have no problem with fining them each time they break the rules.

That's absurd; it's hardly "voluntary" when refusing to agree means you are forced out of business.

But they're not forced from business. People like our buddy Stern can go to sattelite which isn't regulated by the FCC. Whole broadcasters can choose to go sattelite instead.

If they have such problems living up to their ends of the agreements then they should get out of the broadcast business.

So we can put any arbitrarily unreasonable rule on any industry we want and justify it by saying that they agreed to it by virtue of being in this industry? That makes no sense at all.

That makes little sense from a common sense viewpoint, but that is the way it is. If we want to change it, then we should push for change legally, not by breaking the rules.

[Gandalf]

Grendel, where do you draw the line of what can be deemed offensive?

For example: If I were a fundamentalist Muslim, I might take offense at TV articles about the beach. Namely because there's always shots of women in bikinis.

[Wicked Pilot]

If you don't like what's on the airways than you can just go sit in the corner and have sex with yourself as far as I care. If you are so goddamn interested in having to seek out curse words, then I suggest you go throw a radio tuned to Howard Stern off the nearest cliff and dive after it.

[HemlockGrey]

Wait, Grendel, how does avoiding such material cost other people money?

[Howedar]

Instead of you being forced to pay extra money to seek out offensive materials, you want to force others to shell out that same money to avoid it? If you're so concerned with the extra few bucks involved, then split the airwaves. Everything below 100 has to be family friendly and anything goes above 100. That way parents can buy family friendly radios that don't go above 100 and you and I can ignore everything below the 100 range. Whatever.

IMO, if you want to hear something but can't find it then no harm, no foul. However, if you don't want to hear something but hear it anyway, then the damage is done and nothing can undo it.

Our society is based on the idea that one has a given right unless that right infringes on someone else. Unless you can demonstrate unavoidable harm caused by today's television you have no basis on which to dictate to us what can or cannot be on TV.

[Lord Poe]

Instead of you being forced to pay extra money to seek out offensive materials, you want to force others to shell out that same money to avoid it?

How does it cost anyone to change the fucking channel? It's going to cost ME money to listen to the Stern show as it was only 5 years ago.

If you're so concerned with the extra few bucks involved, then split the airwaves. Everything below 100 has to be family friendly and anything goes above 100. That way parents can buy family friendly radios that don't go above 100 and you and I can ignore everything below the 100 range. Whatever.

"Family friendly" radios. You sound like an idiot. The world isn't obligated to be "family friendly." If I want to hear someone discussing "anal" on the radio and you don't, you have no right restricting what I listen to. Just as I have no right to stop you from CHANGING THE CHANNEL.

IMO, if you want to hear something but can't find it then no harm, no foul. However, if you don't want to hear something but hear it anyway, then the damage is done and nothing can undo it.

Are your arms jammed up your ass along with your head? CHANGE THE MOTHERFUCKING CHANNEL if you don't want to hear it. I don't have that option. MY version of morality is being DICTATED to me, moron. I don't want to listen to altar boy-screwing pastors on my radio, so should I restrict the people that want to listen to pederasts with crosses and microphones?

But they're not forced from business. People like our buddy Stern can go to sattelite which isn't regulated by the FCC. Whole broadcasters can choose to go sattelite instead.

Dipshit, Stern has millions of listeners nationally right now. Currently, Sirius satellite radio has about 600,000 customers. Do the math.

[pellaeons_scion]

Awesome, I got ignored. Must be the inbuilt censorship

[Grendel]

Grendel, where do you draw the line of what can be deemed offensive?

For example: If I were a fundamentalist Muslim, I might take offense at TV articles about the beach. Namely because there's always shots of women in bikinis.

You and I both know that there are fringe groups out there that are offended at the drop of a hat and that we will never appease them all. Further, what is offensive to one group or community is embraced by others. I don't know what the perfect solution is nor do I pretend to. However, I think that each community should be able to deem for itself what is acceptable and what is not and each community should be able to prohibit such material from being broadcast every bit as much as they should be able to ban other types of public behavior.

How does it cost anyone to change the fucking channel? It's going to cost ME money to listen to the Stern show as it was only 5 years ago.

You're missing my point. Once something has been heard, it can't be undone. The only way to prevent that is to prevent it at the source. Programming on public broadcast frequencies ought to be appealing to the widest variety of citizenry and those who seek more specialized or raunchy programming should be the ones to seek it out. That includes me.

"Family friendly" radios. You sound like an idiot. The world isn't obligated to be "family friendly." If I want to hear someone discussing "anal" on the radio and you don't, you have no right restricting what I listen to. Just as I have no right to stop you from CHANGING THE CHANNEL.

No, the world isn't obligated to be "family friendly" but there is such a thing as public decency. And no, I haven't the right to restrict what you listen to, but broadcasters don't have the right to broadcast anything they want. If you want to listen to it, then go get it. Pay the extra few bucks a month and get sattelite. If you want to see it, pay the $3.50 and rent it from the video store. If you want to read it, go the library or to Barnes and Noble and get it.

Are your arms jammed up your ass along with your head? CHANGE THE MOTHERFUCKING CHANNEL if you don't want to hear it. I don't have that option. MY version of morality is being DICTATED to me, moron. I don't want to listen to altar boy-screwing pastors on my radio, so should I restrict the people that want to listen to pederasts with crosses and microphones?

You make it sound like cleaning up the airwaves is somehow making broadcasts religious, and I disagree. It is making them more acceptable to a wider slice of the public; the way that broadcasting on public airwaves should be. People who want religious broadcasts should be forced to seek those out every bit as much as people who want to listen to or view edgier programming. Why? Because no matter which channel you change to these days, it's all the same garbage. It's the same guttermouth humor, the same sexed up music and the same base advertisements. The only way to escape it is to go to sattelite radio, cable television, or to find religious programmming and I agree that religious programming sucks.

Dipshit, Stern has millions of listeners nationally right now. Currently, Sirius satellite radio has about 600,000 customers. Do the math.

The math I see is Sirius's subscription list going through the roof.


What'd you have for breakfast this morning, anyway, Poe? Carnation Instant Bitch?

[Darth Wong]

You and I both know that there are fringe groups out there that are offended at the drop of a hat and that we will never appease them all. Further, what is offensive to one group or community is embraced by others. I don't know what the perfect solution is nor do I pretend to.

Yes you do, you just said that strict enforcement of a worthless subjective standard is a great idea.

However, I think that each community should be able to deem for itself what is acceptable and what is not and each community should be able to prohibit such material from being broadcast every bit as much as they should be able to ban other types of public behavior.

So the most puritanical, idiotic, ultra-conservative community in America should be able to dicate what the entire nation is allowed to watch? That's fucking brilliant

You're missing my point. Once something has been heard, it can't be undone.

OMIGOD, my child say two seconds of boobie or heard a dirty word while I was flipping the channels! The harm is irrevocable! The sky is falling! OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!?!?

Grow the fuck up. No actual objective harm is done, and the laws of the country do not exist to keep people from being offended; that is simply not their purpose. They exist to prevent actual harm or rights violations. If there was a legal mandate to keep people from being offended, then you wouldn't even be able to say "fuck" out loud, for fear that someone might hear.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No. I am not kidding. I rather enjoy most of that shit, but it should be something that I have to seek out; not that others have to avoid. Broadcasts using public airwaves should be monitored and regulated and I am quite thrilled that the FCC has finally gotten some balls. What's more is that "freedom of expression" isn't absolute and broadcasters agree to the FCC limitations when they sign for their licences. If they break the rules, then they should pay.

What if there was a rating symbol in the bottom right corner? That way if you wanted to watch an R rated movie you could seek it out that way, and if you didn't you could avoid it.

That would be a nice middle ground. Why should those of us that aren't handicapped by silly PC rules have to wait till after ten before we can see the movies we want?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Basically Grendel, our rights are being compromised because we have to pay extra costs to see the shows that we want. While those who adhere to good christian values don't. Things like this should be equal.

[Grendel]

You and I both know that there are fringe groups out there that are offended at the drop of a hat and that we will never appease them all. Further, what is offensive to one group or community is embraced by others. I don't know what the perfect solution is nor do I pretend to.

Yes you do, you just said that strict enforcement of a worthless subjective standard is a great idea.

I beg to differ. What I said was that I was glad that the FCC finally has the teeth and the balls to enforce their rules, not that their rules were great. If we don't like the rules, then we should work to change them, not ignore them, and I am all for change.

However, I think that each community should be able to deem for itself what is acceptable and what is not and each community should be able to prohibit such material from being broadcast every bit as much as they should be able to ban other types of public behavior.

So the most puritanical, idiotic, ultra-conservative community in America should be able to dicate what the entire nation is allowed to watch? That's fucking brilliant

Again, you need to pay attention. What I said is that each community should be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable for broadcast in their own communities. The most puritanical should not be subject to the same standards as the most hedonistic or vice-versa. In the cases of national broadcasts, local affiliates should be able to decide whether or not a broadcast meets their communities standards and make their choice to air it or not.

You're missing my point. Once something has been heard, it can't be undone.

OMIGOD, my child say two seconds of boobie or heard a dirty word while I was flipping the channels! The harm is irrevocable! The sky is falling! OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!?!?

What are you, Wong, 12?

Grow the fuck up. No actual objective harm is done, and the laws of the country do not exist to keep people from being offended; that is simply not their purpose. They exist to prevent actual harm or rights violations. If there was a legal mandate to keep people from being offended, then you wouldn't even be able to say "fuck" out loud, for fear that someone might hear.

There are things that parents don't want their children to see. There are behaviours that they don't want their children exposed to. Hell... there are behaviours that I don't want to be exposed to, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid it. Sure I can change the channel, but when I get there I'm accausted by more of the same shit. Unless I want to turn on PBS or some religious channel there is nowhere I can go, so the only choice I have is to turn it off. That is not right.

Listen.... I agree that there isn't much that is going to harm a child after only a second of exposure, but when you are spending time watching a family event like the Superbowl and are being bombarded with erectile dysfunction ads and raunchy piss-poor excuses for halftime shows, there is a real problem. Situations like that bring up subjects that many people don't want to deal with and that many people are not ready to deal with. They should be able to watch a fucking Superbowl game without having to explain to their 7 year old what the hell erectile disfunction is. I should be able to watch that same game without seeing some piece of white trash wearing a flag as a poncho or some cracker-ass pop star ripping the dressing off of a nasty 40 year old tube! For Christ's sake... they could have at least done it with a 19 year old or something!!!!

And further, on what those laws are there for, I have to agree. Right now what we're arguing is all about rights: One person's right to be able to listen to whatever he wants versus another person's right to not hear it in the first place. Whose rights come first? In my opinion the latter trumps the former because the latter cannot be undone. Your solution is change the channel or turn off the radio or the television if you don't like it, and that is an immature solution. I could say the same about the other side; if they don't like the limitations of broadcast then they can get rid of their radios and televisions.

[Grendel]

Basically Grendel, our rights are being compromised because we have to pay extra costs to see the shows that we want. While those who adhere to good christian values don't. Things like this should be equal.

1) What does christianity have to do with anything? I don't know about others' arguements, but it has no place in mine.
2) So instead of you or I having to pay extra money to get what we want, we ought to force others to pay that extra money to get what they want. To me, that doesn't make any sense.

[Darth Wong]

I beg to differ. What I said was that I was glad that the FCC finally has the teeth and the balls to enforce their rules, not that their rules were great. If we don't like the rules, then we should work to change them, not ignore them, and I am all for change.

Why should you be glad that an organization with idiotic rules is now harshly (and inconsistently) enforcing them?

So the most puritanical, idiotic, ultra-conservative community in America should be able to dicate what the entire nation is allowed to watch? That's fucking brilliant

Again, you need to pay attention. What I said is that each community should be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable for broadcast in their own communities. The most puritanical should not be subject to the same standards as the most hedonistic or vice-versa. In the cases of national broadcasts, local affiliates should be able to decide whether or not a broadcast meets their communities standards and make their choice to air it or not.

THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU SUPPORT THE FCC CLAMPING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE GODDAMNED NATION? Don't give me this smarmy wise-ass "you need to pay attention" bullshit when you keep contradicting yourself, asshole.

You're missing my point. Once something has been heard, it can't be undone.

OMIGOD, my child say two seconds of boobie or heard a dirty word while I was flipping the channels! The harm is irrevocable! The sky is falling! OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!?!?

What are you, Wong, 12?

I'm pointing out how childish the opposition viewpoint is by mocking it, you fucking idiot.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Basically Grendel, our rights are being compromised because we have to pay extra costs to see the shows that we want. While those who adhere to good christian values don't. Things like this should be equal.

1) What does christianity have to do with anything? I don't know about others' arguements, but it has no place in mine.
2) So instead of you or I having to pay extra money to get what we want, we ought to force others to pay that extra money to get what they want. To me, that doesn't make any sense.

The christianity comment is the foundation of why we have these censors, it is not a remark on your argument.

No, how did you come to that conclusion that I wanted others to pay extra money to get what they want?

If a movie has offensive content...they should not watch it. It is that simple.

[Grendel]

I beg to differ. What I said was that I was glad that the FCC finally has the teeth and the balls to enforce their rules, not that their rules were great. If we don't like the rules, then we should work to change them, not ignore them, and I am all for change.

Why should you be glad that an organization with idiotic rules is now harshly (and inconsistently) enforcing them?

I am glad that the organization is finally starting to enforce their rules, even if they are being applied unequally. Why? Because it is a good start towards the equal application of their rules. Now, I disapprove of the inconsistant nature of the enforcement because, as it is, the rules are designed to apply equally across the country. That is one of the shortcomings of the current system and why I support more local control in the first place. In an attempt to recognize the different standards of different parts of the country, the rules are applied unfairly. As for the penalties, they aren't that harsh. They only seem that way because of the large jump in fine sizes. If the fines had been steadily increased over the years as they should have been, the apparrent harshness would undoubtedly be mellowed.

If we don't like the rules, we shouldn't ignore them; we should change them. Until they're changed, however, they ought to be enforced to the letter, IMHO.

So the most puritanical, idiotic, ultra-conservative community in America should be able to dicate what the entire nation is allowed to watch? That's fucking brilliant

Again, you need to pay attention. What I said is that each community should be allowed to dictate what is and is not acceptable for broadcast in their own communities. The most puritanical should not be subject to the same standards as the most hedonistic or vice-versa. In the cases of national broadcasts, local affiliates should be able to decide whether or not a broadcast meets their communities standards and make their choice to air it or not.

THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU SUPPORT THE FCC CLAMPING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE GODDAMNED NATION? Don't give me this smarmy wise-ass "you need to pay attention" bullshit when you keep contradicting yourself, asshole.

Of course. The louder you yell the more correct you are. I beg your forgiveness.

I support the FCC right now because it is all there is and all we have and until a better system is created I will continue to support it. I will, however, continue to support an evolvement towards a more localized system that judges based on standards from community to community instead of trying to set one blanket set of guidelines for an entire country.

In a choice between under-regulation and over-regulation, I will choose over-regulation any day, at least when it comes to the FCC.

OMIGOD, my child say two seconds of boobie or heard a dirty word while I was flipping the channels! The harm is irrevocable! The sky is falling! OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!?!?!?!?

What are you, Wong, 12?

I'm pointing out how childish the opposition viewpoint is by mocking it, you fucking idiot.

Hmmm. Could have fooled me. If you really want to continue arguing, then come back when you can discuss shit like an adult instead of a screaming 2 year old.

[Grendel]

The christianity comment is the foundation of why we have these censors, it is not a remark on your argument.

Oh. Ok. See. Yeah, the foundation of much of the US's moral code is judeo-christian philosophy and even though I don't consider my own moral code to be one of religion, I see how it evolved from it. However, like the Christmas holiday, I think that "morality" has largely evolved into something which is mainly secular for most people.

No, how did you come to that conclusion that I wanted others to pay extra money to get what they want?

It was an assumption. You had said that you didn't like the idea of forcing people who wanted to listen to a specific type of programming to pay extra to get sattelite or cable. You said that you felt your rights were being trampled. I countered that with the flip side whereas people who wouldn't want to be exposed to particular types of programming would instead be the ones who would be forced to spend extra money to avoid it.

It is my belief that extra effort and funds should be expended to seek things out and that someone should be able to avoid things on the relative cheap.

If a movie has offensive content...they should not watch it. It is that simple.

I agree, but people shouldn't be forced to dodge channels on public airwaves, IMHO. My arguement only applies to broadcast radio and television, not cable telvision or sattelite radio or television because they are public airwaves and, like public streets and public buildings, there is a certain level of decency.

Again, I would rather see the burden placed on people who want to see things as oppossed to those who don't want to be exposed to it.

[Grendel]

No. I am not kidding. I rather enjoy most of that shit, but it should be something that I have to seek out; not that others have to avoid. Broadcasts using public airwaves should be monitored and regulated and I am quite thrilled that the FCC has finally gotten some balls. What's more is that "freedom of expression" isn't absolute and broadcasters agree to the FCC limitations when they sign for their licences. If they break the rules, then they should pay.

What if there was a rating symbol in the bottom right corner? That way if you wanted to watch an R rated movie you could seek it out that way, and if you didn't you could avoid it.

That would be a nice middle ground. Why should those of us that aren't handicapped by silly PC rules have to wait till after ten before we can see the movies we want?

In order to view ratings symbolsm thoguh, one would need to have that channel on.

As it stands, newer televisions in this country are equipped with a V-chip which is basically designed for parents who use the television as a babysitter. People can set their televisions to exclude programming that carries a certain rating or above. That does go a long way towards the issue of parents being able to shield their children from subjects of which they disapprove, but that has it's pitfalls, too. Who decides the ratings system? What about things that are rated incorrectly? I'd wager that if Janet Jackson's tit had spilled out during NYPD Blue that it would have gone largely unnoticed... not that I noticed it anyay as I was actually busy watching the Lingere Bowl.

Compromise is definately the way to go, though, because otherwise neither side is going to be even remotely satisfied.

[Gandalf]

What if there was a rating symbol in the bottom right corner? That way if you wanted to watch an R rated movie you could seek it out that way, and if you didn't you could avoid it.

That would be a nice middle ground. Why should those of us that aren't handicapped by silly PC rules have to wait till after ten before we can see the movies we want?

In order to view ratings symbolsm thoguh, one would need to have that channel on.

Or you could check the TV guide, or watch for when they advertise the upcoming programs. If you're offended by stuff that's the way to go.

[Grendel]

What if there was a rating symbol in the bottom right corner? That way if you wanted to watch an R rated movie you could seek it out that way, and if you didn't you could avoid it.

That would be a nice middle ground. Why should those of us that aren't handicapped by silly PC rules have to wait till after ten before we can see the movies we want?

In order to view ratings symbolsm thoguh, one would need to have that channel on.

Or you could check the TV guide, or watch for when they advertise the upcoming programs. If you're offended by stuff that's the way to go.

If you get TV guide. There's always the version in the newspaper, I guess, but both cost money and according to my philosophy, money should be paid to seek stuff out; not to avoid it. Besides, one doesn't always know what is going to be patently and blatantly offensive until it happens. Even more is that sometimes such offensiveness comes in the form of advertising.

Here is a silly example:

I'm watching Stargate. I'm comfortable, I'm happy, Carter is still fucking HOT... then suddenly it's a commercial for tampons! Fucking ICK! I don't want to see that shit. Motherfucker I'm eating for God's sake!!!! Now I'm thinking about Carter on the rag and the damage is done!

[Gandalf]

In order to view ratings symbolsm thoguh, one would need to have that channel on.

Or you could check the TV guide, or watch for when they advertise the upcoming programs. If you're offended by stuff that's the way to go.

If you get TV guide. There's always the version in the newspaper, I guess, but both cost money and according to my philosophy, money should be paid to seek stuff out; not to avoid it. Besides, one doesn't always know what is going to be patently and blatantly offensive until it happens. Even more is that sometimes such offensiveness comes in the form of advertising.

Guides may cost money, but checking the Upcoming Programs in the ads costs nothing. And if you're desperate, most have the guides up on their website.

As for the ads, you can always just change the channel.

[Darth Wong]

Why should you be glad that an organization with idiotic rules is now harshly (and inconsistently) enforcing them?

I am glad that the organization is finally starting to enforce their rules, even if they are being applied unequally. Why? Because it is a good start towards the equal application of their rules.

That is fucking stupid. It's like saying that random punishment of the citizenry is a good start toward a system of justice.

THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU SUPPORT THE FCC CLAMPING DOWN FOR THE ENTIRE GODDAMNED NATION? Don't give me this smarmy wise-ass "you need to pay attention" bullshit when you keep contradicting yourself, asshole.

Of course. The louder you yell the more correct you are. I beg your forgiveness.

Hey look, an asshole who focuses on style over substance, totally ignoring the point!

Once more: you claim that you support local standards while simultaneously defending the indiscriminate use of a nationwide federal-level jackhammer. Can you say "self-contradicting sophistic bullshit artist"? And the fact that you retort with these smarmy evasions and "you need to pay attention" bullshit remarks when it's patently obvious that it's impossible to correctly state your position SINCE YOU SIMULTANEOUSLY TAKE BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE is just another proof that you're either trolling or an idiot.

I support the FCC right now because it is all there is and all we have and until a better system is created I will continue to support it. I will, however, continue to support an evolvement towards a more localized system that judges based on standards from community to community instead of trying to set one blanket set of guidelines for an entire country.

In a choice between under-regulation and over-regulation, I will choose over-regulation any day, at least when it comes to the FCC.

When in doubt, err on the side of less freedom and more injustice? What country are you from, anyway? America or Saudi Arabia?

I'm pointing out how childish the opposition viewpoint is by mocking it, you fucking idiot.

Hmmm. Could have fooled me. If you really want to continue arguing, then come back when you can discuss shit like an adult instead of a screaming 2 year old.

Oh look, more of your worthless "style over substance" evasions of the point. If you can't address the point, just attack the manner in which your opponent makes it, eh?

News flash, fucktard: the logical consistency of a position is not bolstered by maintaining an atmosphere of decorum, nor is it destroyed by using dirty words. In fact, the only people who treat such stylistic issues as summaries of the content of an argument are, themselves, children.

In short, let me summarize your post for you: "Mr. Wong used the F-word, so I win! Nyaaa nyaaa!" Grow the fuck up, you worthless little cloying shitstain.