Skip to comments.Long time gun owner Howard Stern reiterates his opposition to Assault Weapons
Posted on 01/02/2013 4:33:13 AM PST by jern
Long time gun owner HowardStern reiterates his opposition to assault weapons in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.
yet the stupid, vapid, POS endorses Obama at every chance.
the title and the text does not coincide. which is it?
Look for an increase “angry backlash” in 2013.
Since the text matches the tweet, I would conclude that the thread is mistitled.
Like the GOP, this posting is
Like a chicken with no head.
And this is note worthy because?
They need to enforce the laws that we already have.They need to quit relying on laws to cure societal/cultural depravity. I would argue they need to get rid of most existing gun laws. Most gun laws (the gun free zone law for just one example) are a false sense of security.
As for killings (singly or in mass), there needs to be a monumental cultural shift *back* to when we held a higher regard for "life" and away from thug-culture. This will take generations and there is no law anyone could possibly dream up that would affect it in the slightest.
We (society) have stupidly decided that the only "socially-acceptable" form of self-defense & protection is via some govt entity. We (society) have stupidly decided that personal self-defense is viewed first and foremost as "vigilante-justice" and is frowned upon until overwhelming evidence proves (to the dumbest observer) that it was absolutely justified.
Whenever you hear a politician demanding some law after *any* tragedy (killings, oil-spills, hurricane, whatever) don't be a sap and take them seriously. All they are doing is using the tragedy to score cheap political points with the evermore gullible, dumb voter. Enacting a new law "solves" the problem in the eyes of the gullible voter when it doesn't affect the problem one darn bit. It is no different than the cops getting tunnel vision on the wrong suspect while the real rapist/killer is still at large (ie Richard Jewell/Eric Rudolph).
No reason. Howard Stern used to be somewhat newsworthy given his high profile and huge audiences on radio, TV, and even film at one point. But he all of that up when he went to satellite radio. Now he has a niche program with a small audience and he had more or less disappeared from popular culture. Now he's re-emerged on some talent show as a host which is the modern day equivalent of a gig as center-square on "Hollywood Squares". He doesn't matter.
That “some talent show” has the most viewers of any summer season. He probably has better exposure on that than on his radio gig.
Exposure isn't what it's cracked up to be. Kim Kardashian is fantastic at getting exposure. You can't buy groceries without seeing her face stare down at you from some magazine cover. We all know who she is, we see her all the time. But do we care what she thinks? More importantly, is her opinion likely to change else's? If she had come out and said "I support Romney" would the 18-25 year old single white women have changed their votes? Lindsay Lohan actually did say that, and she has similar exposure, so did that make any difference at all? No way.
When people listened to Howard I would argue that he could in fact influence them. Remember when he said he was going to run for governor of NY and it actually made some noise for a short time? Remember when Christie Todd Whitman named a Garden State Expressway rest stop after him to get the publicity boost? He had influence then. Those days are gone.
Not talking about Piers Morgan, but nice spin. Your original comment was wrong.
Off to work to participate in the 53%.
Happy new year.
Yeah, I guess I was wrong. Howard still seems able to influence you. Well, he’s probably no worse than most republicans at this point and maybe better than a lot so I guess that’s not all bad. Happy New Year to you too.
You don’t know m opinion of Howard because I haven’t expressed it. I merely pointed out your feigned misunderstanding of the name of the show trying to make it seem it was a minor show, was in error because of the high ratings. You made up the other stuff.
And you have spent the day going back and forth because you don’t have the honesty to admit your error.
I also pointed out that Stern did once have real influence. I said Howard had flirted with running for governor and it made big news. It happened. I said he was courted by politicians and had a rest stop named after him by the NJ governor. He did. Where's the lie?
Is X-Factor a big show? Sure. He comments on guys who play harmonica and singers and dog acts. If you think that's the same as having a three hour platform every day with millions of listeners and politicians vying for a favorable mention (all of which Howard had in the 90s) well, whatever.
I'm done with this but I won't sink to the level of accusing you of dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise.
Not what you said in ten. You have been spinning all day. I’m getting off the carousel.