NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

AGAINST McCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW

of course get with the program

AGAINST McCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW
prove it give me a link saying all the ways it violates laws with a link show me why I shouldn't think your a retared spit spewer

AGAINST McCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW

And Dan Rather's CBS shenanigans wasn't? Nobody was spouting McCain-Feingold Law then.

And Dan Rather's CBS shenanigans wasn't? Nobody was spouting McCain-Feingold Law then.
you forget that involved president bush moron thus it was ligit

US Conservatives are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

Helpful?

US Conservatives are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

Helpful?
yes some conservatives are like that but at least its not our senators

US Conservatives are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

Helpful?
US Conservatives didn't attack the forged documents on CBS, internet bloggers did - and only the content, not its right to be aired. This is a group of senators running to the FCC like kids to mommy.

Feedom of speech is only for liberals

You got dat right, bubba.

And Dan Rather's CBS shenanigans wasn't? Nobody was spouting McCain-Feingold Law then.
was not backed by a political group, was equal with the SBVfT bullshit, and not 60 days before election, hurray for legality

was not backed by a political group, was equal with the SBVfT bullshit, and not 60 days before election, hurray for legality
you know I still want to see the law man, you can't steal a whole lot of vets from speaking and you will cry till you get your way

was not backed by a political group, was equal with the SBVfT bullshit, and not 60 days before election, hurray for legality
It's privately owned stations and a Vietnam veteran, not a political group.

It's privately owned stations and a Vietnam veteran, not a political group.
no no I'm politcal grooup huh hah how hahow is behind hind ittt really I'm not a fully idiotic moronnnn on.

It's privately owned stations and a Vietnam veteran, not a political group.
bullshit, sinclair are obviously partisan and are intedning to air this to attack johnk eryr to prevent his winning, its ilelgal to show it this time before an election


everyone remember sinclair? the people ORDERING thois to happen are the ones that forced the reading of the dead in iraq off the air

you forget that involved president bush moron thus it was ligit

You just made his case.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

That could be said for almost everyone, not just liberals. XD

-Asylum Nova

bullshit, sinclair are obviously partisan and are intedning to air this to attack johnk eryr to prevent his winning, its ilelgal to show it this time before an election


everyone remember sinclair? the people ORDERING thois to happen are the ones that forced the reading of the dead in iraq off the air
you mean like the news media. ;) Being a hypodrit isn't new to poltics

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

I hate liberals purely for the fact that they're not. Liberals are the most intolerant bunch of people around. They're liberal towards other liberals but if you're intolerant of anything they pass laws like the one of "Enflaming Racial Hatred" here in the UK.

In a truly liberal democracy, people should be allowed to express their views whatever, no matter how hateful, stupid or nonsenical those views may be. Otherwise it is just a dictatorship of the Center or the Left.

no no I'm politcal grooup huh hah how hahow is behind hind ittt really I'm not a fully idiotic moronnnn on.

No, at least you can type, use proper spelling and know your grammar.
Btw, i am sarcastic.

bullshit, sinclair are obviously partisan and are intedning to air this to attack johnk eryr to prevent his winning
Having an opinion doesn't make you a politcal group. I'm not a political group, nor am I so fanatic to spell John Kerry as "johnk eryr".

Besides, the McCain-Feingold Law is further proof of my point. Freedom of speech is only for liberals. Here are examples of how well that law has been interepreted and held up http://reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml.

No, at least you can type, use proper spelling and know your grammar.
Btw, i am sarcastic.
that was delibrate (might have spelled that wrong)

I hate liberals purely for the fact that they're not. Liberals are the most intolerant bunch of people around. They're liberal towards other liberals but if you're intolerant of anything they pass laws like the one of "Enflaming Racial Hatred" here in the UK.

In a truly liberal democracy, people should be allowed to express their views whatever, no matter how hateful, stupid or nonsenical those views may be. Otherwise it is just a dictatorship of the Center or the Left.

I know some pretty intolerant conservatives. ;)

homophobes, racists, sexists, you know...

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

That seems to be it. Though some conservatives are like that too...

That seems to be it. Though some conservatives are like that too...
Therein lies the problem. Liberals drag the first amendment around with them everywhere they go and protect it with their lives, that is until conservatives start using it, then they're suddenly for censorship. When conservatives want censorship, they want it for everyone. The hypocracy of freedom of speech is the issue here.

I know some pretty intolerant conservatives. ;)

homophobes, racists, sexists, you know...

True but at least they don't try and pretend to be tolerant of everyone. At least you know a conservative frowns upon adultery even if he is secretly bonking his secretary or his Gymn coach named Vernon (or Big Sally, it depends on how the Conservative feels).

Liberals claim that they are tolerant, but aren't really.

I am not conservative btw, I am just me. My views are my own, and I get very offended when people start labelling me.

If you want me to have a go at conservatives I will, it's just that this post is about liberals.

Therein lies the problem. Liberals drag the first amendment around with them everywhere they go and protect it with their lives, that is until conservatives start using it, then they're suddenly for censorship. When conservatives want censorship, they want it for everyone. The hypocracy of freedom of speech is the issue here.

Yeah. Don't worry. I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying that people do it regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative. But yes, the Libs do it a lot.

Having an opinion doesn't make you a politcal group. I'm not a political group, nor am I so fanatic to spell John Kerry as "johnk eryr".

Besides, the McCain-Feingold Law is further proof of my point. Freedom of speech is only for liberals. Here are examples of how well that law has been interepreted and held up http://reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml.
Only for liberals, you say? Like that Republican group that was allowed to brag about the war on terror concerning Republicans in Congress? And I guess the flipside of that is that only conservatives are hurt by this law, like the ACLU?
"In debating the bill, Congress cynically and thoughtlessly approved an amendment, sponsored by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., that defined "corporation" to include nonprofits.

In America, if you want to organize people to do something, you form a corporation. Most advocacy organizations and citizens groups are, of necessity, nonprofit corporations. "The law drew no distinctions between General Motors and the ACLU," says Joel Gora, a Brooklyn Law School professor who advises the American Civil Liberties Union. As a result, he says, "there are no ACLU ads challenging President Bush on civil liberties in the war on terror." "

That's from the link you have up there. The majority of cases cited in it concern Republican groups, sure, but there are "liberal" groups being limitted just the same. I'm not saying it's a good law, but that's another matter.

Frankly, if, as the article claims, the documentary claims that Kerry's anti-war activities PROLONGED the ordeal of POWs I'd like to see it, just so I could see some evidence of it.

And "Liberal" is a very loose term. Often it's only applied as a reaction to ultra-conservativism. Freedom of speech should be across the board, you bet if it was anti-Bush they'd be pushing for it to be compulsary viewing....

That's from the link you have up there. The majority of cases cited in it concern Republican groups, sure, but there are "liberal" groups being limitted just the same. I'm not saying it's a good law, but that's another matter.
I was using the article for its examples of the inconsitencies and the gray-area decisions made because of it. So far this law was the only vaild counter-point to why CBS can air forged documents, but this first-hand documentary can't be aired.

AGAINST McCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW

According to a
section-by section analysis of the McCain Feingold Law (http://www.brookings.org/gs/cf/debate/MF_summary.htm) it states
Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) proposed an amendment that prohibits non-profit corporations exempt under sections of 501(c)(4) and 527 of the Internal Revenue Code from running "targeted communications." A targeted communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication run within 60 days of a general election (or 30 days of a primary election) featuring the name or likeness of a candidate whose audience primarily consists of the residents of the state associated with the identified candidate in the advertisement.

Then looking up sections 501(c)(4) and 527 comes up with this classification for prohibited airing parties

501(c)(4)
To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare.~1~

And 527:
Groups whose primary purpose is to influence elections are exempt from taxation under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which states: The term "political organization" means a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.
(2) Exempt function.--The term "exempt function" means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected, or appointed. Such term includes the making of expenditures relating to an office described in the preceding sentence which, if incurred by the individual, would be allowable as a deduction under section 162(a).~2~

Now let’s see who this movie is created by (as certainly the television company hardly fits into either category, the only possible use of this law to prohibit this I can see would be the maker being one a 501(c)(4) or a 527).

Here’s the official statement from the films website: (http://www.stolenhonor.com/about-producer.asp)

Sherwood took an unpaid leave of absence from the wvc3 Group in June 2004 in order to establish Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc., an independent film company which produced "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." The documentary received its initial funding entirely from Pennsylvania Veterans. Since the Stolen Honor website – www.stolenhonor.com -- was activated in late August, just prior to the debut of the film, additional funds have been received from individuals and entities nationwide. No political campaign, candidate or political party have been involved in any way in the financing or production of Stolen Honor.
Info about the producer from an online encyclopedic source

Carlton A. Sherwood is a journalist and producer. He is known for his Pulitzer Prize winning work*, with two Gannett News co-authors, on a 1980 series investigating a fund-raising scandal involving the Pauline Fathers, and the Vatican's role in covering it up. In 2004, Sherwood produced the video Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal which documents the viewpoints of various American Vietnam War veterans who claim that harm arose to them as a result of John Kerry's anti-war activities. ~3~

Red white and blue productions inc.’s website (http://www.redwhiteblueproductions.com/) was little help with this statement

In Production:
The company’s most current project is a documentary entitled “Stolen Honor: John Kerry’s Record of Betrayal.” The documentary investigates the facts and impact of John Kerry’s actions during the Vietnam era.

Here are some sources
Red, White & Blue Productions is a for-profit corporation based in Harrisburg, Pa.~4~
"To allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming, and to classify that attack as news programming as has been suggested, would violate the spirit, and we think the text, of current law and regulation," the Democratic senators wrote.
The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint today with the Federal Election Commission, arguing Sinclair's broadcast would be an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign.
But Sinclair says it has invited Kerry to partipate in the broadcast and insists it is reporting news relevant to the campaign.
"Would they suggest that our reporting a car bomb in Iraq is an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign?" asked Vice President Mark Hyman. "Would they suggest that our reporting on job losses is an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign?"
"It's the news," Hyman continued. "It is what it is. We're reporting the news."
The Kerry campaign has rejected Sinclair's invitation, calling the film "lies" and "a smear." ~5~
"This is a powerful story," Hyman told the Washington Post. "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending [the POWs] don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."
Sinclair invited Kerry to appear on a discussion program after the broadcast, Hyman said, but his campaign refused, calling the film "lies" and "a smear."
Brock maintains Sinclair's plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But the Post said Sinclair's invitation to Kerry could help the company satisfy federal requirements to provide "equal time" to candidates.
Brock noted that in the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair executives have given 97 percent of the company's nearly $68,000 in political contributions to Republicans.

~6~

As described by the Times, Sinclair's plan to air the film raises questions about whether Sinclair would be running afoul of federal regulations "requiring broadcasters to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign ..." Provisions of the McCain-Feingold law would also appear to be at issue in your decision. The reported effort by Sinclair executives to instruct station managers to classify the film as "news," thus skirting these political broadcasting regulations, would be a charade given its blatant anti-Kerry slant. ~7~

That’s all I can find right now. Take a look at the sources if you like, I think I got a fairly broad sample. I don’t see any McCain-Feingold problems here, but, like I said, it isn’t clear to me yet. The main argument seems to be that Sinclair is being biased with his coverage FCC regulated airwaves. The argument contrary that is that Kerry was offered equal time (an argument made by Hyman, I think). And there’s also the counter-thought that CBS was being biased with it’s similarly FCC-regulated airwaves with the forged documents escapade. Either way, this could be a very interesting development. It might be as boring as rocks, too, but hey, Here’s hopin’.



1 http://www.irs.gov/charities/welfare/article/0,,id=96178,00.html
2 http://www.npaction.org/article/articleview/490/1/214/
3 http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Carlton_Sherwood
4 http://www.redwhiteblueproductions.com/
5 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40191
6 http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40853
7 http://mediamatters.org/items/200410100001

I think the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. There's no way this will get resolved before the election, and in the meantime they're just stirring up the people's interest.

According to a section-by section analysis of the McCain Feingold Law it states...
That was excellent! Thank you for all of that. I think it points out quite well that the McCain-Feingold Law is not applicable. The only possible issue left is equal time. So why are ten senators crying to the FCC for censorship? Freedom of speech is for everyone. What leg would these senators have left to stand on if some other brodcasting company decided to run the film?

:rolleyes:

Ahh politics.


I am sure the conservatives would all be silent if a "documentary" came out that showed the shrub used daddy to hide from combat and was allowed to go AWOL from the guard.

Aren't global labels and generalizations fun.

Now back to our regularily scheduled bitching......

:rolleyes:

Ahh politics.


I am sure the conservatives would all be silent if a "documentary" came out that showed the shrub used daddy to hide from combat and was allowed to go AWOL from the guard.

Aren't global labels and generalizations fun.

Now back to our regularily scheduled bitching......
I thought that documentary was 9/11?

Having an opinion doesn't make you a politcal group. I'm not a political group, nor am I so fanatic to spell John Kerry as "johnk eryr".
1) grow up

Besides, the McCain-Feingold Law is further proof of my point. Freedom of speech is only for liberals. Here are examples of how well that law has been interepreted and held up http://reason.com/rauch/100704.shtml.
lets see
sinclair owns 60 media outlets, the most of anyone. they are forcing all stations under their ownership to air this material during primetime.

this is partisan bullshit and if it isnt illegal it should be

its these dipshits that prevented certain stations from airing the readings of the names of the people who died in Iraq


freedom of speech isnt free. freedom of speech does NOT protect libel, slander, "fighting words" etc. this is obviously, OBVIOUSLY, SLANDER.

it is NOT protected by the 1st amendment, and the nature in which it is being done only reinforces this

I am sure the conservatives would all be silent if a "documentary" came out that showed the shrub used daddy to hide from combat and was allowed to go AWOL from the guard.

Aren't global labels and generalizations fun.

Now back to our regularily scheduled bitching......
I invite you to read the thread and not lob empty arguments into a well-supported debate. There were no Republican senators asking the FCC to investigate Dan Rather and CBS for the story on questionable Guard service.

I thought that documentary was 9/11?
1) that was in theaters and on video, it isnt being forced onto the airwaves during prime time

2) it was about george bush's incompetence in office.

I invite you to read the thread and not lob empty arguments into a well-supported debate. There were no Republican senators asking the FCC to investigate Dan Rather and CBS for the story on questionable Guard service.
what the hell were you living in a hole? the republicans were bitching their faces off to get something done to them. and they wernt violating fec laws.

It doesn't matter if they're partisan, they're not considered a true political group. Private organisations can air whatever the hell they like.
true, but that does not imply in this case. this is the case of a major group: sinclair, requiring a obviously partisan film to be aired during prime time just days before the election.

It doesn't matter if they're a major group, they're still a private organisation, privately funded. You don't take away someone's rights just because they're big and successful.

sinclair owns 60 media outlets...
they are forcing all stations under their ownership to air this material during primetime.
Those two words completely destroy any relevant argument you might have made.

it is NOT protected by the 1st amendment, and the nature in which it is being done only reinforces this
Thank you for proving my point. Liberals spout whatever garbage they want, touting their 1st amendment rights to say it, but as soon as someone says something they disagree with, suddenly they're pro-censorship. I didn't see any libearls accusing the SBVfT or CBS of libel, slander, "fighting words". Why start now?

Those two words completely destroy any relevant argument you might have made.
sadly for your ignorant partisan self it is completely relevant

Thank you for proving my point. Liberals spout whatever garbage they want, touting their 1st amendment rights to say it, but as soon as someone says something they disagree with, suddenly they're pro-censorship. I didn't see any libearls accusing the SBVfT or CBS of libel, slander, "fighting words". Why start now?
stop being a dumbass

and YES, the swift boat vets were comitting LIBEL, otherwords they were lying and asserting it as true. the sinclair group are jsut slandering kerry from what i can tell.

and definitions are not partisan, ok screw it, every "republikkkon" in this thread is ignored, i dont have the patience to deal with the pure STUPIDITY surrounding this

this thread is full of dumbass puppets

yeah the liberal do out number the conservatives, but the conservatives coutner it by making about a dozen puppets each

Your link is to a paper founded by Raymond Hoiles, and owned by his family.

This is from "Texas History Online", by the U. of texas:

"Described in 1957 by Time magazine as "a crabby, Bible-spouting zealot," Hoiles criticized public schools, police departments, libraries, hospitals, churches, unions, the National Association of Manufacturers, integration, paper money, and majority rule. Democracy, he thought, was mob rule."

Seems like a lousy source.

sadly for your ignorant partisan self it is completely relevant
Sadly you ignored my point and thus made your flame irrelevant.

this thread is full of dumbass puppets

yeah the liberal do out number the conservatives, but the conservatives coutner it by making about a dozen puppets each
It just shows that you all are sheep who have to believe the same things without thinking.

It doesn't matter if they're a major group, they're still a private organisation, privately funded. You don't take away someone's rights just because they're big and successful.
Ah but since they are using public airwaves, they have to follow some regulations. One of these regulations is the Laws regarding the election process which states some restrictions on what to air and how to air during election time. Being privately owned does not help them sidestep these regulations.

Ah but since they are using public airwaves, they have to follow some regulations. One of these regulations is the Laws regarding the election process which states some restrictions on what to air and how to air during election time. Being privately owned does not help them sidestep these regulations.
The regulations don't seem to apply in this case.

jsut slandering kerry from what i can tell
From what you can tell? That's your argument?
i dont have the patience to deal with the pure STUPIDITY surrounding thisrather, you don't have the evidence to support your statements, like everyone else who has been posting links to documents and articles to back up their positions.

The regulations don't seem to apply in this case.
Explain how please. Or better, link the appropriate clauses in the law.

Explain how please. Or better, link the appropriate clauses in the law.
Go back a page in this thread.

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong...

Your link is to a paper founded by Raymond Hoiles, and owned by his family.Which article? I have others.

Go back a page in this thread.
All I saw from this thread is that the company is not a non-profit organisation and the rules that non-profit organisation have to follow. I saw nothing on the restrictions that the for-profit organisations have to follow.

This is easier... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=STOLEN+HONOR. You can find plenty of articles here written by many papers with many slants. However it still stands that if this were to be aired on another privately owned company (one that isn't slated as in bed with Republicans), then what objecton would be left? Why stop the film from being shown, if the company broadcasting it is the only issue?

This is easier... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=STOLEN+HONOR. You can find plenty of articles here written by many papers with many slants. However it still stands that if this were to be aired on another privately owned company (one that isn't slated as in bed with Republicans), then what objecton would be left? Why stop the film from being shown, if the company broadcasting it is the only issue?

Well that is the problem with two boobs running for office.

If Kerry was rock solid it would not matter.

If the shrub was rock solid then it would not be needed.

A TV show is not going to sway my opinion. You have to see what they say and then dig around and verify the claims. Political stuff always leaves things out our redefines things.

Well that is the problem with two boobs running for office.

If Kerry was rock solid it would not matter.

If the shrub was rock solid then it would not be needed.

A TV show is not going to sway my opinion. You have to see what they say and then dig around and verify the claims. Political stuff always leaves things out our redefines things.I whole-heartedly agree. I certainly hope that people can make up thier own minds when presented with extremely slanted material. For instance I wouldn't take Michael Moore's material any more seriously than, say, Rush Limbaugh's. But I would fight equally for either of them to say what they want. Which leads me to, why then is one party's slanted material more/less suited to air than another's? Especially when the party pushing for censorship in this case is typically the liberal 1st amendment crusading party.

From what I gather, It is illegal to broadcast a partisan piece 60 days before the election unless you give equal time to the opposition. In that optic, they should showw F9/11 the day before they show this other documentary.

Or they can always call it news as the news is exempt from this piece of legislation. But, apart from the fact that it is not presented as a news piece, if they consider it news, they should present it as quickly as possible and not wait the 11th hour to present it.

Either way, it is partisan politics intended to swing the opinion of the voters. Another of a long list of irregularities in this election from both sides.

I'm fee! FEE for eternity!!!

I'm fee! FEE for eternity!!!Yeah... I caught that typo, but it didn't change how the topic was listed. Oh well.
It is illegal to broadcast a partisan piece 60 days before the electionThis is the McCain-Feingold law, which we've established that is not relvant to this situation. The remaining issue of equal time is still out there though, but is that worth 10 senators barking at the FCC? Agreeably, I've seen it come from both sides. I want to find out which 10 senators... I hope it's not either of mine. This isn't why I pay taxes.

This is a quote from the article "cited" in the intial post of this thread.

"In it, according to those who've already seen it, former Vietnam prisoners of war allege that Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home from Vietnam prolonged their own ordeal for two years by boosting the morale of the North Vietnamese military."

Or, you could look a number of other ways.

1. Their ordeal was lengthened by any number of years by the jackass politicians who kept the United States involved in Viet Nam for year after pointless bloody year.

2. Their ordeal was shortened by a number of years because Kerry, and those like him who vehemently opposed the Viet Nam war, caused the United States to get out earlier than we would have otherwise.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.


This is not normal speech. This is an outrageous smear, timed to be run just before the election. I might ALSO add that Sinclair Broadcasting blocked a program earlier this year in which Ted Koppel was going to read the names of the soldiers who have died in Iraq.

Sinclair is not an unbiased news source. They have a political agenda, and they are cheerleading for Bush. The United States government has the responsibility to put the brakes on Sinclair until after the election.

Yeah... I caught that typo, but it didn't change how the topic was listed. Oh well.
This is the McCain-Feingold law, which we've established that is not relvant to this situation. The remaining issue of equal time is still out there though, but is that worth 10 senators barking at the FCC? Agreeably, I've seen it come from both sides. I want to find out which 10 senators... I hope it's not either of mine. This isn't why I pay taxes.
I think the McCain-Feingold law is relevant to this situation. The McCain-Feingold law is a revision on an older law and it adds the NPO to a list of organisations that are restricted on what they can broadcast. All that was established earlier is that the movie is not from an NPO.

I invite you to read the thread and not lob empty arguments into a well-supported debate. There were no Republican senators asking the FCC to investigate Dan Rather and CBS for the story on questionable Guard service.Remember - it wasn't the information in the story that was "wrong" - the information was correct. It was a bad SOURCE. It turned out to be documents that simply could not have existed if they were real.

Which is really too bad, because while the documents were fraudulent, and Dan Rather and CBS blatantly stupid for not checking out the source better before "going" with the story, the STORY itself is true.

Remember - it wasn't the information in the story that was "wrong" - the information was correct. It was a bad SOURCE. It turned out to be documents that simply could not have existed if they were real.Wow, talk about twisting words to make sense of nothing. How can a forged document be "information that is correct"?? And by that logic, Stolen Honor should be allowed to air regardless of how relevant the first-hand accounts of the POWs are.

Wow, talk about twisting words to make sense of nothing. How can a forged document be "information that is correct"?? And by that logic, Stolen Honor should be allowed to air regardless of how relevant the first-hand accounts of the POWs are.
Now who's twisting words? S/he said that the story itself was correct, the documents where but a part of the story. But really, CBS is a red herring in this argument.

Really, the republicans are learning the game of "don't throw me in that briar patch" (as my friend calls it), but play it with their usual clumsy style...what would be comparative would be F9/11, except that played in theaters, not broadcast which has different standards. If this where anything other than an attempt to use access to sway voters they would release the film in theaters like the 6 other campaign-esque films (it could play as a double feature with Up River:The Long War of John Kerry or whatever thats called, which is essentially the opposite of this wounds deally.) Or, if Sinclair was pretending that this wasn't partisan he could agree to show that movie with his. But pretending this is anything other than a free infomercial for the Bush campaign is pretty ridiculous, and to assume that no one is going to have a problem with it is also ridiculous. And before republicans start acting like wounded innocents, remember that you tried the same complaint to prevent F9/11 to be advertised and applied pressure to theaters to not show the film (enough that Disney sidesteped the film, allowing Weisenstien to deliver a wheel barrow of money to a small distributer, that must of felt great for the then troubled Disney). So enough with the 'wo is me' routine.

What's killer is that you all will recycle a story that was done on one program that the portion in question was retracted after EVERY news organization and their sisters was all over before the night, the same station that wouldn't run a moveon.org ad during the superbowl and pulled The Reagans because it wasn't rosy enough, was up as a sign of 'liberal media,' and yet when one of the largest media outlet owners, one who blocked the reading of dead soldiers because it made the president look bad, nothing. So I'll make you a deal-and everyone, with me? You run your silly little documentary as long as I never have to hear your stupid little whining about liberal media ever again. Deal?

Wow, talk about twisting words to make sense of nothing. How can a forged document be "information that is correct"?? And by that logic, Stolen Honor should be allowed to air regardless of how relevant the first-hand accounts of the POWs are.First, in my humble opinion, Stolen Honor, and anything else that anyone else wants to air should be allowed to air. Farenheit 9/11 included. Not forced to air, though. I would like to see balance, but...

Second - a forged document can be information that is correct. As is the case in this case. The documents were produced on equipment that did not exist at the time they were supposed to have been created. The supposed author died before the equipment existed. Therefore, they are forged. But the information they contain is true. The l'il shrub did not have a good attendance record with the Air National Guard.

In Active Service, that would be called AWOL.

Remember - it wasn't the information in the story that was "wrong" - the information was correct. It was a bad SOURCE. It turned out to be documents that simply could not have existed if they were real.

Which is really too bad, because while the documents were fraudulent, and Dan Rather and CBS blatantly stupid for not checking out the source better before "going" with the story, the STORY itself is true.
The story itself is in question. Saying "well, I know the source is forged but what they say is true" is like someone to forge some documents saying Kerry is a traitor and a N-V collaborator "well, I know the source is forged but what they say is true".

Gander and Goose after all.

The extremely sad thing is that we have lost the concepts of Statesmanship and Honor.

Statesmanship: Most of these guys are nothing but politicians - concerned with getting elected/re-elected at any/all cost, and not really caring that much about what they DO as our Congressmen/Senators/President. We have a couple of Statesmen left - I offer the actions of West Virginia's Senator Byrd during the debate leading up to the vote on House Joint Resolution 114 during the 107th Congress - that being the Bill/Law by which Congress abrogated it's Consitutional Authority to declare war and passed it over to the l'il shrub. Senator Byrd argued eloquently against this garbage bag of legislation as long as he was allowed. Also offered are the 23 Senators who voted against the bill and in favor of retaining the authority to declare war in Congress where it is placed by the Constitution.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

NAYs ---23 (the other 77 voted in favor)
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Honor: These guys try very hard not to outright lie - although they will in a pinch. However - they make no bones whatever about omitting key information/facts to twist public opinion. We have, in fact, created the "Spin Doctor" to do this for them. An honorable man tells you THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH - even when he (she) is not under oath.

And, although I am a democrate, and a liberal, I will be the first to admit that both of the above apply to ALL of our political parties, and most of our politicians, and saddest of all, most of our elected representatives and leaders.

The story itself is in question. Saying "well, I know the source is forged but what they say is true" is like someone to forge some documents saying Kerry is a traitor and a N-V collaborator "well, I know the source is forged but what they say is true".

Gander and Goose after all.Non - sequitor. You guys are conveniently ignoring the FACT that li'l shrub did NOT attend his drills by drawing attention to the forged document.

Not attending drills is Absent Without Leave (AWOL). And, althought in the National Guard they usually just ignore it, or after enough AWOLs pile up, just discharge the "soldier", it is just as AWOL as if a soldier/sailor/airmen in the middle of a war decided not to play anymore, and go home.

Non - sequitor. You guys are conveniently ignoring the FACT that li'l shrub did NOT attend his drills by drawing attention to the forged document.

Not attending drills is Absent Without Leave (AWOL). And, althought in the National Guard they usually just ignore it, or after enough AWOLs pile up, just discharge the "soldier", it is just as AWOL as if a soldier/sailor/airmen in the middle of a war decided not to play anymore, and go home.
You don't know how reserves work, do you. That whole one weekend a month thing, 2 weeks a year. That's not how it actually works.

It's all on a point basis. You get so many points per drill, and you do 4 drills in a weekend... morning and afternoon of each day. It takes a certain ammount of points to make a "qualifying" year. If someone were to do 2 weekends in the same month, it would still count toward their yearly point total. If someone failed to accumulate enough points during a calander year, it's not awol, that year just doesn't count toward retirement nor commitment.

If the reserve unit were to get called up to active duty, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

True but at least they don't try and pretend to be tolerant of everyone. At least you know a conservative frowns upon adultery even if he is secretly bonking his secretary or his Gymn coach named Vernon (or Big Sally, it depends on how the Conservative feels).

Dude, the liberel mantra is live and let live, not live and let persecute. I have no tolerance for intolerance, and no, that isn't hypocritical.

You don't know how reserves work, do you. That whole one weekend a month thing, 2 weeks a year. That's not how it actually works.

It's all on a point basis. You get so many points per drill, and you do 4 drills in a weekend... morning and afternoon of each day. It takes a certain ammount of points to make a "qualifying" year. If someone were to do 2 weekends in the same month, it would still count toward their yearly point total. If someone failed to accumulate enough points during a calander year, it's not awol, that year just doesn't count toward retirement nor commitment.

If the reserve unit were to get called up to active duty, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.well - you can take your foot out of your mouth anytime.

I'm IN the National Guard - and have been for the past 21 years (21 years, 5 months, and 5 days). I've also got 4 years of Active Service, and 3 years in the Inactive Reserve. That's just a little over 28 years total military service.

48 drills per year. 15 days of Annual Training. Two weekends a month (or anything except exactly the scheduled unit training assemblies (drills)) can only be done if your commander authorizes you to do what is called Split Unit Training. Commanders schedule the 48 drills (normally 4 per month - one weekend) a year in advance for the entire unit, as well as the units annual training for the year (the Yearly Training Plan - YTP). All members of a unit have to complete all four "periods" of a drill (2 periods each day for two days of each month, normally) within a 90 day window that starts when the first member of the unit performs his/her first drill. Annual Training is usually done as a unit, but not necessarily.

And you can still be AWOL. It's not a question of not getting enough points for a good year being AWOL - you're right about that. Except that it isn't a calendar year, or a fiscal year, or a training year. It's kind of your own personal year - it starts each year on the anniversary of your enlistment (or appointment as an officer) and ends the next year the day before that anniversary.

BUT, if you do not show up for a scheduled unit drill, are not authorized by your commander to be absent, and do not do an authorized Split Unit Training Assembly, you are AWOL. If you do not show up for Annual Training, or any other training you have been ordered to do, that's also AWOL.

And normally, because it would not serve the purpose of the national defense to put a bunch of non-performing reservists (National Guard or Reserve) in jail, AWOLs are basically ignored - until the soldier/service member acrues 9. Then they are quietly discharged.

And the whole one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer thing was EXACTLY how it worked for almost everyone (there were exceptions) until l'il shrub decided to start Mobilizing the National Guard to support a war he didn't have a big enough army for.

;)

edit - please note that when i say awols are ignored, i mean we don't go grab the service member and stick them in jail. the service member is counseled, and we try to get them to come to drill and annual training regularly. sometimes the service member is reduced in grade/rank. but most of the time we are more concerned with trying to find out why they aren't coming to drill/annual training, and trying to get them to start coming again. but once a service member accumulates 9 awols (that is unexcused absences), they have to be discharged. there are more servere penalties legally available, but they are very infrequently used. in 21 years i have seen quite a number of soldiers reduced in grade and then discharged for excessive awols, but never seen a single soldier receive any other type of punishment for awols from drill and/or annual training.

Finally, when a reserve unit is called up to active duty (mobilized), it sure is another ball of wax. What actually happens is the unit, and all it's members, are transferred from Title 32 (National Guard status under the Military Laws of the United States) to Title 10 (Active Duty status under the Military Laws of the United States). In fact, the unit and the service members are (in the case of the Army National Guard or Army Reserve) in the Army until such time as they are REFRAD (REturned FRom Active Duty) and discharged from the Title 10 Active Army status - at which time they are back in Title 32 National Guard or Reserve status.

National parties and congressional committees may only raise and spend hard money contributions received from individuals and political action committees ("PACs"); no labor or corporate contributions are permitted. This soft-money ban is the bedrock of the McCain-Feingold bill. National parties and congressional committees also are banned from making contributions to non-profit organizations.

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and James Jeffords (R-VT) offered the following electioneering communication provisions which target broadcast issue advocacy by interest groups, political organizations, and other persons. Every organization (not otherwise banned from making electioneering communications) must report any expenditure of $10,000 or greater on broadcast electioneering communications made. An election communication is defined as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that clearly refers to an identified candidate; is run within 60 days of a general election and 30 days within a primary, convention or caucus; and is made to an audience that targets the electorate for that office.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced an amendment that would in the event the Snowe-Jeffords provisions are struck down by the courts, apply a different standard to communications promoting, supporting, attacking or opposing a candidate. If a communication, at any time during the year, is "suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate," then such an advertisement would be required to be disclosed according to the conditions set forth in McCain-Feingold.

Electioneering communications are regarded as contributions to a candidate or party's committee (and, thus, subject to hard-money limits) if the sponsor of the communications coordinates the ad with a candidate or party committee.

Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.



Funny how conservatives only show the parts of the law that support their point of view.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.
You aint kidd'n. They HATE anyone who doesn't agree with their extremist views.

Funny how conservatives only show the parts of the law that support their point of view.

Because liberals are sooo much better. :rolleyes:

Snub Nose 38, all I can say in response is that I've spent 20 years on active duty Navy, 2 years inactive ready reserves. 6 years of those 20 were spent running the command that reservists reported to... on the avg weekend I would have 12 reservists. Sometimes none, sometimes as many as 20.

Frequently reservists would do your split duty. Not once was one disapproved. Frequently reservists would "miss their weekend" and make it up another time. I would, at times, have reservists from other parts of the country making up drills they missed in their home areas.

Even AT time would be shifted one way of another to suit the needs of the reservist.

Perhaps things are different with the National Guard than in the Reserves, if so I appologize, I assumed the system was the same. However, in all the years I spent, albeit not as many as you, I never saw once when even a reprimand was issued for someone missing his drill. It's designed to be a flexible system to encourage participation as much as possible.

Frankly, if, as the article claims, the documentary claims that Kerry's anti-war activities PROLONGED the ordeal of POWs I'd like to see it, just so I could see some evidence of it.

And "Liberal" is a very loose term. Often it's only applied as a reaction to ultra-conservativism. Freedom of speech should be across the board, you bet if it was anti-Bush they'd be pushing for it to be compulsary viewing....
Fahrenheit 9/11 ring a bell? Team America : World Police?
I will never cease to be amazed by the intolerance of liberals who take such pride in being far more accepting of other people's views than us "homophobic, sexist, racist" Republicans.

And the whole one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer thing was EXACTLY how it worked for almost everyone (there were exceptions) until l'il shrub decided to start Mobilizing the National Guard to support a war he didn't have a big enough army for.

Well, I should remember to feel bad for those people who only signed up for the Reserves in order to make an easy buck then. Here's a hint: don't sign up for the Reserves if you don't want to fight. For that matter, the reason our Army is as small as it is would be because we really don't need a larger force for current operations, which would explain why so far the onyl group to suggest a draft has been the Dems, and that was only a cheap attempt to scare people into voting Dem.

Well, I should remember to feel bad for those people who only signed up for the Reserves in order to make an easy buck then. Here's a hint: don't sign up for the Reserves if you don't want to fight. For that matter, the reason our Army is as small as it is would be because we really don't need a larger force for current operations, which would explain why so far the onyl group to suggest a draft has been the Dems, and that was only a cheap attempt to scare people into voting Dem.interesting - incorrect - but interesting

Snub Nose 38, all I can say in response is that I've spent 20 years on active duty Navy, 2 years inactive ready reserves. 6 years of those 20 were spent running the command that reservists reported to... on the avg weekend I would have 12 reservists. Sometimes none, sometimes as many as 20.

Frequently reservists would do your split duty. Not once was one disapproved. Frequently reservists would "miss their weekend" and make it up another time. I would, at times, have reservists from other parts of the country making up drills they missed in their home areas.

Even AT time would be shifted one way of another to suit the needs of the reservist.

Perhaps things are different with the National Guard than in the Reserves, if so I appologize, I assumed the system was the same. However, in all the years I spent, albeit not as many as you, I never saw once when even a reprimand was issued for someone missing his drill. It's designed to be a flexible system to encourage participation as much as possible.I'm in what is now called the Joint Forces Headquarters (used to be called the State Area Command) of a state Army National Guard that, over the 21 years I've been in, has had a strength of between 12,000 to 18,000. Usually Split Unit Training Assemby (SUTA) is approved - but not always - Commander's discretion. And, yes, if a service member "misses" drill, but works it out with his/her immediate chain of command, a SUTA is approved. Although the regulations on this require the approval to occur BEFORE the scheduled drill, and although MOST such approvals DO occur before the drill, I have never seen an "after the fact" SUTA disapproved. Because you are right, the aim is NOT to drive people out, but to keep people in.

Yes, AT can also be rescheduled - although that is usually reserved for emergencies, as most units have a certain amount of collective training they have to get done, and try to attend AT as a cohesive unit.

Yes, to accomodate individual needs, SUTAs can be performed (when arranged in advance) with other units, anywhere in the country.

And yes, I have seen reprimands given for AWOL. Which is when the service member simply does not show up, and does not arrange or attempt to arrange a SUTA, and/or does not show up for a SUTA if arranged for him/her by their command. It happens. And yes, sometimes a "service member" accumulates 9 such absences, and is discharged.

Here's a key point - ALL of this has to be a matter of record. Every time a reservist performs a drill, AT, or any other type of duty, it must be a matter of record. Service members are paid, and accrue retirement points, based on attendance at scheduled training. Military pay, and later Retirement pay, are based on those records. It is EXTREMELY unusual that we cannot find a record of a service members attendance (Leave and Earning Statements, Certificates authorizing a SUTA and certifying performance, Certificates of Attendance), or lack of attendance, at any type of training that was scheduled and/or performed.

In the case of then Lieutenant Bush, there don't seem to be any records. Or, there seem to be missing records. It is possible for records to be missing. But in an organization as..."organized"...and regulated and uniform (etc, etc, etc) as the DoD, missing records would be an anomoly (spelling?).

My main point remains this - while the document(s) that Dan Rather and CBS based their report on were clearly forgeries, it still appears that then Lieutenant Bush (whom I "affectionatley" call "l'il shrub") failed to attend some scheduled training, and where there should be records to show that he either made up that training, or was excused by his commander - there are apparently no such records.

Oh - and I have nothing but the greatest respect for your service in the Navy. My father-in-law and three of his four brothers served in the Navy in WWII (the other brother was a soldier). One can be excused for choosing the wrong service when one serves honorably for over 20 years (;))

note - besides the reservists in organized units, there are also "individual ready reservists". they drill and perform at with other units, but i'm not sure exactly how that works. lt bush was in the organized air national guard, and was not an individual ready reservist.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html

US Liberals are all about freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them.

The American Communist Liars' Union is another excellent example.

I'm in what is now called the Joint Forces Headquarters (used to be called the State Area Command) of a state Army National Guard that, over the 21 years I've been in, has had a strength of between 12,000 to 18,000.[/i]
I will defer to your experience, as mine was only on the active side training said reservists. My experience as to the reservists admin was restricted to what the reservists told me themselves... i.e. second hand knowledge only.

You're right, there should have been LES at least... has anyone looked into Bush's tax returns during the period in question? Or are those missing as well?

You aint kidd'n. They HATE anyone who doesn't agree with their extremist views.

A Vote for Kerry is a vote for Terrorism

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHA!

Because liberals are sooo much better. :rolleyes:

Hey, when I cite a source, I post it all, unless I'm responding to what someone else left out.

It's called "getting the complete picture," and if you let your partisan politics get in the way of you doing that, then you are enabling your manipulation by the powers (of both parties) that be.

Fahrenheit 9/11 ring a bell? Team America : World Police?
I will never cease to be amazed by the intolerance of liberals who take such pride in being far more accepting of other people's views than us "homophobic, sexist, racist" Republicans.Hold on a sec--are you actually comparing Team America--a fucking puppet show movie made by te Southpark guys--to F 9/11 and this Kerry hatchet job of a film? I mean, forget all the logical inconsistencies between Moore's film (which you had to pay to see) and what Sinclair broadcasting is doing here--you're comparing Team America: World Police to those films to try to make a point? Do you see how ridiculous that is?

I will defer to your experience, as mine was only on the active side training said reservists. My experience as to the reservists admin was restricted to what the reservists told me themselves... i.e. second hand knowledge only.

You're right, there should have been LES at least... has anyone looked into Bush's tax returns during the period in question? Or are those missing as well?
Never thought of the tax return angle - and I have not heard whether or not anyone looked into that. There ought to be a W-2 from the military with his return. While it would only give total amounts for the year, a little math could result in knowing at least how many days pay he received for the year (years?) in question.

Never thought of the tax return angle - and I have not heard whether or not anyone looked into that. There ought to be a W-2 from the military with his return. While it would only give total amounts for the year, a little math could result in knowing at least how many days pay he received for the year (years?) in question.
Exactly, and isn't it usual for candidates to release at least some of their returns? Sure going back that far is a stretch.. but would answer a lot of questions.