J
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
P
Pat Lucci
Guest
I can't stand this moron, and I would love to see him in prison where he belongs. I'm sure that his purgery is just the tip of the iceberg. That said, I would give him back his liscense if he would agree to leave radio ... forever!!!
of course he should keep his license. his conviction was a political hit job.
justice tempered with mercy.
have him go mop up urine puddles on the subway. have him go into inner cities and read to pooe children. pay a fine. and allow him to go on with life.
slightly off topic...i heard callahan refer to bill clinton as a 'felon' this morning. when was clinton convicted of a felony? weei shouldnt have resigned those political hacks.
justice tempered with mercy.
have him go mop up urine puddles on the subway. have him go into inner cities and read to pooe children. pay a fine. and allow him to go on with life.
slightly off topic...i heard callahan refer to bill clinton as a 'felon' this morning. when was clinton convicted of a felony? weei shouldnt have resigned those political hacks.
blamethemayo said:of course he should keep his license. his conviction was a political hit job.
justice tempered with mercy.
have him go mop up urine puddles on the subway. have him go into inner cities and read to pooe children. pay a fine. and allow him to go on with life.
slightly off topic...i heard callahan refer to bill clinton as a 'felon' this morning. when was clinton convicted of a felony? weei shouldnt have resigned those political hacks.
Isn't perjury a felony? So, he was charged with a felony. In Clinton's case, though he was impeached (put on trial), he was never actually convicted...though it was a bit close. They needed 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict him and came up short.
Thus, he was acquitted of the felony of perjury (though we all know he did it). If it were you or I, we certainly would have been found guilty. But, the Senate wisely chose step back from that for the good of the country. Convicting the President of such a crime would have had huge and historic implications - including Clinton's removal from office. It's a deadly serious matter and the crime committed did not rise to that level in the opinion of the Senate.
Clinton was disbarred though, which tells you something.
So, Callahan was close but still incorrect. Clinton was never convicted and is thus not a felon. Unlike the morning drive host on WRKO.
impeachment is a political act, not a legal act.
Pat Lucci said:I can't stand this moron, and I would love to see him in prison where he belongs. I'm sure that his purgery (sic) is just the tip of the iceberg.
Interesting comment. Just what has Finneran done that you find moronic? Be specific, because obviously you wouldn't make that statement without some instances you could cite.
This could be the making of an interesting conversation.
Regards,
TSB
P
Pat Lucci
Guest
Well, TS, being a representative of the people, trying to effect the design of a district while risking being exposed resulting in a significant fall from grace seems moronic. Being a lawyer and knowing the penalties for lying under oath in a court of law could be seen as arrogant, but could be called moronic. Finally, accepting a job as a talk show host with no talent, minimal intellect and no ability to entertain can be considered in many circles moronic.
Others may call these missteps other things, but when you consider that they cost him high public office, a mid-six figure job, his law license and his reputation, I consider it all moronic.
I hope this clarifys my position and my comment.
Others may call these missteps other things, but when you consider that they cost him high public office, a mid-six figure job, his law license and his reputation, I consider it all moronic.
I hope this clarifys my position and my comment.
Well, TS, being a representative of the people, trying to effect the design of a district while risking being exposed resulting in a significant fall from grace seems moronic.
A pol trying to cement and expand his base is hardly moronic, especially in the state where this sort of thing became such an art form that they gave it a name.
Being a lawyer and knowing the penalties for lying under oath in a court of law could be seen as arrogant, but could be called moronic.
No, arrogant, especially since he didn’t think he was going to be caught. His miscalculation was in not realizing that enough folks had the knives out for him to take him down. He, if anyone, should have remembered that politics in Mass ain’t beanbag.
Finally, accepting a job as a talk show host with no talent, minimal intellect and no ability to entertain can be considered in many circles moronic.
Well, if we wait long enough, we usually find the best was saved for last. Yes, it must stick in the craw of all those talented, intellectual and entertaining hosts who can’t get arrested in this town to have him take down a nice gig. I’m not sure what’s moronic about him beating them out for a job, though. Truth to tell, I’m not sure I know many folks who’d pass on a big dollar job just because it was in a new field, but perhaps you, or someone you know, would.
Others may call these missteps other things, but when you consider that they cost him high public office,
No. It didn’t cost him his job in the legislature. His seat was bulletproof, and, most likely, so was his speaker's job. The perjury rap came later.
a mid-six figure job, his law license, and his reputation I consider it all moronic.
But that doesn’t mean it was moronic, only ill-advised and arrogant, and then only in hindsight. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word 'moronic.'
I guess the situation is that someone goes from the top of the political heap, knocks down a high paid lobbying job, loses it after copping a plea, and then knocks down another high paid, high profile gig in an entirely new line. That may be a lot of things, but moronic wouldn’t seem to be one of them.
Regards,
TSB
A pol trying to cement and expand his base is hardly moronic, especially in the state where this sort of thing became such an art form that they gave it a name.
Being a lawyer and knowing the penalties for lying under oath in a court of law could be seen as arrogant, but could be called moronic.
No, arrogant, especially since he didn’t think he was going to be caught. His miscalculation was in not realizing that enough folks had the knives out for him to take him down. He, if anyone, should have remembered that politics in Mass ain’t beanbag.
Finally, accepting a job as a talk show host with no talent, minimal intellect and no ability to entertain can be considered in many circles moronic.
Well, if we wait long enough, we usually find the best was saved for last. Yes, it must stick in the craw of all those talented, intellectual and entertaining hosts who can’t get arrested in this town to have him take down a nice gig. I’m not sure what’s moronic about him beating them out for a job, though. Truth to tell, I’m not sure I know many folks who’d pass on a big dollar job just because it was in a new field, but perhaps you, or someone you know, would.
Others may call these missteps other things, but when you consider that they cost him high public office,
No. It didn’t cost him his job in the legislature. His seat was bulletproof, and, most likely, so was his speaker's job. The perjury rap came later.
a mid-six figure job, his law license, and his reputation I consider it all moronic.
But that doesn’t mean it was moronic, only ill-advised and arrogant, and then only in hindsight. Perhaps we have different definitions of the word 'moronic.'
I guess the situation is that someone goes from the top of the political heap, knocks down a high paid lobbying job, loses it after copping a plea, and then knocks down another high paid, high profile gig in an entirely new line. That may be a lot of things, but moronic wouldn’t seem to be one of them.
Regards,
TSB
Isn't perjury a felony? So, he was charged with a felony. In Clinton's case, though he was impeached (put on trial), he was never actually convicted...though it was a bit close. They needed 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict him and came up short.
Thus, he was acquitted of the felony of perjury (though we all know he did it).
He obviously realized that he did it, too. In Clinton's own version of plea bargain, he negotiated a 5-year suspension of this license to practice and a 25G fine by the state of Arkansas, in return for the Feds not pursuing felony perjury charges against him stemming from Whitewater. He also resigned from the USSC bar to shortstop his disbarment there, which looked like a sure thing.
If it were you or I, we certainly would have been found guilty. But, the Senate wisely chose step back from that for the good of the country. Convicting the President of such a crime would have had huge and historic implications - including Clinton's removal from office. It's a deadly serious matter and the crime committed did not rise to that level in the opinion of the Senate.
Probably. True. True, True. Probably true, but depends on what standards you want to enforce. What is always left unsaid is the possibility of coercion from being put in a compromising position if the ‘wrong’ people had access to the information.
Clinton was disbarred though, which tells you something.
Technically, the Arkansas action wasn't a disbarment, but it is kind of a distinction without a difference.
So, Callahan was close but still incorrect. Clinton was never convicted and is thus not a felon.
Not necessarily true. Only if Callahan referred to Clinton as a 'convicted' felon was he wrong, You are only presumed 'not guilty' in the eyes of the law. Individually, people can think whatever they want to think. I don't know many folks who think that Ron and Nicole were engaged in a murder-suicide pact.
Unlike the morning drive host on WRKO.
Yep, he copped, so he qualifies.
Regards,
TSB
Thus, he was acquitted of the felony of perjury (though we all know he did it).
He obviously realized that he did it, too. In Clinton's own version of plea bargain, he negotiated a 5-year suspension of this license to practice and a 25G fine by the state of Arkansas, in return for the Feds not pursuing felony perjury charges against him stemming from Whitewater. He also resigned from the USSC bar to shortstop his disbarment there, which looked like a sure thing.
If it were you or I, we certainly would have been found guilty. But, the Senate wisely chose step back from that for the good of the country. Convicting the President of such a crime would have had huge and historic implications - including Clinton's removal from office. It's a deadly serious matter and the crime committed did not rise to that level in the opinion of the Senate.
Probably. True. True, True. Probably true, but depends on what standards you want to enforce. What is always left unsaid is the possibility of coercion from being put in a compromising position if the ‘wrong’ people had access to the information.
Clinton was disbarred though, which tells you something.
Technically, the Arkansas action wasn't a disbarment, but it is kind of a distinction without a difference.
So, Callahan was close but still incorrect. Clinton was never convicted and is thus not a felon.
Not necessarily true. Only if Callahan referred to Clinton as a 'convicted' felon was he wrong, You are only presumed 'not guilty' in the eyes of the law. Individually, people can think whatever they want to think. I don't know many folks who think that Ron and Nicole were engaged in a murder-suicide pact.
Unlike the morning drive host on WRKO.
Yep, he copped, so he qualifies.
Regards,
TSB
A
AvenueA
Guest
Well, if we wait long enough, we usually find the best was saved for last.
How long do we wait, T.S.? He's had a year already. Sheesh.
AvenueA said:Well, if we wait long enough, we usually find the best was saved for last.
How long do we wait, T.S.? He's had a year already. Sheesh.
That's a different question. But the idea that Finneran was being 'moronic' in taking the gig just doesn't fly, anymore than anyone taking a decent gig when it's offered to them. Like any other talk host or radio personality/DJ, if it doesn't work out, the mistake was made by the folks who did the hiring, not the people who were hired. And that applies to just about any field I can think of, not just radio.
Regards,
TSB
Pat Lucci said:being a representative of the people, trying to effect the design of a district while risking being exposed resulting in a significant fall from grace seems moronic.
Yeah...like that's never occurred before.
As with so much else in life, Google is your friend. Search the term "gerrymandering" and see what you come up with.
TSB,
You knit pick at every opportunity.
Yes. I guess sometimes that folks could think that. But, I believe that words actually mean something. I’d rather nitpick than just make blanket declarative statements which are wrong.
I believe that it is how you attempt to create humor.
Only if I’m trying to be funny. In this case, I was just trying to be factual.
If not, it is possibly some way to show that you are the smartest kid in the class.
I did pretty well in certain subjects like English and history. Anything which had to do with math or science I found indiscernible from magic.
If this is true, and I'm not suggesting that it is, you probably took your fair share of spankings in the school yard.
I never went to a school (or anywhere, for that matter) where ‘spanking’ was very prevalent in the schoolyard or class, but I never attended one of those alternative lifestyle schools so I really can’t comment with any authority.
But, no, I never took a lot of crap in school, either in class or in the yard, and if anyone has successfully taken me to the woodshed on these boards it has escaped my notice. But, then, I take care to post what I mean without needing an interpreter. OTOH, there are some folks here that I try to draw into a conversation just to joust a bit,
According I will stipulate that Finneran is not "Notably stupid if you will stipulate that he is "Lacking in good judjement."
I think I made it pretty clear that I considered his judgment sorely lacking in a couple of instances, especially in the political shenanigans, but I also understood he wasn’t motivated by stupidity. Usually, his judgment and political instincts were demonstrably right on the money.
If you had posted that he showed poor judgment in a number of political instances, all I would have done was nod.
Of course, on the issue of taking the talk gig, that wasn’t stupid nor did it demonstrate bad judgment. He did what anyone here would have done, grasp the gold ring while he had the opportunity..
Regards,
TSB
You knit pick at every opportunity.
Yes. I guess sometimes that folks could think that. But, I believe that words actually mean something. I’d rather nitpick than just make blanket declarative statements which are wrong.
I believe that it is how you attempt to create humor.
Only if I’m trying to be funny. In this case, I was just trying to be factual.
If not, it is possibly some way to show that you are the smartest kid in the class.
I did pretty well in certain subjects like English and history. Anything which had to do with math or science I found indiscernible from magic.
If this is true, and I'm not suggesting that it is, you probably took your fair share of spankings in the school yard.
I never went to a school (or anywhere, for that matter) where ‘spanking’ was very prevalent in the schoolyard or class, but I never attended one of those alternative lifestyle schools so I really can’t comment with any authority.
But, no, I never took a lot of crap in school, either in class or in the yard, and if anyone has successfully taken me to the woodshed on these boards it has escaped my notice. But, then, I take care to post what I mean without needing an interpreter. OTOH, there are some folks here that I try to draw into a conversation just to joust a bit,
According I will stipulate that Finneran is not "Notably stupid if you will stipulate that he is "Lacking in good judjement."
I think I made it pretty clear that I considered his judgment sorely lacking in a couple of instances, especially in the political shenanigans, but I also understood he wasn’t motivated by stupidity. Usually, his judgment and political instincts were demonstrably right on the money.
If you had posted that he showed poor judgment in a number of political instances, all I would have done was nod.
Of course, on the issue of taking the talk gig, that wasn’t stupid nor did it demonstrate bad judgment. He did what anyone here would have done, grasp the gold ring while he had the opportunity..
Regards,
TSB
So, Callahan was close but still incorrect. Clinton was never convicted and is thus not a felon.
I have always wondered about this.
For years I have heard Jay Severin say emphatically that Bill Clinton is guilty of...
1) "felony perjury"
2) "felony obstruction of justice"
I take it that this is technically not true. Is that correct?
Also, Jay likes to point out that Clinton was the only president ever to be impeached. Is that technically not true as well?
I look forward to the replies of radio-info's Best and Brightest.
A
AllForADeuce
Guest
dumber than a box of hair said:Pat Lucci said:being a representative of the people, trying to effect the design of a district while risking being exposed resulting in a significant fall from grace seems moronic.
Yeah...like that's never occurred before.
As with so much else in life, Google is your friend. Search the term "gerrymandering" and see what you come up with.
If anyone needs clarification, you can read the little placard on the old CVS spot in downtown crossing (Arch St side, I believe) directly across from the 7-11.
hooligan said:So, Callahan was close but still incorrect. Clinton was never convicted and is thus not a felon.
I have always wondered about this.
For years I have heard Jay Severin say emphatically that Bill Clinton is guilty of...
1) "felony perjury"
2) "felony obstruction of justice"
I take it that this is technically not true. Is that correct?
IIRC, it is not true. But then, Severino is a right-wing talk show host with an agenda, so what he said is not essentially different from any other talk-show host of similar bent.
hooligan said:Also, Jay likes to point out that Clinton was the only president ever to be impeached. Is that technically not true as well?
Not true. Andrew Johnson, the 17th president, was impeached as well, for political reasons (IIRC, refusing to sign a law which he knew to be unconstitutional, which was passed by his political enemies in Congress). Just as in Clinton's case, the Senate could not muster the necessary 2/3 vote for conviction.
A
AllForADeuce
Guest
Tom's finally finally in a position where he can't give a snide answer to someone asking him a direct question. For once in recent history, Tommy Taxes is not in total power and doesn't seem to like it. Too bad. When you spit on people below you, be prepared to answer to them when they rise above you.
Um, it seems to me that the people willing to put him on the air would be the ones that are supposed to be able to identify talent. Finneran, being the guy who was not in radio to begin with, probably figured they know best and went with it.
And yeah, the paycheck doesn't hurt either.
And yeah, the paycheck doesn't hurt either.
Finneran's appeal to management...
Air talent, of any kind, is quite subjective. Going in, Finneran had the name recognition factor going for him. As long as an audience tunes in, it really doesn't matter if they're laughing with you, or laughing at you. If a talk show host does something controversial, and gets his name in the news, it creates a buzz about his program. (think: celebrity train wrecks) New listeners will tune in, if only to hear for themselves what all of the fuss is about...
Air talent, of any kind, is quite subjective. Going in, Finneran had the name recognition factor going for him. As long as an audience tunes in, it really doesn't matter if they're laughing with you, or laughing at you. If a talk show host does something controversial, and gets his name in the news, it creates a buzz about his program. (think: celebrity train wrecks) New listeners will tune in, if only to hear for themselves what all of the fuss is about...
Re: Finneran's appeal to management...
So I guess there's still hope for Charles Manson for a career if he ever gets paroled.WLYNgm said:Going in, Finneran had the name recognition factor going for him. As long as an audience tunes in, it really doesn't matter if they're laughing with you, or laughing at you.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.