Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Opie and Anthony Apologize for Sex Comment
breakingnews.nypost.com — XM Satellite Radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony apologized Friday for airing a homeless man's crude comments that he'd like to have sex with Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth. Because the show airs on satellite radio, there are no federal restrictions on its content. According to XM's Web site, the radio service has parental
petsheep- 440 diggs
- digg it
- Moskie, on 10/11/2007, -6/+77***** like this pisses me off. Why do they have to apologize? I'm not a regular listener or anything, but I have a feeling I would have laughed at this bit. Is that so bad? So what if I think a homeless man banging Condi, or the First Lady, or the goddamn queen of England is funny, and so what if a radio show makes a joke about it.
Why can't people just leave well enough alone....- NICU, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38I can see people being upset if this segment was re-broadcast over terrestrial radio, but trying to censor satellite radio is ridiculous. XM and Sirius both have parental controls so that's more than enough censorship.
- carve, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15Yeah- they shouldn't apologize. They can say whatever they want. If people don't like it, they won't listen. But people DO like it except for a vocal minority. They're called "shock jocks" because they are SUPPOSED to say things like this. I'd like to hear Tom Leykis's take on this.
- ttntyler, on 10/11/2007, -46/+20Who listens to O&A anyway?
(zero.. point.. zero.) - arthritisankle, on 10/11/2007, -10/+23I love O and A and only heard part of the show this morning, but I'm pretty sure that this is a gag. They were playing it really safe and apologizing for every joke, which is completely out of character. This is a gimmick.
- illb, on 10/11/2007, -18/+22tnttyler - Zero point zero was a lie. They actaully had a 1.8, up from a .06. Check the facts, not the Howie Math.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -16/+23For those that listen to them, they were extremely pissed off at what happened to Imus. I'm sure it was in reaction to that.
And to ttntyler, I'm taking it you're one of those idiots that eat up all the ***** that spews from Howard Sterns mouth. I can't believe people still listen to that moron. - daRoach, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Well when the company they work for is trying to save themselves with the merger and when they start spewing this kind of stuff about the people who they are tying to ass kiss, it's not that good a move. I'm all for free speech, but when the sword of Damocles is directly overhead you have to play by the rules. Unless you are wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, and maybe this is what they want.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/11/2007, -31/+11ZZZZZZZZZZ
Ohhhh! We're all dangerous and shock-jock-esque just like Howard! Look, everyone, we had to apologize for something almost no one heard broadcast! Ohhhhhh! We're pirates!
Lame, non-news!
Just an attempt by O & A to restart their career. Any publicity, especially "bad" publicity is good. I mean, come on, if this had been on the news AND THEN they apologized, that would be believable. But this didn't even make the news, let alone the "Thrifty-Nickel" or "Grit!"
ZZZZZZZZZZ - Scyth3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@thatsmyaibo
Yeah, I'd be upset that I got publicly humiliated...but that 50 million dollar contract that followed his humiliation would be totally worth it. - dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10Yeah...
@aibo
If you're bragging about how original O&A are compared to Howard, just back off. Neither party has claim to being more "shocking" than the other. Any big head ego crap you carry for O&A or a Howard fan carries for his show is just pointless. You're passively ingesting radio and nothing more. Those people get paid to get you riled up about it. If your job depended on the production of that show, you might have some inkling of real desire to see the show succeed, but you're nothing more than a rabid fanboy.
O&A got dropped from Dallas for their ***** ratings BTW. Same timeslot and station as Howard had a year ago. Guess what? Howard averaged third in that same slot for the 3 years he was on that station.
But if you ask me, I listen to both shows and I hear the same show, just different people mouthing off. If I had to choose, I'd go with Howard simply because it's less grating to my ears. But I won't get rabid fanboy about defending him. - thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9I am not bragging about anything nor was it a comparison. But Howard was giving false information about O and A's ratings. I'm not here to announce my distaste for Howard Stern, I simply don't like the show enough to listen to it. But if people are going to give bad information because the heard it on his show, you bet I'm going to correct it. And you're attacking the wrong person. ttntyler is the one comparing and slamming. It just shows your 1-sidedness to you interests.
- zomgflamer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11"Mr Blu... Mr. Blutarsky!!.. Zero Point Zero!"
- Bamont, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4"Yeah- they shouldn't apologize. They can say whatever they want."
No, they actually can't. Freedom of Expression only applies to government based issues, and doesn't adhere to private entities. You cannot walk around and say absolutely anything you want - the Freedom of Expression is clear on this. You may make any statements or partake in any actions that do not violate somebody else's rights. It's that simple, in black and white.
Now, onto the more pressing issue - what they said was for shock value. It was funny - but I enjoy how we don't have a public out-cry from Jesse or Al about Condi, since you know - she is black. She works for Bush, and in many instances, they think of her as a white person who has abandoned her roots (apparently, no matter what idiot you work for - being successful is a no-no in their book).
Talk about biasm. If they had of come to me and told me to apologize, I would have told them to take that apology and shove it up the FCC's ass. They have no jurisdiction in space.
- TACH08, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Why is this even an issue? SatRadio does not fall under the FCC (and notice how the FCC did nothing to Imus or CBS for his comments).
The message sent is a seriously one.... even if the pubic pays for the content, it still can be censored... What's next, the 'comedy' channels on XM and SIRI... HBO and Showtime? PBS?
This is bad,.. I don't need a guy a like Drudge (who got this story up and running) dictating what I can see and hear... Like Drudge has a leg to stand on.... fcuking ponderous!!!
You Mom's Box was the closing line today... not a good sign... - commongiga, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23I've been a listener for about a year. O&A have said time and time again the best thing to do if you get in an Imus like situation is to apologize if you are forced to, and then just leave it alone. Let it fade away into sensationalized news oblivion. First of all, they didn't say anything, their homeless guest did. I guess you could argue they "silently endorsed" his opinion by not saying anything contrary to it.
Secondly, if you heard their apology it was almost word for word what the official XM apology was, and after Anthony read it you heard a lot of paper crinkling...implying that they were handed a statement and told "read it or be fired", and then went about their business. They alluded to the controversy, but never directly addressed it.
Opie and Anthony are doing the right thing, treating it as a non-issue because it was on XM.
This is a free speech issue. If you can't say what you want on satellite radio, we're not far in a society from not being able to say what we want period.
WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!- rmmatt01, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5The words "free speech" are thrown around a lot in cases like this, but is this really a free speech issue since the first amendment covers government censorship, not censorship from your employer? Am I wrong?
- treed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You're right and you're wrong.
The First Amendment is the guarantee that free speech will not be infringed by the government. I agree that when some company censors an employee, and the idiots start yelling "FIRST AMEDNMENT!!!11", it's pretty, well, idiotic.
However, there are folks who think that the right to free speech extends beyond government censorship. There exists the belief that we, as a society, should promote the ability to speak freely, whether or not the government is involved. How exactly that promotion is achieved is an occasional topic of debate.
So, in summary, first amendment issues can be free speech issues, but not all free speech issues are first amendment issues. (Also, the first amendment covers more than just free speech.) - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@commongiga
The thing is, people just said they were pissed off. Nobody said the speech should be banned by the government. This is called a "red herring" when you try to prove your point by responding to an argument that doesn't exist.
The "first amendment" red herring is frequently used to try to say that people don't have a right to be pissed off about speech or that a company doesn't have a right to censor its employee on company time. Obviously this isn't true. - OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7How many times will I have to post this before people understand:
http://www.digg.com/world_news/Please_understand_what_Free_Speech_is_before_you_say_it_is_being_attacked
Your 1st amendment rights are not protected in a corporate environment. You cannot say whatever you want to while on the job and expect the government, or constitution for that matter, to back you up. You're on the company's dime, you'll do and say as the company says. Oh you can try to buck the system, but know that there is a consequence to every action you take. The consequence may be you losing your job or you being forced to apologize on the air. - Manhigh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I don't think it matters whether it's the government or not.
The government doesn't have the right to detain me without fair trial, neither do other private citizens/entities.
The same goes for speech IMHO.
Its somewhat different with NDA's, because you're signing away your rights to the company. But if you don't sign an NDA, I don't think anyone can reasonably expect to restrict what you say. - stanleyford, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2@commongiga - "WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!"
Nor are you entitled to having your speech published by other people. If you want to have a show on a radio station, you play by the owners' rules. - kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You know.... once in a while, I wish one of these groups would get a massive donation, and run a commercial-offshoot satellite station (over the US, 6 satellites in geo-synchronous orbit should do it), and use it for good, not for evil. To air _all_ free speech, not just that deemed "commercially-acceptable, medium be damned."
Sigh. I know it will never happen (short of Bill Gates losing his entire fortune due to a clever legal loophole discovered by the EFF or some such) -- but it's a nice ideal to strive towards nonetheless. - stanleyford, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@Manhigh - "The government doesn't have the right to detain me without fair trial, neither do other private citizens/entities.
The same goes for speech IMHO."
No. Free speech is a liberty (which cannot be taken from you), not an entitlement (which must be provided to you). There's a difference: I can write a book about my crazy views on the world, and no one can stop me (because being able to speak is a liberty), but no one is obligated to publish that book either (because being able to speak is not an entitlement). What you are suggesting is that private entities have an obligation to publish speech, even if they disagree with it. Saying that one person is entitled to something (in this case, speech over satellite radio) at the expense of another person (in this case, the decision-makers who don't want that speech published) does not advance, but retards, the cause of freedom. - wcentanni, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I agree that the mood of the country is changing and it's ashame! Instead of being afraid of the terrorists, we are afraid of what we might say. I personally hate O&A, but I will defend their right to say just about whatever they want! Take a look at whats happening with Imus, Sharptin & Romeny. I can even hear a defensive tone in commentaries on news shows! Everyone wants to be "politically correct" We should all speak up now before we loose the right to speak up! Can't you see.....we are loosing our right to free speech. It seems like this administration is slowly but surely chipping away at our liberties in the name of national security! I've been writing to my congressman and senators. Theres strength in numbers. I hope and pray that other people won't be afraid to speak up!
- sweetrelease, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2the only difference between this and the Imus situation is this isent a group that they offended, its a person. And because that person is in the government people are getting all huffy.
- floridiot2, on 10/11/2007, -12/+53Condoleeza Rice is a nappy headed hoe.
- rmmatt01, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13While O&A often do raunchy and cringe humor like this, the vast majority of their show, believe it or not, is very thought-provoking and -dare I say, intelligent. Any one who has heard them speak on the Imus case, the VT shootings, or even during the days following 9/11 will testify to that. Sure they can be crude, but that's the style of their show as a whole and they shouldn't be solely judged on isolated sound-bytes like this.
- Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7Ah, yes... Like when they were at their last gig and spent what sounded like a week putting women in 55 gallon drums and dumping various substances on them.
If you like them, that's fine, but they've never been that deep any time I've hear them. - dvddesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4People don't listen to O&A for deep insightful commentary. That's what "This American Life" is for.
People listen to O&A/Howard/Imus for the shock value and color commentary.
Anyone can step back from their character role (these are characters after all) on a radio show and be serious for a few minutes.
Everyone should be aware of that... - rmmatt01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't have a problem with people who don't like their humor and I don't want to sound like I'm only out to defend these guys, but you shouldn't single out radio for content that is on the same level as South Park or Chappelle (they've done thing a lot more vulgar). Why are radio shows treated so differently?
- stgeorge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Actually, people only listen to O&A for Anthony's killer Dice impression.
- Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7Ah, yes... Like when they were at their last gig and spent what sounded like a week putting women in 55 gallon drums and dumping various substances on them.
- TACH08, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@NICU Being that XM replayed the 'bit/show', I don't think they had an issue with it. It wasn't until Drudge made an issue of it did it get legs.
Plus far worse has been heard on T-Radio...
Seriously, Gamers, Stern fan, etc.. beware! This will not stop here,.. time to draw the line in the sand... - BonhamsGhost, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Not a fan at all, but this is ridiculous. It wasn't on regular radio, it was on a PAY service. Dont' pay for it if it offends you. I bet they use this ***** to help block the merger.
- pauleric, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yes, they're a business. And most people don't find punching women and violent sex all that funny (to put it mildly), in fact, they tend to avoid businesses who promote that sort of thing. If XM doesn't want to limit their audience to a fraction of their potential market, they'll at least make noises about how they disapprove of things like this. In the future they may have to go further than this.
- Toddbrew1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I would'nt have apologized. They are Opie and Anthony and they are hired for being on the cutting edge of crudeness. It's what listeners want to hear. Shock jock radio on a subscription radio. I would cancel this ***** joke of a station. I would ***** Condoliza while eating the Queen and pooping on Laura Bush.
- invisiblehat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3As much as you say you wouldn't have apologized. If you were actually in this situation, you would've likely apologized in order to keep your very high paying job.
I would have not wanted to either, but if I was being paid like that to run my mouth on the radio, I would've apologized too- who says the apology was sincere anyways...
- invisiblehat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3As much as you say you wouldn't have apologized. If you were actually in this situation, you would've likely apologized in order to keep your very high paying job.
- dogstar0125, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Seriously, who doesn't have the hots for Queen Elizabeth? Wasn't George Bush making eyes at her the other day?
- gopher043, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Let's throw a couple of the Golden Girls into the mix and I am so there.
- dhalgren99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Could be worse...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTQY1Aw9zcs - Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3If Bush got a knobber from the Queen, could we finally impeach him?
- Intervention, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That is funny, on yesterday's show they were talking about how apologetic the world is
- arthritisankle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3It's a gag... has to be.
- Technopundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Makes me wanna gag, I know that ...
- bhigh24, on 10/11/2007, -23/+11Stern would never apologize. O&A are weak.
- daemoncel, on 10/11/2007, -11/+11you sir are a loser... get aids and die
frunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnkis - frodsteamin2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6please get gonorrhea and die
- daemoncel, on 10/11/2007, -11/+11you sir are a loser... get aids and die
- OswaldKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2The issue was more about rape than it was about sex. While we're tossing around free speech rights, how about talking about good taste rights. Sure one could just change the channel or turn off the radio, but there should be a level of decency that is observed. I applaud XM for taking action. Now if the FCC gets involved, like it has with Stern and Imus, there is a huge problem.
- HackLawyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7You've completely distorted the issue! This wasn't about sex or rape or race. It was drudge finding a corresponding scenario to Imus and alleging hypocrisy on the part of supporters of political correctness to discredit it. Good job playing into his hands.
- cozinator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2XM took action because they're afraid of the negative repercussions of the incident: bad press, potential boycotts and loss of revenue. It wasn't a bold statement about decency and "good taste rights".
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2XM took action because they have a merger with Sirius coming up, one that has to be approved by the FCC.
- TACH08, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ OswaldKenobi - The FCC did not take action against Imus... look it up... Also, the FCC has no say in satellite radio because it is a pay service... if they did, Premium Cable Channels like HBO, Showtime would of been long gone. Again, look it up...
Makes you wonder how South Park and other get away with what they do....
- leonwestbrook, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16If they remove O&A, I remove my xm radio from my apartment and I will cancel.
- arthritisankle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Flush your XM down the toilet, buy a Sirius, and ***** your mother!
- f7eleven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire
please visit http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/ and help keep your favorite radio programs, artists and musicians uncensored. - trouble916, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Today's terrestrial show was awesome! A perfect example of the kind of boring, bland, acceptable content the nannies of this world want us to listen to.
The fact that no company is willing to back up their talent is despicable!- twinklyJesus, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Maybe the fact that no company is willing to back them IS an indication of their "talent."
- patsonrt1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@twinklyjesus
Shut your pie hole Missy. It is obvious companies are not standing by their talent. As soon as some group (and they are always non listeners) raises a ruckus the talent gets fired.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Maybe the fact that no company is willing to back them IS an indication of their "talent."
- mojo0510, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ant says it all the time. You do have the right to say what you want in this country. You don't have the right to be not offended. Free speech comes at a price.
- HackLawyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Please bury this! The Imus controversy gained steam partially because there was a slow news week. Continued media exposure can only serve to build momentum for the story. There was a very good reason that their show was as nonchalant as it was today. It serves O&A fans, Stern fans, gamers, fans of comedians and anyone else who appreciates media that avails itself of the First Amendment to not dignify the headline-grabbing hyper-reactionaries.
Remember, there's a potential that Imus would still be on the air today if the VT shooting had happened a week sooner. Instead, Imus played into his critics' hands by dignifying them. - curtosrules, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Its a freakin joke/spoof. How many times have they said that apologizing is so stupid. Come on people, get with the program!!!
- FriedTurkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Who asked them to apologize other that XM radio corporate? It sounds like a publicity stunt. Is there really anything shock jocks can do to be shocking anymore? It doesn't sound that bad to me. Who would subscribe to the content other than people who really want to hear homeless guys saying they want to have sex with the Queen? Not my thing but I don't really give a rat's ass.
- timeinseconds, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4I remember when O&A were in Boston on WAAF
- BonhamsGhost, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Thanks for sharing
- twinklyJesus, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4I remember when I didn't even know who O & A were...Oh yeah, last month!
- dgh1973, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I would bang them to, but I'm not homeless so I could afford to buy them dinner first.
- yeediddy, on 10/11/2007, -17/+14i expect to be dugg down by all the pests - but this type of radio is why O & A had a 0.0 (ZERO POINT ZERO) rating in several markets - including Dallas and Chicago.
- daemoncel, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13you are wrong... Howie Math Strikes Again. They never had a 0.0 and that is a FACT!
- frodsteamin2, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5youre an idiot...please prove this...or wait let me guess you heard this from someone else who heard it from howies show
- Repeater2000, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4ZERO POINT ZERO
Too funny, especially hearing them flip out over that knock and practically choke on the tears. - BasharTegg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The 0.0 ratings for Las Vegas and one other market were in the latest monthly ratings (which don't get broadly released) rather than in the quarterlies, a fact that can be confirmed by listening to the call O and A made to Tim Sabien.
The name of the other market was stated incorrectly initially, which was what O and A were complaining about.
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7it's not rape. it's surprise sex
- gopher043, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I think homeless people have more to worry about then who they want to *****. Like getting hit with a concrete block by a couple of 10 year olds.
- qishi, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1In other news, people still listen to "shock jocks".
- Repeater2000, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Pussies...
Typical. - MeMongo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1When are O and A going to apologize for putting on ***** shows every morning. I'm not saying that Stern >= O & A (or Stern
- mykos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I think it makes the apology actually mean something when the FCC isn't requiring it; good on 'em. Never listened to the show before, though.
Then again, the comments/apology could just be a publicity stunt to get attention. - WhateverMJ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7This is a pathetic example of the media trying to ignite a situation that they can report on, and it's failing miserably (I'm happy to say).
This "report" first appeared on Drudge, I'm wondering where it came from, probably Mancow himself, since had so much intensity on Hannity and Colmes that night.
What they wanted to do was rile up a special interest group that would give them some good camera shots of people protesting and marching, so they can all shake their heads and roll their eyes at the horribleness of talk radio personalities.
What happened was Hannity & Colmes and Sheppard Smith made a morally courageous judgment on air to say "No, this happened on a private entertainment medium only available to the people who want to hear that type of comedy.", which is absolutely correct.
Not to mention all the deplorable spinjobs done by various "blogosphere" pseudo-journalists, going so far as to call the off-the-cuff spontaneous comments by a legitimate New York City homeless man a "rape skit", as if it were on the god damned schedule.
It seems as though the defense wall of the uncensored, unregulated XM content is holding, for NOW, but, even a foothold gained by these moralist, holier-than-thou, milquetoast kvetching nannies is UNACCEPTABLE.
www.peopleagainstcensorship.com
It's time there was an activist group FOR the right to enjoy offensive material and black comedy. - Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Opie & Dopie suck monkey balls..
However they still shouldn't be apologizing for this since they are not in FCC area..
***** the FCC! - juicebag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I hate when things like this, like the Imus thing, start as not mattering too much and then press covers it and it's a huge career-threatening issue.
- ValleyBoy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2In other news, mentally immature people find "shock jocks" funny.
- frodsteamin2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6in other not so odd news, you're not straight.
- raybury, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I'm not owed an apology.
People who regularly listen to O&A are probably not owed an apology.
The women whose imagined rapes were discussed -- rapes, not sexual encounters -- are owed an apology. - echolalia, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Nobody is talking about censoring. They can't do that.
They're just upset about what they said, which, in all honesty, was pretty vile. - PrometheuZ, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Any link to a clip of this skit?
- cozinator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Shepherd Smith hit the nail on the head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jT_kX2Svow- PrometheuZ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4He hit the nail on the head here too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqfJp4WBBQ - jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3People tend to paint Fox with a broad brush because of their top rating programs, but Shepard Smith is one of the best journalists on TV.
- dn11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"i said something that made sense... i'm sorry about that slip up there, i don't know why i did that, it will never happen again"
- PrometheuZ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4He hit the nail on the head here too:
- DoctorOrpheus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2The only thing that I am offended by is that O&A are not funny.. I heard the segment, it wasn't funny, they should apologize because they are ***** clown shoes at best.. Too bad I can't complain to the FCC, not about what they said, but there lack of talent.. but honestly, are rape jokes funny at all? I think you could be shocking by saying you want to bang Condi, without implying you are using force and enjoying it like their idiot guest.
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Opie and Anthony are shoes?
- daemoncel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1did you PLJ today?
- oricyst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Anything can be funny. Maybe a rape joke isn't funny to you but I'm sure there's something you find funny that offends other people. And stop with your "The only thing that I am offended by is that O&A are not funny." It's a lame argument and is probably only supported by the fact that you like some other morning show.
- ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't get it. We are talking about satellite radio! I'm not a radio listener, but I do know that first you have to pay for those things (so that eliminates quite a lot of listeners already). Second, there are no federal restrictions. So technically O&A can say whatever they want. Not to mention they already have parental control already! I think those barriers are good enough.
Is the content bad? Yeah, because I personally do NOT want to have sex with the First Lady, Rice, and the Queen, even if they pay me. Like everything else, there is the good and the bad. Free speech is no exception. On a sidenote, that homeless dude really have a royal taste when it comes to sex. - viviwanu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8The homeless sure knows how to flatter ***** women!
- ScottoGato, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3In the words of Dave Chappelle, "do what you gotta do, son."
- IlIlIlIlIlIl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0http://i9.tinypic.com/4ptf76o.gif
- jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4How is this more offensive than Howard taking advantage of retards ad nauseum on terrestrial radio?
- monterey67, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1stop your jivin' turkey !!!
- conmulligan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Lame.
- bels, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5All I really have to say is, zero point zero. O&A were funny during only one segment for the 2 months i listened to it while waking up in the morning. It wasn't even them, it was them playing audio clips from a 60s "porn" movie called Mondo Topless. An over the top announcer and corny lines made it funny, but they didnt actually make it. They constantly talked about howard and how he sucks or whatever. Howard is funny every day prettymuch, much more interesting compared to the boring as ***** O&A. O&A had a live show in boston where fans were sposed to meet them at the radio station and then walk down to some food place to eat. Like 5 people showed up and it was about an hour of people just breathing heavy and hardly talking the entire way to the Bickfords. Terrible Radio.
- mrjofo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@bels (#6641608)
Next we have Buxotic bels!! 50/50 where it counts!
- mrjofo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@bels (#6641608)
- NextGenXbox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4That bit was hilarious. That homeless guy is funny and the comments were only jokes.
I know O&A didn't want to apologize but were told by their superiors.... what with the whole Don Imus thing..... I don't blame them though, they want to keep their jobs. - kabewm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Join the battle for free speech before it’s too late. Join the People Against Censorship in our protest for sanity in the media.
DATE: MAY 12TH, 2007
TIME: 12 NOON
PLACE: Union Square Park, NYC
RSVP ASAP…
Email: doghouserights@gmail.com
Meeting Place:
East 14th st and Broadway
FYI:
5th Ave divides East and West
- If you can make a sign, please do so. If not let us know.
- Also bring your friends that support Free Speech and let us know if they’ll be coming too!
PLEASE DONT BE SHY… FREE SPEECH, THE DOG HOUSE, AND O&A ARE AT RISK!
Important Links: Please send these links around the net! Put them in your e-mail signature, your MySpace blogs, everywhere!
Dog House Army: http://www.doghousearmy.org/
Petition To Save the Show: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/SAVEJVANDELVIS
Support Thread - Contact Information - Sponsors: http://takinabreak.com/doghouseforums/showthread.php?t=3540
Join the Boycott: http://www.jointheboycott.org/
People Against Censorship (Thanks for all the help!): http://www.peopleagainstcensorship.org - benmarvin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1*****, somebody call Al Sharpton to call off his dogs.
- UObean, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Shock jocks that apologize, what is this world coming to?
- Heiios, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Your Moms Box
- joshutk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I saw this on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. (Don't judge, I watch it on occasion for it's entertainment quality, plus Keith Olbermann was on vacation or something). In typical fasion, Bill told it like it was O & A who said all that stuff, not the homeless guy.
Granted, it was off color and crude, but what the hell, it's a homeless guy on subscription radio. Give it a rest. - shiftless, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1They didn't say anything. They just want ratings. I haven't heard about these guys in a long time.
Yeesh, talk about a face for radio... -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
