RadioBanter - Beware of hams planting dis-information...

On Mon, 02 May 2005 07:33:16 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are
presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to
prove innocence, if you are so inclined.

Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the
infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've
already hashed this out with Leland a while back.

I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket.
You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it,
your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or
that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you
might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you
"fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police
barring concrete evidence to the contrary.

The court gives weight to the citation because it's basically an
affidavit by the LEO who witnessed the infraction. IOW, the citation
itself is evidence. If you contest the ticket then you must challenge
that evidence (or the law). That's the way it works in criminal court,
too.

snip
You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be
founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law.

But every law had to start sometime.

Law evolves (or de-evolves) in tandem with civilization. It does so
because it is a necessary part of any social order.

If there was never a condition
that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to
base it on.

Sure you can -- it's called a "constitution".

According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".

Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would
the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding.

Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still
violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution.
You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence,
to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that
convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty.

But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is
yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way.

Wrong. The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt. If there is no
evidence to convict then the verdict must be not guilty. But the sworn
affidavit of the LEO (the ticket itself) is strong evidence. So it is
not the burden of the accused to prove his innocence but to discredit
the evidence against him.

"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.

It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than
risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I
don't like Howard Stern).

First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to
infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them
that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact
the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased
interest (ratings) in his show.

Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius
Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so
constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is
whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every
guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel
Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius,
seems to think so.

Whatever the situation, the point is that sometimes it's cheaper to
eliminate the source of the problem than to pay fines to the FCC.

I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.

I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet.

What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.

Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't.

Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity.

That's a matter of opinion.....

I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A
TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers
but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need
more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent"
ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions.

What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing
sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited.

I'll worry about declining morality when the government declares that
murder is a God-given right, or grants constitutional protection from
discrimination for sex-offenders, or permits human sacrifice in the
exercise of a religious ceremony. Because -that- would be abhorrent.
What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your
business. You may not like knowing that homosexuality exists, but the
fact is that it does.

More than a hundred years ago it was "abhorrent" for a woman to expose
her bare ankles in public. Is that immoral? Now take a little time to
remember your history classes; it wasn't that long ago when cocaine
and heroin were sold over the counter, children worked 16 hours/day in
sweat shops for pennies, wife beating was not only tolerated but often
encouraged, slavery was legal in half the country, and people were
burned at the stake on the mere accusation of witchcraft (sounds a lot
like some of our present-day "allies").

A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the
idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want
blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black
vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak
rationalization of their racist attitudes.

You are no different than those racists, Dave. You don't like the idea
that gays have just as much right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" as yourself, and you use the excuse that gay marriage will
somehow diminish -your- values. And ironically, you are right because
your values are founded on generations of discrimination and bigotry.

And in your ignorance, you think this country is in a state of moral
decline because more and more people are recognizing the fact that
homosexuality isn't evil. But you are wrong, Dave -- the state of
public morality is actually improving -despite- your best efforts to
prevent it. For example, in the past 20 years the public perception
surrounding AIDS has changed from one of gay-bashing to one of
acceptance. It changed because it was learned that the disease was
-not- the product of rampant homosexuality as it was first assumed.
Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed
people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you
weren't paying attention.

So the problem you face is not one of moral decline. What you refuse
to see is that the -church- is in a state of decline. More and more
people are getting educated and learning that the world works
according to the laws of science and logic, -not- according to the
fatalistic and vengeful edicts of some big, scary 'god'. Religion is
losing customers and you feel threatened. Well, kick back and pop a
brew, Dave, because this is America, and you have the right to
practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do
the same.

But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic
group to dictate how others should live their lives.

Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of
the laws that we live under today.

Maybe you skipped history class that day, but the Constitution was
constructed to -prevent- minority rule.

As for television, the number of viewers determines the ratings of a
show, so let the ratings determine what companies sponser what shows.
That's how a free-market economy works. Or do you support the position
of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that
any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be
supressed?

If you are a
Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me.

This has little to do with any specific religion.

Sure it does. You talk of morality but fail to understand that
different religions impose different moralities. According to
Christianity, I'm immoral because I commit blasphemy. Yet there is
nothing in the Constitution that forbids atheism. On the contrary, it
-protects- my beliefs, right or wrong. It also seperates religion from
the government so my rights cannot be compromised by lawmakers who
think that atheism should be illegal just because -they- think it is
immoral.

You have your
values, I have mine, and others have theirs.

So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices?

The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional.

And if you can't accept
the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave.

I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God",

The phrase "under God" was added in the 50's for whatever reason.
Considering that it was done at the height of the cold war and that
the Soviet Union had outlawed religion, I think it was a good idea.
But guess what, Dave: the cold war is over.

and "endowed by our
creator".

My "creator" is Mother Nature. If you choose to reject science and
logic, that's your business. If I'm wrong then you can rest assured
that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not
your's.

The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts.

Most businesses don't care what they think.

Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to
pressure from these fanatics.

Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent
enough buying power to make any difference.

Religious fanatics, gay fanatics, save-the-whales fanatics..... it
doesn't make any difference. The point is that a minority group can
force a corporation to make a decision based on discrimination and
intolerance. It happens.

The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.

They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they
-can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said.

So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or
mainstream Christians?

Is there some reason you can't understand the simple concepts involved
when a company evaluates cost, profit and risk?

Corps
make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping
ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in
profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that
the ads will be yanked.

Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still
outnumber gay groups.

Does that make it right? Are Christians permitted to subjugate and
subvert the lives of other Americans simply because they outnumber
them? These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

True in most cases.

Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;

I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to
illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the
means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices.

That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are
greedy *******s.

Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money
you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal
or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as
saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost
anything".

O.J. is a free man today because of such practices.

And many people are on death row because of the same practices. But
again you fail to address the fact that many times it's cheaper to
settle or take the hit than to fight the charge in court, and the
decision to fight is usually one based on money. -My- contention is
that the FCC uses this fact to it's advantage when it decides who to
fine and how much to fine them.

so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge?

Cannot or will not.

I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.

Well, conspiracies do exist.

Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in.

You should concern yourself with the conflict between facts and your
"core beliefs".

And if my conclusions are true, the FCC
wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not
interchangeable for fact.

I never said it was fact, Dave. Or haven't you been paying attention?

In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would-
call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The
FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar
euphamism.

There have been cases over the years brought by people who tried to
claim that the IRS and income tax itself was unconstitutional. There
seems to be some credibility to the claim. But in every case, it gets
shot down.

It probably has something to do with the Sixteenth Amendment.

I suspect that a similar claim against the FCC would be
treated in a similar fashion.

We'll never know until it gets there.

After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.

Down with the man!

The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and
policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area
51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many
of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly
legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you
may disagree with their tactics.

I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is
that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional.

I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged
unconstitutionality.

Then feel free to read through the rrcb archives.

I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many
people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution,
would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be
"unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V.
Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a
judicial ruling rather than a legislative action.

Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated
the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the
Supreme Court, not established. And case law is just as much 'law' as
statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to
suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling"
is completely bogus.

Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many
different interpretations you can find from a single source of
information.

It doesn't affect you one bit if two homosexuals get married. You can
interpret it any way you want, but it's simply none of your business.
Just like it's none of your business if your neighbor gets his dick
pierced, or your Aunt Bertha gets orgasms riding a Hog. If that's how
they get their kicks then more power to them. Live and let live.

As for abortion, I'll wait until the discovery process is finished.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 03 May 2005 01:53:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket.
You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it,
your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or
that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you
might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you
"fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police
barring concrete evidence to the contrary.

The court gives weight to the citation because it's basically an
affidavit by the LEO who witnessed the infraction. IOW, the citation
itself is evidence. If you contest the ticket then you must challenge
that evidence (or the law). That's the way it works in criminal court,
too.

But in criminal court the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
in order to gain a guilty verdict. You are presumed innocent until
then. Traffic court is not quite the same. While they may not
specifically say it this way, the fact that you got a ticket, is
evidence of guilt, and you have to try your best to prove that you're
not guilty. The word of one cop is enough, in most cases, to render a
"guilty" verdict, unless you're damn lucky and can somehow "prove"
your innocence.

snip
You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be
founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law.

But every law had to start sometime.

Law evolves (or de-evolves) in tandem with civilization. It does so
because it is a necessary part of any social order.

Absolutely. Now if we could only convince those anarchists.......

If there was never a condition
that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to
base it on.

Sure you can -- it's called a "constitution".

The constitution can not be expected to address each and every social
condition that may develop as a result of unforseen advances in
technology, education, and awareness.

But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is
yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way.

Wrong. The burden is on the accuser to prove guilt. If there is no
evidence to convict then the verdict must be not guilty. But the sworn
affidavit of the LEO (the ticket itself) is strong evidence.

In most cases, it is not concrete evidence. It's no better than "he
said-she said" testimony.

So it is
not the burden of the accused to prove his innocence but to discredit
the evidence against him.

Why play word games? The end result is the same. The accuser has to
prove his innocence, by discrediting the evidence against him. The cop
is not required to demonstrate 6 different ways from Sunday how the
accuser is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to show up
and testify that the accuser ran such and such red light, and it's his
word against the accuser's. So who does the court tend to believe? How
is this a "presumption of innocence"?

"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.

It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than
risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I
don't like Howard Stern).

First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to
infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them
that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact
the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased
interest (ratings) in his show.

Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius
Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so
constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is
whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every
guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel
Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius,
seems to think so.

Whatever the situation, the point is that sometimes it's cheaper to
eliminate the source of the problem than to pay fines to the FCC.

Sure. The radio archives are full of Stern wannabees who pushed the
envelope just a little too far. Guys like the Greaseman, Opie and
Anthony, and others who I can't remember right now.

I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.

I'm waiting until the FCC starts regulating the internet.

It's coming.

What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.

Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't.

Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity.

That's a matter of opinion.....

;-) Chuckle. That's clever. I'm glad you have a sense of humor.

I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A
TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers
but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need
more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent"
ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions.

What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing
sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited.

I'll worry about declining morality when the government declares that
murder is a God-given right, or grants constitutional protection from
discrimination for sex-offenders, or permits human sacrifice in the
exercise of a religious ceremony.

The difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. When you
make relative value judgements, this is the danger you run into. When
you apply logic in the justification for allowing certain behaviors,
the same logic can be applied to a successive list of increasingly
abhorrent behaviors and practices. It comes down to what you are
willing to tolerate. Once you start down that slippery slope, there's
no turning back, without abandoning your logic and adopting some sort
of "bigotry".

Because -that- would be abhorrent.
What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your
business.

The fact that someone hides behind the walls of their house is
irrelevant. Murder is still murder, if it is done on a public street
or in the bedroom. The same principle applies for other behaviors.

You may not like knowing that homosexuality exists, but the
fact is that it does.

As does a number of mental illnesses. It still does not make it right.

More than a hundred years ago it was "abhorrent" for a woman to expose
her bare ankles in public.

And judging by the increasingly immoral tendencies in the mainstream,
it won't be long before women are parading around bare chested. Yet we
are somehow supposed to embrace this as a sign of "progress" or
"enlightenment."

Is that immoral?

That depends on what it was alleged to signify.

Now take a little time to
remember your history classes; it wasn't that long ago when cocaine
and heroin were sold over the counter, children worked 16 hours/day in
sweat shops for pennies, wife beating was not only tolerated but often
encouraged, slavery was legal in half the country, and people were
burned at the stake on the mere accusation of witchcraft (sounds a lot
like some of our present-day "allies").

A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the
idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want
blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black
vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak
rationalization of their racist attitudes.

You are confusing racism with morality. They're not the same, even if
some of the methods seem similar.

You are no different than those racists, Dave. You don't like the idea
that gays have just as much right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness" as yourself, and you use the excuse that gay marriage will
somehow diminish -your- values.

Homosexuality is a disorder of the brain. Not much different than
schizophrenia, bipolar, or a host of other disorders. We should be
looking for ways to treat and correct it, not for reasons to excuse
it.

A marriage is a symbolic ritual of bonding that occurs between
biologically compatible couples. There can be no natural procreation
in a homosexual union. So yes, those values ARE diminished.

And ironically, you are right because
your values are founded on generations of discrimination and bigotry.

You forgot the most important one - biology.

And in your ignorance, you think this country is in a state of moral
decline because more and more people are recognizing the fact that
homosexuality isn't evil.

The prisons are full of people who didn't think they did anything
wrong either......

But you are wrong, Dave

No, I'm not.

-- the state of
public morality is actually improving -despite- your best efforts to
prevent it.

You consider tolerance of an increasing list of bad behaviors and
habits as "improving"?

For example, in the past 20 years the public perception
surrounding AIDS has changed from one of gay-bashing to one of
acceptance. It changed because it was learned that the disease was
-not- the product of rampant homosexuality as it was first assumed.

The number one group most responsible of the proliferation of AIDS is
still, to this day, homosexual males having unprotected sex .

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102.pdf

If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.

Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed
people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you
weren't paying attention.

I was paying attention. To the facts.

There are many who believe that AIDS is the work of God, sent to
punish those who engage in "unworthy" behavior. It's easy for those
who have little faith in a supreme being to deny this possibility. But
it's interesting in where the highest percentages of HIV cases are,
and what activities place people at the most risk. Coincidence?

So the problem you face is not one of moral decline. What you refuse
to see is that the -church- is in a state of decline.

After watching the hubub surrounding the Pope, I'd say that religion
is alive and well.

More and more
people are getting educated and learning that the world works
according to the laws of science and logic, -not- according to the
fatalistic and vengeful edicts of some big, scary 'god'.

You call that "education"? I call that institutionalized ignorance.
Science and logic are not necessarily diametrically opposed to the
concepts of intelligent design. In fact they work hand in hand.

Religion is losing customers and you feel threatened.

Actually no. The more the world plunges into civil unrest, school
shootings, terrorism, general decay in decency and morality, the more
religion is making a comeback. In the period following 9/11, there was
a sharp increase in religious belief and interest in spirituality.

Well, kick back and pop a
brew, Dave, because this is America,

A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even
if the 1st amendment decries that there is no "official" state
sponsored religion.

and you have the right to
practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do
the same.

As long as what you do doesn't infringe on what I do or diminish the
values that this country was originally founded on.

But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic
group to dictate how others should live their lives.

Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of
the laws that we live under today.

Maybe you skipped history class that day, but the Constitution was
constructed to -prevent- minority rule.

But it was still drawn up and approved by a specific group of people.

As for television, the number of viewers determines the ratings of a
show, so let the ratings determine what companies sponser what shows.
That's how a free-market economy works. Or do you support the position
of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that
any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be
supressed?

Sometimes politics is at odds with economic considerations. Sometimes
you have to cut off your own nose to make a much larger point. That's
called "principle"

If you are a
Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me.

This has little to do with any specific religion.

Sure it does. You talk of morality but fail to understand that
different religions impose different moralities.

Morality does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with any
specific religion.

According to
Christianity, I'm immoral because I commit blasphemy. Yet there is
nothing in the Constitution that forbids atheism. On the contrary, it
-protects- my beliefs, right or wrong. It also seperates religion from
the government so my rights cannot be compromised by lawmakers who
think that atheism should be illegal just because -they- think it is
immoral.

Well, you make a gamble. Hopefully, when your body becomes worm food,
you won't find that you made the wrong choice.

You have your
values, I have mine, and others have theirs.

So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices?

The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional.

The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian
people with their religious inspired morality contained within its
wording.

And if you can't accept
the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave.

I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God",

The phrase "under God" was added in the 50's for whatever reason.
Considering that it was done at the height of the cold war and that
the Soviet Union had outlawed religion, I think it was a good idea.

It's STILL a good idea. Especially when you contrast our country with
the anti-religious Soviet Union, and the communists.

But guess what, Dave: the cold war is over.

No, it's not. We just changed players.

and "endowed by our
creator".

My "creator" is Mother Nature.

Call it whatever you wish. But there is a creator.

If you choose to reject science and
logic, that's your business.

Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more
generally, the concept of intelligent design. Our whole ecosystem, the
intricate specialization of the various functions of our bodies and
other aspects of nature are far too complex to have occurred and
evolved at random. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this
to happen.

If I'm wrong then you can rest assured
that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not
your's.

Yes, it is. But it's my business if you try to poison others by
"immoral" thinking. And hence we have the classic "moral dilemma".

Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to
pressure from these fanatics.

Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent
enough buying power to make any difference.

Religious fanatics, gay fanatics, save-the-whales fanatics..... it
doesn't make any difference. The point is that a minority group can
force a corporation to make a decision based on discrimination and
intolerance. It happens.

I don't believe that tolerance should be universal.

The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.

They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they
-can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said.

So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or
mainstream Christians?

Is there some reason you can't understand the simple concepts involved
when a company evaluates cost, profit and risk?

I understand fully. Hence my comment on who they'd rather **** off.
**** off the small potatoes to keep the larger ones happy. After all,
the larger ones have the most money.

Corps
make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping
ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in
profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that
the ads will be yanked.

Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still
outnumber gay groups.

Does that make it right?

No, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

Are Christians permitted to subjugate and
subvert the lives of other Americans simply because they outnumber
them?

Well, there is the concept of majority rules.

These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They
have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those
who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the
latest hedonistic pop-culture fad.

That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are
greedy *******s.

Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money
you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal
or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as
saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost
anything".

O.J. is a free man today because of such practices.

And many people are on death row because of the same practices.

Unfortunately true. But neither case should be acceptable. Justice
SHOULD be about finding the truth, not about the lawyer who puts on
the best show for the jury.

But
again you fail to address the fact that many times it's cheaper to
settle or take the hit than to fight the charge in court, and the
decision to fight is usually one based on money.

I agree. But in many cases the decision to fight also hinges on the
chances of winning. If the truth is on your side, then you should
fight. If your case is weak, then perhaps not.

-My- contention is
that the FCC uses this fact to it's advantage when it decides who to
fine and how much to fine them.

I'd be more inclined to believe your allegation of institutionalized
discrimination, if there were specific examples that highlight this
pattern.

In the personal radio arena, the FCC often takes into consideration
the ability of the defendant to pay the fine. In many cases, the fines
were lowered if the defendant can prove hardship.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge?

Cannot or will not.

I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.

Well, conspiracies do exist.

Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in.

You should concern yourself with the conflict between facts and your
"core beliefs".

As should you.

And if my conclusions are true, the FCC
wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not
interchangeable for fact.

I never said it was fact, Dave. Or haven't you been paying attention?

No but you present it as if it were. I'm merely putting the situation
in its proper perspective.

I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is
that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional.

I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged
unconstitutionality.

Then feel free to read through the rrcb archives.

Them's a mighty big group. Specifics please.

I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many
people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution,
would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be
"unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V.
Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a
judicial ruling rather than a legislative action.

Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated
the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the
Supreme Court, not established.

Exactly. But what right should a branch of government which is
supposed to interpret and apply the law, have in making or overturning
standing law? That is the job for the legislature.

And case law is just as much 'law' as
statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to
suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling"
is completely bogus.

I call it "overstepping their bounds". No law that is made by the
legislature should be struck down by a panel of judges without debate,
which should include the legislature who passed the law in the first
place.

Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many
different interpretations you can find from a single source of
information.

It doesn't affect you one bit if two homosexuals get married.

Yes it does. It diminishes the sanctity of the institution of
marriage. One that has existed for thousands of years.

You can
interpret it any way you want, but it's simply none of your business.

But it is.

Just like it's none of your business if your neighbor gets his dick
pierced,

Fine, just don't parade it in front of me or (more importantly) my
kids. And excuse me while a laugh my ass off at his stupidity.

or your Aunt Bertha gets orgasms riding a Hog.

That's deviant.

If that's how
they get their kicks then more power to them. Live and let live.

Some people get their kicks by having sex with small children. Should
we allow them to just live and let live? If not, then why not? Then
explain how this logic differs from any other justification for other
immoral behavior. Then we're back to the slippery slope.

As for abortion, I'll wait until the discovery process is finished.

Killing an innocent life, with no means of defense, is murder.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj