A A A A Search :

Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)

login • sign up home • about • help • archives • index • tags • changes • search

» NYPD Blue over 1 million fine for showing girls butt

From prime3end's workspace   

NYPD Blue over 1 million fine for showing girls butt

---

created by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 07:35:24 am     Comments: 24

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

So the worst evil on earth, is it murder, or keeping people terrorized like the media and the bushites do?
Or is it nudity? Who could have guessed.

posted by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 08:15:40 am     #

Can you dig up a video of dem buns ?

Let us be the judge of all this.

posted by elmahico on Jan 28, 2008 at 10:22:21 am     #

Youtube pulled the video immediately, someone might post it again, but probable won't make it through Youtubes army of censors for jesus and the talliban way of life.

posted by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 10:58:16 am     #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnsxFvCaZJ8

here it is again on youtube

posted by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 11:09:58 am     #

Not bad. Kinda beefy, though.

Fine and costs suspended. - Go and 'sin' no more.

posted by elmahico on Jan 28, 2008 at 11:41:34 am     #

So, Prime, you seem to not like the idea of using the FCC to manage content on moral grounds. I am certainly with you there.

However, I am curious - what are your feelings on using the FCC to manage content on political speech grounds as in the Fairness Doctrine?

Assuming you are equally offended by both assaults on freedom, then you and I would be on the same page in wanting to disband the FCC as a regulatory agency that has outlived its original purpose and is now only used as a political hammer against freedom.

posted by babbleman on Jan 28, 2008 at 11:41:39 am     #

Very easy to relate to you mine SS overfuerer,,, I firmly believe that without a fairness doctrine, as now, there is NO effective 5th estate, and oil companies can wage war in the name of an entire nation, and get away with it. Hows that for an example?

And babbleman, I don't consider a girls butt to be a moral issue. On the other hand, I belive that the loss of our democratic republic IS a moral issue and that such a republic can only survive with an intact and independent press. The press should be feared, not the ******* government.

I don't view the fairness doctrine as an "assualt on freedom",, you silly silly boy. You need to boner up on your history. CNN is barred from airing in the U.K, because of what it leaves out, and the lies it spews, imagine how big a ban they put on Faux news.

Your words spoken like a true enemy of common sense and democracy. Go polish your ss badges. You seem to need stinkin badges. LOL

posted by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 11:57:06 am     #

Good screen name, babble. Very accurate.

Quite an extrapolation on your part in re disbanding FCC.

posted by elmahico on Jan 28, 2008 at 12:01:25 pm     #

>>And babbleman, I don't consider a girls butt to be a moral issue.>>

Maybe you don't, but whoever has the FCC concerned with this issue certainly does.

Those that would use the FCC to fine a broadcaster for a girl's butt are using the regulatory agency to enforce a morality.

Those that would use the FCC to force broadcasters to artificially include political speech content that is not commercially viable (or artificially reduce content that is commercially viable) are are using the regulatory agency to restrict free speech.

When a radio audience wants 15 units of speech A and 5 units of speech B, and the government comes in and forces speech A to be reduced to 10 and speech B to be increased to 10 so that they are even - that is not free speech. And if it is not free speech, it is an assault on freedom.

So, elmahico, what is your problem with disbanding the FCC? As someone who, I assume, cherishes freedom, what exactly do you want your government to do with an organization like the FCC? What possible purpose can it have now that we have cable, satellite and the internet?

And, then, assuming you have some really compelling arguments for keeping it, how do you shield those same arguments from being used to expand the FCCs authority over cable, satellite and the internet?

I mean, if the regulation of the airwaves is a good thing, why not use it everywhere?

posted by babbleman on Jan 28, 2008 at 12:32:42 pm     #

What is it that I am hearing, Babbleman? I am thinking it is the sound of ignorance, and given the fine value of your concise words, I am not surprised that is it present here.

It is silence, the very absence of sound (or in this venue, words).

Nothing whatsoever emanates from the direction of prime3end or elmahico.

There was such a flurry of activity from 7:30 this morning until noon this day. It is seems that the passion exhibited earlier by your detractors is no longer present...

...as it should be.

posted by AirTrainer on Jan 28, 2008 at 06:29:49 pm     #

Airtrainer, we answered him well, but you, also being a fascist, can't hear the answer. Reread my post, this time remove the bush nazi regalia from your ears. Babbledope hasn't said anything thats even reasonable. Is he in special classes at the SS for underachievers? And you apparently can't read either.

posted by prime3end on Jan 28, 2008 at 07:10:22 pm     #

$1.5 million is well worth the publicity for an otherwise ho-hum show. They probably won't actually have to pay it.

It's the one where the cops are good guys and they always win right? Bet you it's a cliffhanger.

posted by charlatan on Jan 28, 2008 at 08:33:43 pm     #

To OBERSTURMBANNFUHRER NikeAirTrainer - The sounds of silence that you appear to use in claiming your 'intellectual victory' are indicative of people that have lives and can not play in the internet blogosphere all day long, as you appear to. Some people have a life - I strongly suggest you would get one.

OBERFUHRER babbleman was a bit difficult to follow in his logic, but not as difficult as you.

Since an OBERSTURMBANNFUHRER outranks an OBERFUHRER, both in rank and stupidity, I will deal with your nonsense first.

It is the sounds of your OWN ignorance that you hear, goppa. Reread your post.. I had to read it 5 times before I realized you were attacking me. Hell, for the first 3 reads I thought you were supporting me, because I was really just on the sidelines watching.

"...given the fine value of your concise words," - taking your meager vocabulary out for a walk ? I wold say to park it in the garage until you understand the meaning of these words. Concise ? Good God man, he even CLAIMS to be a babbler.

"I am not surprised that 'is it' present here"
That threw me, until I realized that you do not know that the purpose of rereading your statement before you post it is to help the reader determine if you are making a statement or asking a question.

I notice that you do not even state a position on this matter at hand.

To OBERFUHRER babblebitch - "my problem with disbanding the FCC ?" I do not see that I ever said that. You see, you are just a bitch looking for an argument.

Go to dictionary.com and look up the meaning of 'extrapolation'.

You go from attempting to find common ground with prime3end on regulation of content, take him with you on the subject of political speech, and then you have him by your side in disbanding the FCC. You are humorous in your reasoning.

For the record, I do not think that the FCC should be disbanded.. I think they should be more consistent in their actions. Most government agencies need an overhaul from time to time, and I think it is time for this one.

posted by elmahico on Jan 28, 2008 at 09:55:43 pm     #

I just watched Hank Hill tonight. And his cartoon dad and neighbor both flashed their butts at him (mooned him) Will they be fined?

posted by ToledoLatina on Jan 29, 2008 at 01:12:42 am     #

I don't think my take was much of an extrapolation. These are 2nd ammendment issues - both the butt and the Fairness Doctrine. There is no difference between the two except that one tends to be favored by the moral right and the other by the left.

I personally don't favor either. Knowing prime's general stance on most things, I was just testing the depth of his philosophy. In other words, is he defending the 2nd ammendment consistently, or only in those situations where abusing it benefit his political opponents?

elmahico, from your original post, I made the reasonable assumption that you didn't like the idea of the FCC being retired. And, as it turns out, I am right. So what's with all the name calling and personal assaults? Can't you debate rationally?

posted by babbleman on Jan 29, 2008 at 07:30:28 am     #

posted by Darkseid on Jan 29, 2008 at 07:45:19 am     #

I christen elmahico and prime3end to be the new Criterion Brothers.

You two are dumber than a bag of hammers.

***********************************

I transposed two words recently. My bad.

I amend the second sentence of my first post to read, "I am thinking it is the sound of ignorance, and given the fine value of your concise words, I am not surprised that it is present here."

***********************************

Hell, for the first 3 reads I thought you were supporting me, because I was really just on the sidelines watching.

No, you weren't.

Passive/aggressive behavior doesn't work here.

***********************************

The intellectual victory was won by Babbleman long before my first post; you two geniuses simply didn't know it. Surprise, surprise.

***********************************

Several of Babbleman's questions remain unanswered:

1) As someone who, I assume, cherishes freedom, what exactly do you want your government to do with an organization like the FCC?

2) What possible purpose can it have now that we have cable, satellite and the internet?

3) And, then, assuming you have some really compelling arguments for keeping it, how do you shield those same arguments from being used to expand the FCCs authority over cable, satellite and the internet?

4) I mean, if the regulation of the airwaves is a good thing, why not use it everywhere?

5) In other words, is he defending the 2nd ammendment consistently, or only in those situations where abusing it benefit his political opponents?

6) So what's with all the name calling and personal assaults?

7) Can't you debate rationally? (This one is not presented rhetorically.)

posted by AirTrainer on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:34:51 am     #

You must be the long fabeled HAL 9000 there brainiac.. LOL,, a first year history student knows that without the press as a final watchdog on government, there is little chance for a democracy. 5 corporations decide what you will see with regard to news in the US, on tv, hear on radio, see in print. They are all corporate monopolies who drink neocon kool aid. Ask why CNN and FOX don't air in the U.K.
The fairness doctrine was there to make sure both sides of every story were told. Not there anymore is it.
So what do you call a government that only allows one side to be heard?

Have you been hitting the bottle?

posted by prime3end on Jan 29, 2008 at 07:51:27 pm     #

elmahico to prime3end -

I'm bailing out of this 'conversation'. Can you take over for me ? - Seems I am spending more time than intended on AirTrainer - appears from the previous posts he himself provided that he is either drinking, or a wack job.

Over and out.

posted by elmahico on Jan 29, 2008 at 11:42:03 pm     #

>>5 corporations decide what you will see with regard to news in the US, on tv, hear on radio, see in print. They are all corporate monopolies who drink neocon kool aid.>>

prime, lets take Rush Limbaugh as an example. He is carried on stations in a number of markets, has a number of listeners in each market and, based on the number and demographics of those listeners, commands a certain advertising rate in each market.

So help me understand how your idea works in this case regarding the 5 corporations that decide what we hear over the airwaves.

Are you saying that,

a) they (the corporation(s) that control the airwaves) are airing Rush despite the fact that the people who listen to the show in those markets really would rather hear someone else or,

b) that the people who listen to the show in those markets would be better off if they listened to something else.

??

I'm trying to better understand your position prime. Help me out.

posted by babbleman on Jan 30, 2008 at 12:57:57 am     #

rupert murdock has come out saying that he tried to influence public opinion to fit the nazi aims and creed. All the other news sources are right wing and gooses stepping chicken shits. They questioned NOTHING in the march to war for oil and arms profits. I blame them directly for not wanting to do their job, mostly for reasons of profit and cowardice. Yes cowardice. They were afraid to ask the questions, and afraid of governments response.

The five corporations are media corporations. Most people still get their news from the telescreen,, err television. TV appeals to the masses, maybe its all those pretty colored flashing lights.

What I said, and what I'll say again is that without a free and fair press as assured by the fairness doctrine, there is no final check and balance on democracy. Not that we have a democratic republic anymore. Rush Limpdruggie should be tried for treason. He's not an American.

Ask yourself why faux and CNN isnt allowed in the UK
The press you see , to protect democracy must be truly independent of the state, not a politically aligned corporation intent on expansion to the point that "There can be only one".

a. When a country faces a question of war the press should always question, not climb in bed with the government because of their own monetary self interest.

b. The anger of the American people was intentionally misdirected at Iraq by this administration, over 911. By not questioning the government, the press helped to spread the lies that enabled the oil companies war against Iraq. Notice we don't go to help those being slaughtered elsewhere in Africa. But if there is oil, well, Exxon is a part of the government now, as well as Hunt Oil. So, people in those markets would be better off if they weren't lied to in an intentional and long lasting act of treason by pushing nothing but the administrations lies into the fearful and angry mugs of the American media audience. Did I mention treason? Its just that its so apparent I want to mention it again.

Now that the truth is coming out, which proved to be a several year process, with much still hidden from us, with bushes popularity at 29%, with the GOP in trouble, how do you think Americans would answer your question,, as a group I mean. Do you think they would want to hear both sides of everything from now on?

posted by prime3end on Jan 30, 2008 at 01:04:37 pm     #

I wish my ass looked like that! If it did, I might show it off too!

Lighten up folks!

posted by FatBabe44 on Jan 30, 2008 at 01:28:18 pm     #

You know prime, it is weird but your postings are a totally one way affair. You don't seem to respond to anything anyone else says or asks directly. Instead, post after post you just repeat the same things.

I'm trying to apply your assertion that the press is controlled by a group of companies against things we can observe in the market to see if they match up. But there is no way to do that unless I can get more details out of you as to how this control actually works.

posted by babbleman on Jan 30, 2008 at 04:17:15 pm     #

Ahhhh....liberal love and tolerance. I've always loved it.

posted by Darkseid on Feb 01, 2008 at 09:43:01 am     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2009 Toledo Talk

current date: 07-Jan-2009 4:52 P.M.

old version of Toledo Talk