NationStates Jolt Archive

I urge my fellow Americans to email Sinclair Broadcasting at comments@sbgi.net and protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!



YAHOO! News:
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry (news - web sites)'s anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday.

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so," he said.

He said he would consider the senators' concerns but added that they may not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC (news - web sites) rules require that a program air before a formal complaint can be considered.

Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations — many of them in competitive states in the presidential election — to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda (news). It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

In the letter to Powell, the senators — led by Dianne Feinstein of California — asked the FCC to determine whether the airing of the anti-Kerry program is a "proper use of public airwaves" and to investigate whether it would violate rules requiring equal air time for candidates.

Separately, the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign.

i vote some one inform mr moore and tell him to get his show on the air

I urge my fellow Americans to email Sinclair Broadcasting at comments@sbgi.net and protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!They offered the Kerry camp an hour of space immediately following the showing of this film and they refused it. You can't complain after you give up the right to equal time.

If it does in fact violate law, or FCC rules it should not be aired. If it doesn't, it's fair game.

Ok. As an American citizen and veteran, I wrote them:

My deepest heart-felt thanks for your efforts to expose John Kerry for the amoral opportunist he is. His lies after Vietnam are truly "The Wound That Never Heals!"

Thank you!

Happy now? :)

They offered the Kerry camp an hour of space immediately following the showing of this film and they refused it. You can't complain after you give up the right to equal time.


Yeah right. Go onto a hostile show where the deck has already been set against you. If Kerry went on, it would only add validity to the Sinclair smear.

They offered the Kerry camp an hour of space immediately following the showing of this film and they refused it. You can't complain after you give up the right to equal time.
Wow, your lies never cease, do they?

Wow, your lies never cease, do they?
Ummm he's defending your position... don't attack him.

Don't attack anyone, but especially your allies.

Ok. As an American citizen and veteran, I wrote them:

My deepest heart-felt thanks for your efforts to expose John Kerry for the amoral opportunist he is. His lies after Vietnam are truly "The Wound That Never Heals!"

Thank you!

Happy now? :)

And Eutrusca, you're in my Region, so I'll temper my criticism against you thusly:

You're a flaming conservative idiot. :D

They offered the Kerry camp an hour of space immediately following the showing of this film and they refused it. You can't complain after you give up the right to equal time.

Does the Kerry campaign know exactly what charges will be levelled? If not, then any attempt to answer the claims might be non-responsive, which could then be spun as Kerry "not answering the charges". It's fairly obvious that an hour of airtime immediately following wouldn't be capable of responding sufficiently to the claims that will be made. Hence, I think it's perfectly appropriate to claim that this is just a partisan attempt to influence the election.

Does the Kerry campaign know exactly what charges will be levelled? If not, then any attempt to answer the claims might be non-responsive, which could then be spun as Kerry "not answering the charges". It's fairly obvious that an hour of airtime immediately following wouldn't be capable of responding sufficiently to the claims that will be made. Hence, I think it's perfectly appropriate to claim that this is just a partisan attempt to influence the election.
Except that it does seem to fulfill the requirment of equal time.

Wow, your lies never cease, do they?

*laugh* As if we needed more proof that Munke doesn't have anything insightful to say. Entertaining, sure. Insightful? Not that I've seen.

Except that it does seem to fulfill the requirment of equal time.

Yes, it fulfills the legal requirement. I've never claimed that it was illegal. But it is partisan and the equal time requirement is hardly sufficient to be "fair". Hence, complaints are perfectly legitimate, in my opinion.

*laugh* As if we needed more proof that Munke doesn't have anything insightful to say. Entertaining, sure. Insightful? Not that I've seen.
Are we sure MonkeBrain and MKULTRA are not the same person?

this is a typical political response to the political advertisement also known as "worst of george bush" called fahrenheit 911?

i stopped paying attention to these smears rom either side a long time ago. bush is still fairly dumb and kerry too left wing, they both suck regardless

Does the Kerry campaign know exactly what charges will be levelled? If not, then any attempt to answer the claims might be non-responsive, which could then be spun as Kerry "not answering the charges". It's fairly obvious that an hour of airtime immediately following wouldn't be capable of responding sufficiently to the claims that will be made. Hence, I think it's perfectly appropriate to claim that this is just a partisan attempt to influence the election.http://www.customflix.com/206157. Go buy it... then answer the charges. Duh.

http://www.customflix.com/206157. Go buy it... then answer the charges. Duh.

Right, because the Democratic campaign can afford to spend the money, gather up all the character witnesses for Kerry, find specific documentation and compile it all in a neatly wrapped package like this documentary in time to air it. Duh.

Right, because the Democratic campaign can afford to spend the money, gather up all the character witnesses for Kerry, find specific documentation and compile it all in a neatly wrapped package like this documentary in time to air it. Duh.This isn't on trial. There's no "filing for discovery" and "motioning for a continuance". It wouldn't be that hard... I mean he was there wasn't he? A good campaign would have prepared for the veteran backlash.

funny,there isn't as much attention to the liberal bias in ABC (who holds both sides accountable,but not equally) and CBS (must I say anything?)

However when a station airs a documentary on John Kerrys full service,not just the times he would have you know) all hell breaks loose on their heads,although Sinclair is very ready to defend against any slander you will throw at them,I'm sure they have gotten enough liberal hate mail.

How dare this evil company think they have the right to free speech. Where do they think we are the United States...oh wait a second.

This isn't on trial. There's no "filing for discovery" and "motioning for a continuance". It wouldn't be that hard... I mean he was there wasn't he? A good campaign would have prepared for the veteran backlash.

Of course it's a trial. Or might as well be. The fact that he was there doesn't seem to matter much to the people who weren't with him that have said he's lying (like Eutrusca, for instance). You're attempts to be even-handed are somewhat misplaced in this situation. Do you really believe that it's as simple as Kerry showing up and saying, "That isn't true"? Or are you trying to make us believe it?

Ah, and interestingly enough, from the Sinclair Group's website:

"We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources."

Seems like that would preclude just being able to watch the film and prepare a response, doesn't it?

funny,there isn't as much attention to the liberal bias in ABC (who holds both sides accountable,but not equally) and CBS (must I say anything?)

However when a station airs a documentary on John Kerrys full service,not just the times he would have you know) all hell breaks loose on their heads,although Sinclair is very ready to defend against any slander you will throw at them,I'm sure they have gotten enough liberal hate mail.

There was a huge stink about CBS. If you don't think so, you've had your head buried in the sand. Again, there's no legal ground that I"m aware of for precluding this. But it'd be just as American for people to lobby to have the Sinclair group removed from cable providers, boycott, and send letters of protest to the company itself to show their displeasure

Seems like that would preclude just being able to watch the film and prepare a response, doesn't it?Then you have nothing to worry about. People with half a brain will ignore it.

Then you have nothing to worry about. People with half a brain will ignore it.

Right. As if I believe that a large majority of people have anything remotely resembling critical thinking skills. And I notice you became eeriely silent on how easy it would be to prepare a response.

How dare this evil company think they have the right to free speech. Where do they think we are the United States...oh wait a second.
the first amendment does not protect slander or libel, and this is one of them ,pick your poison

and to the idiot saying this is going to show his full service, do you in all honesty believe this will show a full account of his service and not just partisan cuts and pastes from anything they can use against him

Right. As if I believe that a large majority of people have anything remotely resembling critical thinking skills. And I notice you became eeriely silent on how easy it would be to prepare a response.Then you have a different gripe. And I didn't respond because you didn't read the statement. That's for the hour after the film. Why would you be able to buy it if hasn't been recorded yet? You said yourself it takes too much time to "spend the money, gather up all the character witnesses, find specific documentation and compile it all in a neatly wrapped package"

Then you have a different gripe. And I didn't respond because you didn't read the statement. That's for the hour after the film. Why would you be able to buy it if hasn't been recorded yet? You said yourself it takes too much time to "spend the money, gather up all the character witnesses, find specific documentation and compile it all in a neatly wrapped package"

You made a different argument to which I responded. Hence the statement about American critical thinking skills.

Obviously, just because there's no disclosure on the arguments that will be made doesn't mean that there isn't a general plan for what arguments will be made. However, it does leave open the obvious possibility that there will be an argument (whether truthful or not remains questionable) that hasn't been made before or hasn't been "predicted" by the Kerry campaign. Hence, having to deal with an argument that obviously has been planned (even if not entirely scripted) with only a matter of moments to prepare is vastly unfair to the person rebutting the charges. I would think that was obvious.

You're as bad as everyone else on these threads... leaving out the parts that don't suit your case:

From Sinclair's own website <-- You know, the SAME STATEMENT
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

Problem is, in a society that lives on 30 second sound clips, this type of smear can be VERY effective, especially since it's timed to occur right before the election. People don't wait to listen to the defense. As Karl Rove himself put it, "If they have to stop to explain, they've already lost."

You're as bad as everyone else on these threads... leaving out the parts that don't suit your case:

From Sinclair's own website <-- You know, the SAME STATEMENT
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

Wow, what an amazing argument. Oh wait, participating isn't the same as being in the same room and having full disclosure of at least the general arguments being made against him, while the people making the arguments have undoubtedly been thinking about what they're going to say.

You're as bad as everyone else on these threads... leaving out the parts that don't suit your case:

From Sinclair's own website <-- You know, the SAME STATEMENT
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.


I saw that. I repeat...Kerry could not possibly defend himself in that program. Going on it would merely add legitimacy to the claims.

However, it does leave open the obvious possibility that there will be an argument (whether truthful or not remains questionable) that hasn't been made before or hasn't been "predicted" by the Kerry campaign.You are just entirely incapable of out of the box thinking. HE CAN BRING HIS OWN UNPREDICTED ARGUMENTS.

This isn't a trial. It's legal. Get over it.

And Eutrusca, you're in my Region, so I'll temper my criticism against you thusly:

You're a flaming conservative idiot. :D

ROFLMAO!!! Why THANK YOU! I do believe that's the kindest thing you've ever said to me! :D

You are just entirely incapable of out of the box thinking. HE CAN BRING HIS OWN UNPREDICTED ARGUMENTS.

This isn't a trial. It's legal. Get over it.

Oh really? And what "unpredicted arguments" can you make against people you don't know who are making claims that you don't know about?

Incidentally, I was a successful competitive collegiate debater for 3 years. I'm quite capable of out of the box thinking. Your overly simplistic assertion is that every situation allows for that, whereas anyone who realistically looks at this knows that Kerry would necessarily only be playing defense to whatever accusations were levelled against him.

As for getting over it, maybe you should level that oh-so-amazing charge at yourself. I'm completely within my rights to protest the lack of fairness in the process. I'm not on trial. I'm within my rights. Get over it.

Yeah, BS. I wonder if you Righties would be so passive if the program was criticizing George W. Bush's National Guard service.

ROFLMAO!!! Why THANK YOU! I do believe that's the kindest thing you've ever said to me! :D

It won't be the last. :D

Yeah, BS. I wonder if you Righties would be so passive if the program was criticizing George W. Bush's National Guard service.
Well, if I remember correctly they waited until after memogate was broadcast and then attacked it.

That was WELL before the election. That was fair. This is the week or so before the election. There will not be any time to refute it.

Oh really? And what "unpredicted arguments" can you make against people you don't know who are making claims that you don't know about?You have to be kidding... tell me then, what "unpredicted arguments" do you think they'll be making?

Let me simplify it for you: Bring solid facts from his service that nobody has questioned yet (the point here is, that they're "unpredicted" so only he would know what they are.)

If it bothers you that much... ask him to air a legal anti-Bush documentary on a rival broadcasting network at the same time. It's not like he's out of options. You make it sound like the Democrats are idiots and entirely incapable of standing up to something as half-witted as this.

Democrats do not do that sort of thing. We won't lower ourselves to smear back at the same time. As I said in another thread, I am a Kerry campaign volunteer in Ohio. We are running a clean campaign here, even though our lawn signs are being vandalized and one of our campaign volunteers was assaulted right outside our very doorstep.

You have to be kidding... tell me then, what "unpredicted arguments" do you think they'll be making?

What COULDN'T they say? They could say he gave an order to burn down a village. They could say that they "heard" that he had bragged about killing a bunch of unarmed civilians. They COULD say just about anything. If they get enough people saying the same thing, a lot of the American public would say, "not that many people would lie about it".

Better yet, they could talk about how a POW heard a N. Vietnamese saying that Kerry thought it was good that they were captured. Then could say that Kerry's protests were used to "aid and bring comfort" to the enemy. Even if that's how the POW perceived it, it doesn't make it Kerry's fault that he protested the war. The problem is that Kerry can't say "no, that didn't happen" because there's no documentation or evidence to prove it. Which leaves him only being able to make defensive answers about why he protested the war. That will be spun as being non-responsive and feeble by the Republican campaign. Do you really need me to spell out more examples of how this kind of program could be used unfairly?

Let me simplify it for you: Bring solid facts from his service that nobody has questioned yet (the point here is, that they're "unpredicted" so only he would know what they are.)

Oh, right...like all of these programs are based solely on "solid facts". Not to mention that people could be giving their own opinions, which means that they don't have to have solid facts to back it up. They can say what they heard, or how they felt, and there's nothing to attack that with, factually.

If it bothers you that much... ask him to air a legal anti-Bush documentary on a rival broadcasting network at the same time. It's not like he's out of options. You make it sound like the Democrats are idiots and entirely incapable of standing up to something as half-witted as this.

Ah, so who is going to make this documentary? The Democratic party can't legally do it. And just because Kerry could stoop to the same level doesn't mean it should be encouraged. It's slimy to run it this late, and no amount of legality will change that fact.

Democrats do not do that sort of thing. We won't lower ourselves to smear back at the same time. As I said in another thread, I am a Kerry campaign volunteer in Ohio. We are running a clean campaign here, even though our lawn signs are being vandalized and one of our campaign volunteers was assaulted right outside our very doorstep.
And here in Portland Oregon, cars with Bush stickers are being spray painted "F*ck Bush" on them.
Michael Moore is all about smear.

Both sides do it. If you don't see that you are blinded by your own personal bias.

I can't speak for Oregon Democrats. I can't even speak for Ohio Democrats. But I can speak for the Troy operation, and we are running an ethical and clean campaign. George Bush's cronies are not.

Wow... you really don't get it. Why can't they send someone in to make unpredicted claims about Bush? And the Republicans didn't make the documentary nor ask for it to be aired. Media outlets in favor of Democrats have no balls? That's not Sinclair's fault.

I can't speak for Oregon Democrats. I can't even speak for Ohio Democrats. But I can speak for the Troy operation, and we are running an ethical and clean campaign. George Bush's cronies are not.So you ignore his statement? John Kerry's cronies aren't either. You can't counter with a generalized statement after acknowledging the problems in Oregon.

I can't speak for Oregon Democrats. I can't even speak for Ohio Democrats. But I can speak for the Troy operation, and we are running an ethical and clean campaign. George Bush's cronies are not.
Ah but your first statement made sweeping generalizations about Democrats do not do that sort of thing.
Now you are saying the Troy operation doesn't, but (all of) George Bush's cronies do.
Sweeping generalizations almost always get you in trouble, because they are always wrong.

Not all Bush supporters run ethical campaigns, most do.
Not all Kerry supporters run ethical campaings, most do.

Wow... you really don't get it. Why can't they send someone in to make unpredicted claims about Bush? And the Republicans didn't make the documentary nor ask for it to be aired. Media outlets in favor of Democrats have no balls? That's not Sinclair's fault.

I'll even assume that you're correct when you say that "the Republicans" didn't make or ask for the documentary. However, the whole point is that sketchy campaign tactics are sketchy, even if both sides do them. I, for one, hope the Democrats don't resort to doing this kind of thing, particularly if it requires relying on groups of questionable truthfulness.

It's so nice to see that you've conceded all my arguments and functionally gone for the "yeah, but the other side could cheat too" line of defense. Lastly, as I said before, why don't you get over it? We're within our rights to argue that it's slimy and unfair for this kind of show to be aired. If you have a better arg than "the Dems could do it too", please share. If not, I'll give your following posts all the attention they deserve.

Wow... you really don't get it. Why can't they send someone in to make unpredicted claims about Bush? And the Republicans didn't make the documentary nor ask for it to be aired. Media outlets in favor of Democrats have no balls? That's not Sinclair's fault.

I beg to differ. This smacks of a Karl Rove proxy. And the Democratic Party does not attack with smears. Every shot we have taken at George Bush has been based on his record. It's a pathetic record, so there's lots of shots to take.

And you concede, then, that Sinclair is being partisan?

Democrats do not do that sort of thing. We won't lower ourselves to smear back at the same time. As I said in another thread, I am a Kerry campaign volunteer in Ohio. We are running a clean campaign here, even though our lawn signs are being vandalized and one of our campaign volunteers was assaulted right outside our very doorstep.

Interesting that you failed to mention the Bush signs that were destroyed on peoples property in Ohio.. Mind you I'm not saying that you or your Kerry volunteers had anything to do with that. I for one will do my part to make sure Kerry does not win in Ohio.

This program is supposedly a bunch of Vets that have been in POW camps and lived first hand what affect the Kerry testimony did for them. And Kerry brought this on himself. He chose to push his service to the front and knew that there is a well organized group of Vets that would fight his election because of his Senate testimony..

Your protest only sparks my interest to see what these Vets have to say.

I remember that a similar thingnhapened before. Remember "The Reagens" That was stopped becuase it would misrepresent them or cause offence. Well I think similar standereds should be used here. Also I think another option is to take it to court and have it postponed 4 weeks. Unless Sinclair admits it wants to alter the election, it can't complain.

Interesting that you failed to mention the Bush signs that were destroyed on peoples property in Ohio.. Mind you I'm not saying that you or your Kerry volunteers had anything to do with that. I for one will do my part to make sure Kerry does not win in Ohio.

This program is supposedly a bunch of Vets that have been in POW camps and lived first hand what affect the Kerry testimony did for them. And Kerry brought this on himself. He chose to push his service to the front and knew that there is a well organized group of Vets that would fight his election because of his Senate testimony..

Your protest only sparks my interest to see what these Vets have to say.

Well, I think you're crazy, then. I can't imagine HOW you would back a President with the record George Bush has. He's not captured Osama Bin Laden. He's not captured Al-Zawahiri. He's not regained control over Iraq, not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not found Al-Qaida connections to Saddam Hussein, not gotten us OUT of Iraq. He's not tried to fix our alliances abroad. He's not fixed the economy (in Ohio, we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs and are STILL losing them), he's not advanced the cause of civil rights, and a report out just yesterday says that environmental quality has degraded over the past four years. Just to name a few things.

How the DEVIL can you support a man who has screwed up this badly? By buying the argument "Oh, Kerry'll be worse!"? How do you know that? Kerry has never been President before. None of us have any frame of reference to determine how good or bad he will be in office.

Change is good. Kick the cowboy's @ss back to Texas.

I remember that a similar thingnhapened before. Remember "The Reagens" That was stopped becuase it would misrepresent them or cause offence. Well I think similar standereds should be used here. Also I think another option is to take it to court and have it postponed 4 weeks. Unless Sinclair admits it wants to alter the election, it can't complain.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Reagan documentary.

Well, I think you're crazy, then. I can't imagine HOW you would back a President with the record George Bush has. He's not captured Osama Bin Laden. He's not captured Al-Zawahiri. He's not regained control over Iraq, not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not found Al-Qaida connections to Saddam Hussein, not gotten us OUT of Iraq. He's not tried to fix our alliances abroad. He's not fixed the economy (in Ohio, we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs and are STILL losing them), he's not advanced the cause of civil rights, and a report out just yesterday says that environmental quality has degraded over the past four years. Just to name a few things.

How the DEVIL can you support a man who has screwed up this badly? By buying the argument "Oh, Kerry'll be worse!"? How do you know that? Kerry has never been President before. None of us have any frame of reference to determine how good or bad he will be in office.

Change is good. Kick the cowboy's @ss back to Texas.
I can support the man because I like what he's done with the economy he was handed.
I can support him because I believe in the war on terror, and how it's being run.
I can support him because I like a man with conviction.
I can support him because he's not Kerry.

It's so nice to see that you've conceded all my arguments and functionally gone for the "yeah, but the other side could cheat too" line of defense.You're so far off base it hurts. It's all conceded. Of course it's partisan. But it's fair because it's within the law as it's written. Democratic supporters could do the same thing. If you don't like it, change the law. If you're "above that kind of thing" then change the law. If you're not going to counter it with the means provided within the law, then you have nothing to complain about.

The electoral process was unfair in 2000. The airing of this film is unfair this year. What legal process will be unfair in 2008?

Are we sure MonkeBrain and MKULTRA are not the same person?
Careful, we are sharing the same consideration. ;)

I personally think that no political adds should be allowed a week or two before the election. Then if something like this happens there are several weeks to refute it. Also, another option is to state beforehand that this "documentary" is biased agaisnt Kerry. You can't ban them from showing it, but there should be some limits.

You're so far off base it hurts. It's all conceded. Of course it's partisan. But it's fair because it's within the law as it's written. Democratic supporters could do the same thing. If you don't like it, change the law. If you're "above that kind of thing" then change the law. If you're not going to counter it with the means provided within the law, then you have nothing to complain about.

The electoral process was unfair in 2000. The airing of this film is unfair this year. What legal process will be unfair in 2008?

Ah, so protesting and using my right of free speech isn't acting within the context of the law to change it? Encouraging others to boycott Sinclair Group programming or companies that advertise on it isn't doing that? You're too caught up in your ridiculous world of "just because the other side can do it means no one should mention it". Consider every single post I make here just one aspect of me "countering it with the means provided within the law", and then realize how pointless your attempts to argue with me have been.

I personally think that no political adds should be allowed a week or two before the election. Then if something like this happens there are several weeks to refute it. Also, another option is to state beforehand that this "documentary" is biased agaisnt Kerry. You can't ban them from showing it, but there should be some limits.That won't work either, since you would have to air a political statement to counter the one that happened at the cut-off time. It's not the deadline, it's that we're afraid of the stupid people that are actually swayed by these things voting.

You're so far off base it hurts. It's all conceded. Of course it's partisan. But it's fair because it's within the law as it's written. Democratic supporters could do the same thing. If you don't like it, change the law. If you're "above that kind of thing" then change the law. If you're not going to counter it with the means provided within the law, then you have nothing to complain about.

The electoral process was unfair in 2000. The airing of this film is unfair this year. What legal process will be unfair in 2008?
If someone went up to you and asked you, where can I get acurate information about Jorn Kerry or George Bush, what would you suggest? After all, its legal for them to be misrepresented on TV.

Consider every single post I make here just one aspect of me "countering it with the means provided within the law", and then realize how pointless your attempts to argue with me have been.If you think posting here changes laws, then you are sad little man in a sad little world. I just kill time at work with this. How does a group of people who already know they're voting for Kerry not watching Sinclair's programming affect anything? The people who will be swayed by it will still watch, and will still vote Bush. You lose. Get actively involved in politics and call your senator and change the law. Do your own campaigning for it. Your passive boycott isn't going to accomplishing anything. Are Americans really that passive-aggressive these days?

That won't work either, since you would have to air a political statement to counter the one that happened at the cut-off time. It's not the deadline, it's that we're afraid of the stupid people that are actually swayed by these things voting.
Over a few days though the news networks would realise the truth. And even if they dont I think it still would be better. If you go to bed the night before the election and hear that Kerry shot someone for fun or whatever or even Bush was drunk on the job. When you vote next day that will be firmly in your mind. over 2 weeks you can revert back to the issues. Also, generally the huge peak before the election would settle.


I am not saying that they can't be mentioned at all. There just couldnt be any political adds and documentaries. If you really want to say something, say it beforehand.

If someone went up to you and asked you, where can I get acurate information about Jorn Kerry or George Bush, what would you suggest? After all, its legal for them to be misrepresented on TV.Go to a library. Look up their voting and attendance records. Read their biopgraphies. Make up your own mind. People rely WAY too much on TV to make it for them. TV's primray role is for entertainment, not information.

How dare this evil company think they have the right to free speech. Where do they think we are the United States...oh wait a second.
I am not sure corporations have the same rights as individuals (unless you are hawking for Billionaires For Bush (http://billionairesforbush.com/index.php)) although they do have greater responsibilities (and licenses to uphold.)

Well, I think you're crazy, then. I can't imagine HOW you would back a President with the record George Bush has. He's not captured Osama Bin Laden. He's not captured Al-Zawahiri. He's not regained control over Iraq, not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not found Al-Qaida connections to Saddam Hussein, not gotten us OUT of Iraq. He's not tried to fix our alliances abroad. He's not fixed the economy (in Ohio, we've lost almost a quarter of a million jobs and are STILL losing them), he's not advanced the cause of civil rights, and a report out just yesterday says that environmental quality has degraded over the past four years. Just to name a few things.


It's really simple.
Osama's been mostly hog tied. Yea we don't have him, yet. But Kerry has offer not reason for me to think that he will ever catch him.

Al-Zawahiri, were working on that. And might I add with the help of the Iraqi government.

Don't care about WMD's.

Iraq is coming along. Granted, it's taking some time and has been tougher than they thought it would be. Imagine a free Iraq, having truely free elections in January.

Our alliances are doing very well. Some countries didn't want to work with us and that is fine. It's when they actively try and oppose our actions, I start to question their loyalty..

As far as the economy goes. Do you realize that we were headed for recession before Bush even go into office? Then 9/11 hit and around a million people lost their jobs in the span of a couple months. With Bush at the wheel the economy is recovering rapidly and we witnessed one of the shortest recessions in history. Yea Ohio is lagging behind the curve, but we are on the way to recovery just like the rest of the nation.

You forgot to mention that Afganistan is free and they just recently had free elections. (A little rough mind you, but still free.)

In the end, Bush stands for a lot more of the issue that I hold dear. And Kerry does not.

Too many democrats are blinded by hate for the President. Look at the issues and vote for the candidate that fits you best.

If you think posting here changes laws, then you are sad little man in a sad little world. I just kill time at work with this. How does a group of people who already know they're voting for Kerry not watching Sinclair's programming affect anything? The people who will be swayed by it will still watch, and will still vote Bush. You lose. Get actively involved in politics and call your senator and change the law. Do your own campaigning for it. Your passive boycott isn't going to accomplishing anything. Are Americans really that passive-aggressive these days?

Now who is far off base? In addition to failing to note that I only listed a couple of the actions I was taking (if you need it written explicitly, that means I'm already going to be doing all the things you claim I -should- do and doing other things as well), you seem to think that argumentation and debate never changes anyone's mind. If one person reading this thread views the show and examines it more critically, it's progress. But you apparently think that the only thing that matters is the literal moment that the law is passed. Talk about being a sad little man in a sad little world...I wonder if MLK or other great leaders of this country would've only "sent letters to their senators" that we'd even be where we are. But I guess you already know what kinds of protests work and which ones never do :rolleyes:

Tell ya what, you explain to me how a boycott that economically impacted a business doesn't affect them in this country. Then you'll be almost half a step towards refuting something I've said.

I've come to the conclusion that I must be in Hell. Or, barring that, at least the dominion of Heck. BUSH IS A FOOL! In the first debate in particular, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights of some oncoming car. He seemed to grasp for answers in all three debates.

And TheOneRule, you've really bought into the Bush propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The numbers show the Bush economy to be in some serious trouble. The War on Terror is failing under him. Our alliances are not great...just read the article the Norwegians put in the Washington Post.

And John Kerry is ten times the man that George Bush is. He volunteered to go to Vietnam and risk his life while rich-boy Bush used his dad's powerful connections to escape into service with the National Guard. This is not disputed...the Texas politician who helped him do it has admitted it point-blank. And despite Memogate, the CHARGES themselves have never been disproven.

So if you want lies, record deficits, hard-line conservatism, eroding civil rights, and the auction of public policy to Corporate America, by all means vote for Bush. He's GGGGRRRRRRRREAT! (Sound like Tony the Tiger!)

I urge my fellow Americans to email Sinclair Broadcasting at comments@sbgi.net and protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!



YAHOO! News:
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry (news - web sites)'s anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday.

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so," he said.

He said he would consider the senators' concerns but added that they may not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC (news - web sites) rules require that a program air before a formal complaint can be considered.

Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations — many of them in competitive states in the presidential election — to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda (news). It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

In the letter to Powell, the senators — led by Dianne Feinstein of California — asked the FCC to determine whether the airing of the anti-Kerry program is a "proper use of public airwaves" and to investigate whether it would violate rules requiring equal air time for candidates.

Separately, the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign.
I clicked that link and wrote a letter to Sinclair protesting their neo nazi activism

what you need to do next is give out Sinclairs phone number so everyone in America can call them up and tell them to stop the hate

Unfortunately, I do not know their phone number. They were not inclined to put it on their website. :D

Unfortunately, I do not know their phone number. They were not inclined to put it on their website. :D
people should also file a complaint with the FCC and the FEC cause Sinclair is promoting libel against a Presidential candidate

I've come to the conclusion that I must be in Hell. Or, barring that, at least the dominion of Heck. BUSH IS A FOOL! In the first debate in particular, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights of some oncoming car. He seemed to grasp for answers in all three debates.

And TheOneRule, you've really bought into the Bush propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The numbers show the Bush economy to be in some serious trouble. The War on Terror is failing under him. Our alliances are not great...just read the article the Norwegians put in the Washington Post.


You also seem to have taken the Kerry propaganda hook line and sinker. Yea Bush did really bad the first debate.

What numbers shows that the economy is in trouble?

You also seem to have taken the Kerry propaganda hook line and sinker. Yea Bush did really bad the first debate.

What numbers shows that the economy is in trouble?
the increasing millions of people unemployed every year Bush remains in office

You also seem to have taken the Kerry propaganda hook line and sinker. Yea Bush did really bad the first debate.

What numbers shows that the economy is in trouble?

Biggest deficit in history, yet again. This month marked the biggest monthly trade deficit in history. There are rumblings that a new recession is on the way. Millions more in poverty than before Bush came in to office. A larger tax burden on the middle class. Oil prices at an all time high. The stock market yet again dipping below 10,000. A net job loss over the course of his Presidency. Corproate givaways.

Oh, and most major economists agree that the recession did not start until March 2001, so after Bush took office.

the increasing millions of people unemployed every year Bush remains in office

The number of unemployed is decreasing... Not increasing.

The number of unemployed is decreasing... Not increasing.
Bush is the only President since Herbert Hoover to have four straight years of steady job losses

Biggest deficit in history, yet again. This month marked the biggest monthly trade deficit in history. There are rumblings that a new recession is on the way. Millions more in poverty than before Bush came in to office. A larger tax burden on the middle class. Oil prices at an all time high. The stock market yet again dipping below 10,000. A net job loss over the course of his Presidency. Corproate givaways.

Oh, and most major economists agree that the recession did not start until March 2001, so after Bush took office.


The deficit is not an economic indicator. It just indicates that both the Democrats and Republicans are spend happy. :(

Do the Poverty numbers include Illegal Aliens?

Yea the stock market and the economy has been adversely affected by the price of Oil.

The deficit is not an economic indicator. It just indicates that both the Democrats and Republicans are spend happy. :(

Do the Poverty numbers include Illegal Aliens?

Yea the stock market and the economy has been adversely affected by the price of Oil.
We need President John Kerry to restore the Clinton surplus--a Bush in the White house is always an indicator of recessions and joblessness

- SNIPPED -

This program is supposedly a bunch of Vets that have been in POW camps and lived first hand what affect the Kerry testimony did for them. And Kerry brought this on himself. He chose to push his service to the front and knew that there is a well organized group of Vets that would fight his election because of his Senate testimony..

Your protest only sparks my interest to see what these Vets have to say.
All this just before the election? On the public airwaves? That is the matter at hand. The title of the piece speaks for it's content. Had this run a month or more ago it could have been more fully researched, discussed and debated.

I remember that a similar thingnhapened before. Remember "The Reagens" That was stopped becuase it would misrepresent them or cause offence. Well I think similar standereds should be used here. Also I think another option is to take it to court and have it postponed 4 weeks. Unless Sinclair admits it wants to alter the election, it can't complain.
Precisely. It's the timing.

Bush is the only President since Herbert Hoover to have four straight years of steady job losses

After losing a million or so jobs because of a recession coupled with 9/11. The President had his work cut out for him.. But the numbers have been coming up for the last few months.

I think the number of jobs "created" over the last 13 months is somewhere around 1.9 million. (Bushes numbers, not sure how correct) And "created" is in quotes because government doesn't create jobs.

Yea it looks like Bush will still have a net loss as far as Jobs go..

You're so far off base it hurts. It's all conceded. Of course it's partisan. But it's fair because it's within the law as it's written. Democratic supporters could do the same thing. If you don't like it, change the law. If you're "above that kind of thing" then change the law. If you're not going to counter it with the means provided within the law, then you have nothing to complain about.

The electoral process was unfair in 2000. The airing of this film is unfair this year. What legal process will be unfair in 2008?
I'd have to ask Karl Rove.

After losing a million or so jobs because of a recession coupled with 9/11. The President had his work cut out for him.. But the numbers have been coming up for the last few months.

I think the number of jobs "created" over the last 13 months is somewhere around 1.9 million. (Bushes numbers, not sure how correct) And "created" is in quotes because government doesn't create jobs.

Yea it looks like Bush will still have a net loss as far as Jobs go..
the "creation" of jobs has leveled off and ih s far lower than the "Creation" of job applicants

the "creation" of jobs has leveled off and ih s far lower than the "Creation" of job applicants

You got any creditable sources for that? I tried checking the Department of Labor but man their site blows.

It's really simple.
Osama's been mostly hog tied. Yea we don't have him, yet. But Kerry has offer not reason for me to think that he will ever catch him.
Lookie here pardner. Hog tied requires the cowboy and the cow be in the same place at the same time with the cowboy standin and the hog tied at his feet. If the hog is hanging out in a pasture elsewhere and you have no idea where, he aint only not "hog tied' but is free to roam and do as he will.

Al-Zawahiri, were working on that. And might I add with the help of the Iraqi government.
With the help of WHO? Har dee har-har. You're a comedian.

Don't care about WMD's.
Can we add that to the list of impelling causes that have escaped Bush's short attention span?

Iraq is coming along. Granted, it's taking some time and has been tougher than they thought it would be. Imagine a free Iraq, having truely free elections in January.
Bring all the imagination you can muster. You'll need it.

Our alliances are doing very well. Some countries didn't want to work with us and that is fine. It's when they actively try and oppose our actions, I start to question their loyalty.
You better start reexamining your assumptions. They have.

As far as the economy goes. Do you realize that we were headed for recession before Bush even go into office? Then 9/11 hit and around a million people lost their jobs in the span of a couple months. With Bush at the wheel the economy is recovering rapidly and we witnessed one of the shortest recessions in history. Yea Ohio is lagging behind the curve, but we are on the way to recovery just like the rest of the nation.
psssst . . . it not just Ohio. Many areas are still in the grip of recession. Un- and under- employment are still rampant. Bush's policies are making the corporations money but the average American is assed out.

You forgot to mention that Afganistan is free and they just recently had free elections. (A little rough mind you, but still free.)
Were they "free" or "US sanctioned"? There is a difference you know.

In the end, Bush stands for a lot more of the issue that I hold dear. And Kerry does not.

Too many democrats are blinded by hate for the President. Look at the issues and vote for the candidate that fits you best.
That is as undisputable as the fact that many Bush supporters suffer the same myopia.

BTW - A registered Republican for over 25 years, I voted for Bush in 2000. Mr. Bush has so inspired me that I have changed my affiliation to Independent (in NYS that means No Party) and will vote for Kerry this time around. For me, Mr. Bush has worn out his welcome.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Liberals throw slander around left and right. Now they are targeted and they shit their pants. I'm not saying this documentary is fair, but just don't expect people to buy into your double standard. If it actually violates the law, it will hurt the Bush camp anyway. The courts will handle it, in the mean time, stop whining, nobody listens to your ridiculous protests anyway.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Liberals throw slander around left and right. Now they are targeted and they shit their pants. I'm not saying this documentary is fair, but just don't expect people to buy into your double standard. If it actually violates the law, it will hurt the Bush camp anyway. The courts will handle it, in the mean time, stop whining, nobody listens to your ridiculous protests anyway.
and dont expect us "evil liberals" to expect your double standard bullshit about its ok for the republicans to do it because the liberals do it all the time!! i dare you to name 3.

Unfortunately, I do not know their phone number. They were not inclined to put it on their website. :D
SOURCE (http://www.business.com/directory/media_and_entertainment/television/sinclair_broadcast_group,_inc/)
CONTACT INFORMATION
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, MARYLAND 21030

+1 410 568-1500
+1 410 568-1533

and dont expect us "evil liberals" to expect your double standard bullshit about its ok for the republicans to do it because the liberals do it all the time!! i dare you to name 3.

MoveOn.Org's campaign to equate Bush to Hitler
Michael Moore's Farehnheit 9/11
Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate

of course you see all of these as true, and not slanderous or tasteless, so I don't know why I wasted my time

It won't be the last. :D

Hahahahaha! Kewl! I would be like ... sooooo disappointed! :D

Biggest deficit in history, yet again. This month marked the biggest monthly trade deficit in history. There are rumblings that a new recession is on the way. Millions more in poverty than before Bush came in to office. A larger tax burden on the middle class. Oil prices at an all time high. The stock market yet again dipping below 10,000. A net job loss over the course of his Presidency. Corproate givaways.

Oh, and most major economists agree that the recession did not start until March 2001, so after Bush took office.
You were doing fine until that last bit. The Dot.Com Bomb preceeded Bush as did the beginning of the corporate scandals wherein billions evaporated. The recession was just a matter of time. It is ingenuous to lay it at Bush's feet.

Enron was on Bush's watch although it had been years in the making. What could be said - but never is - is that how in the wake of the corporate dissolution of so many people's life savings has neither Congress or the President done anything to prevent it from happening in the future?

That would be much more relevant that SBV or TNG but sadly only history will say how much that lack of investor reassurance has cost the recovery. Instead of billions being invested in job creating areas they are being invested in a red hot, inflated preexisting stock real estate sector.

The number of unemployed is decreasing... Not increasing.
Actually that is false. The unemployment figures are for those collecting benefits and do not reflect those whose unemployment or underemployment continues unabated.

MoveOn.Org's campaign to equate Bush to Hitler
Michael Moore's Farehnheit 9/11
Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate

of course you see all of these as true, and not slanderous or tasteless, so I don't know why I wasted my time
the difference is what liberals say can be documented with facts whereas conservatives just spout lies from hell

the difference is what liberals say can be documented with facts whereas conservatives just spout lies from hell

This documentary seems to be mostly interviews with veterans, and quotes from kerry. Is that unfactual? No, but its clearly propaganda like Mr. Moore's work. Also, how can you possibly assert that comparing Bush to Hitler is based in fact?

This whole thing is ridiculous. Liberals throw slander around left and right. Now they are targeted and they shit their pants. I'm not saying this documentary is fair, but just don't expect people to buy into your double standard. If it actually violates the law, it will hurt the Bush camp anyway. The courts will handle it, in the mean time, stop whining, nobody listens to your ridiculous protests anyway.
For the record, I am an old school conservative - not a left wing and definitely not a liberal.

MoveOn.Org's campaign to equate Bush to Hitler
Michael Moore's Farehnheit 9/11
Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate

of course you see all of these as true, and not slanderous or tasteless, so I don't know why I wasted my time

Moveon's campaign?!?!?! Are you high? The Bush/Hitler movie was submitted by a private individual to a competition and was removed as soon as it was noted. In fact, the footage was showed much much more by right-wing nut jobs frothing at the mouth to condemn liberals for anything. Reasonable conservatives know that Moveon did not sponsor, condone, or promote that film.

Farenheit 9/11 was a documentary in movie theaters. People had to actively go to the theater and shell out their money, This attack job on Kerry is going on the public airwaves and is being called a news story. Apples and Oranges.

Every political cartoon? What about all the political cartoons about Kerry? Please, political cartoons are as old as politics themselves. There was probably a cartoon on the wall of a cave when Oog was trying to convince his tribe that Marg stood too erect. There is a world of difference between satire and the quality standards required of news.

MoveOn.Org's campaign to equate Bush to Hitler
Michael Moore's Farehnheit 9/11
Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate

of course you see all of these as true, and not slanderous or tasteless, so I don't know why I wasted my time
1) moveon.org never featured that add, all your republican friends did thought
2) f 9/11 was kind of tasteless and a bit of libel, but other than that. but it was also a private matter you had to go and view yourself, you had to PAY money to see the mans opinion, therefore removing most of the libel and slanderr definitions from it
3) what about every political cartoon that represents kerry as a horse or edwards as a baby? welcome to the world of CARTOONS

Moveon's campaign?!?!?! Are you high? The Bush/Hitler movie was submitted by a private individual to a competition and was removed as soon as it was noted. In fact, the footage was showed much much more by right-wing nut jobs frothing at the mouth to condemn liberals for anything. Reasonable conservatives know that Moveon did not sponsor, condone, or promote that film.

MoveOn reluctantly removed the film, but it appeared there briefly with their consent. It is still a view that gets thrown around by the left.

Take into account Paul Lindorff, who began the recent unfounded rumor of Bush wearing a wire. This appeared on Counterpunch.org "It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels on the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line."

A few months later, Lindorff moderated his position just a touch, writing, "George Bush is not Hitler. Yet." But Lindorff added, "It's worth pointing out too that Hitler was not the monster of 1939 when he took power in 1933."

MoveOn reluctantly removed the film, but it appeared there briefly with their consent. It is still a view that gets thrown around by the left.

Take into account Paul Lindorff, who began the recent unfounded rumor of Bush wearing a wire. This appeared on Counterpunch.org "It's going a bit far to compare the Bush of 2003 to the Hitler of 1933. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels on the German people and their Weimar Republic are not at all out of line."

A few months later, Lindorff moderated his position just a touch, writing, "George Bush is not Hitler. Yet." But Lindorff added, "It's worth pointing out too that Hitler was not the monster of 1939 when he took power in 1933."


Yes, and I can find young women having sex with animals on the internet as well. Would you say it would be okay for Sinclair to air that as news?

No, the standards for broadcast on the airwaves, especially when the item is called a news item, are completely different from the standards for the internet.

Your argument is a complete red-herring.

By the way, I would equally resist a movie that compared Bush to Hitler 2 days before the election. Are you willing to be as even-handed?

Free Speech/Press: Don't you just hate it?

MoveOn.Org's campaign to equate Bush to Hitler
Michael Moore's Farehnheit 9/11
Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate

of course you see all of these as true, and not slanderous or tasteless, so I don't know why I wasted my time

Actually Moveon.Org didn't that was a lie by conservatives and bloggers. It was a choice of ads that was voted down. They asked people to submit ads. Then they bvoted. The Hitler one qas in bad taste according to owns of Moveon and people voted it down.
So that was a falacy. Also Ad hoc.

Micheal Moore's Farehnheit 9/11: No its not true but it was just there to raise good questions. Its not 100% accurate because Micheal adds his opinion in there.

Every political cartoon that represents Bush as a simple minded primate: Well I haven't seen him illistrated as a primate. I have seen the internet show pictures of it. So I agree that is somewhat tasteless. I do have a sense of humor and those pictures are good. They make the monkey look like Bush.

Wow, your lies never cease, do they?
Woops, in my rush to go to work I quoted the wrong person.

protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!



Wow, your lies never cease, do they?

Free Speech/Press: Don't you just hate it?

This isn't about free speech. This is about Broadcast standards. What happened to the huge stink about Janet Jackson's boob? Where was the Republican free speech campaign then? How about all those fines for Howard Stern? Where was the Republican uproar then?

Woops, in my rush to go to work I quoted the wrong person.



Wow, your lies never cease, do they?
Well, as I said in my original post responding to you, you shouldn't attack anyone. It does nothing to bolster our argument, nor does it disprove his argument.

They offered the Kerry camp an hour of space immediately following the showing of this film and they refused it. You can't complain after you give up the right to equal time.

Um... No, they didn't. In fact, Kerry proxies have REQUESTED equal time and been rebuffed, according to Salon.

What's your source?

Does the Kerry campaign know exactly what charges will be levelled? If not, then any attempt to answer the claims might be non-responsive, which could then be spun as Kerry "not answering the charges". It's fairly obvious that an hour of airtime immediately following wouldn't be capable of responding sufficiently to the claims that will be made. Hence, I think it's perfectly appropriate to claim that this is just a partisan attempt to influence the election.

The charges are thus: That his anti-war protesting after his tours in Vietnam prolonged the war and led to further suffering. Basically, their contention is that the U.S. was winning and Kerry made them lose, and in that losing, soldiers' captivity and suffering were prolonged.

It flies in the face of logic and history, really. Anti-war protesting PROLONGING the war? I'm sorry... WHAT? U.S. was winning in the '70s how? That's right, we were rolling in to Hanoi when Nixon all of a sudden saw Kerry on TV and said, "Oh, he's all popular, we should pull back..." Um, no. Let's face it, the charges are BASELESS.

Veterans may be mad, but Kerry didn't make any accusation that wasn't FACTUAL. Veterans in Vietnam experienced and did some incredibly effed up things. I remember asking my neighbor about his service. I've never seen a grown man so visibly upset - he recounted a story about his unit shooting their new lieutenant in the back because they knew his orders would get them killed.

One of my father's expert witnesses was a Green Beret in Vietnam, even before we officially had troops there. He assassinated village chieftains because they were suspected VC sympathizers. He tortured people for information. He floated in a river for three days, wounded, breathing through a straw because his evacuation plan was aborted because it was on the wrong side of a line on a map. He has said, "Everything Kerry said then was and is true."

Vietnam was a war run by politicians, and brave men and women on both sides lost their innocence. I won't prescribe motives to these men in "Stolen Honor", but their accusations do not pass the test of history, of logic, or even of laughter.

Sinclair's decision to run the show is merely further indication of its partisan nature. This is the same station owner (the LARGEST station owner in the U.S.) that refused to run a news program that read the names of all the servicemen and women killed in Iraq. Sinclair is not running offered documentaries that proffer positive views of Kerry's Vietnam service. It does a disservice to America to FORCE your stations in all your markets (from California to Maine) to run your views, and it is intellectually dishonest to do so without considering the chance to proffer views contrary to your own.

This isn't about free speech. This is about Broadcast standards. What happened to the huge stink about Janet Jackson's boob? Where was the Republican free speech campaign then? How about all those fines for Howard Stern? Where was the Republican uproar then?

Janet Jackson's exposed breast was a matter of indecent exposure on live national TV. A TV network agreeing to air a political documentary is exercising their right to Free Speech and Free Press.

*Bumped for a damn good cause!*

Janet Jackson's exposed breast was a matter of indecent exposure on live national TV. A TV network agreeing to air a political documentary is exercising their right to Free Speech and Free Press.
Please. Not even you can believe that. A publically held corporation does not have a right to free speech anymore than - by it's nature - it has an opinion. The opinion is that of it's CEO who is apparently running off the rails and may well take his shareholders into his trainwreck. Keep an eye on their stock. (http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&mode=basics&selected=SBGI&symbol=sbgi)

Ummm he's defending your position... don't attack him.

Don't attack anyone, but especially your allies.

Like Iraq

Now who is far off base? In addition to failing to note that I only listed a couple of the actions I was taking (if you need it written explicitly, that means I'm already going to be doing all the things you claim I -should- do and doing other things as well), you seem to think that argumentation and debate never changes anyone's mind. If one person reading this thread views the show and examines it more critically, it's progress. But you apparently think that the only thing that matters is the literal moment that the law is passed. Talk about being a sad little man in a sad little world...I wonder if MLK or other great leaders of this country would've only "sent letters to their senators" that we'd even be where we are. But I guess you already know what kinds of protests work and which ones never do :rolleyes:

Tell ya what, you explain to me how a boycott that economically impacted a business doesn't affect them in this country. Then you'll be almost half a step towards refuting something I've said.
You'll have to do better than that. Debates work, just not here. This thread here reaches an audience of what? 18? How many people have posted in or read this thread? And changing one persons mind is hardly progress when there's a time limit on your goal. That would be like someone saying to NASA in the '60s that they made progress towards space by jumping. And MLK did what I wrote in my last post, which was to get active and do his own campaigning. You chose to ignore that part and only single out writing letters. And to top it off... no large business in this country has ever been successfully boycotted.

You'll have to do better than that. Debates work, just not here. This thread here reaches an audience of what? 18? How many people have posted in or read this thread? And changing one persons mind is hardly progress when there's a time limit on your goal. That would be like someone saying to NASA in the '60s that they made progress towards space by jumping. And MLK did what I wrote in my last post, which was to get active and do his own campaigning. You chose to ignore that part and only single out writing letters. And to top it off... no large business in this country has ever been successfully boycotted.

So again you ignore the fact that I've repeatedly stated that writing letters/etc is only part of a comprehensive strategy. This is called a strawperson argument, and you're doing a bang up job of using it. However, you don't happen to be responding to what -I'm- saying.

1. You don't have the faintest idea what kind of population is being reached on these forums. But I'd be willing to place a nice, fat wager on it being more than 18. Care to take that bet?

2. Debates just don't work here? What magical property do these forums have that uniquely preclude debates from working? Please share.

3. Your concept of progress is simply laughable. Progress with regard to political reform doesn't just take place in the courts, in the Congress, or in the executive. It also takes place in the minds of the citizens of this country. It's also not a fast process. There's a large difference between immediate and intermediate goals and the long-term goal of a more critically-thinking civic population. If you can't recognize the way that those two are interrelated...well, I guess it explains why you're not answering my arguments.

4. If this is the only place I was posting or talking about it, you might have some validity in trying to say that I wasn't reaching people. But again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Of course, most people like to hide their ignorance, but you seem to be flagging us down with yours. Why is that? Additionally, your claims that I'm "singling out" writing letters are absurd. The fact that you later go on to mention boycotts proves that writing letters is hardly the extent of what I've suggested, nor have you proven why suggesting a couple things is exclusive with engaging in other activities. gg strawperson.

5. "No large business has ever been successfully boycotted" - care to provide some evidentiary support for that? And please tell me what you define "successfully boycotted" as? That's a mighty big claim to prove, but I'll give you the chance to do so.

1. You don't have the faintest idea what kind of population is being reached on these forums. But I'd be willing to place a nice, fat wager on it being more than 18. Care to take that bet?Congratulations, you pointed out my exageration. I'm not talking about potential audience... I'm talking actual. Only Stephistan could help with those numbers. I'll concede that it's more than 18 if it makes you happy.

2. Debates just don't work here? What magical property do these forums have that uniquely preclude debates from working? Please share.Please show me where I said debates don't work here.

3. Your concept of progress is simply laughable. Progress with regard to political reform doesn't just take place in the courts, in the Congress, or in the executive. It also takes place in the minds of the citizens of this country. It's also not a fast process. There's a large difference between immediate and intermediate goals and the long-term goal of a more critically-thinking civic population. If you can't recognize the way that those two are interrelated...well, I guess it explains why you're not answering my arguments.Did you forget what the topic of the thread was? This is about protesting the broadcast of a film in eight days. I never said these methods don't work. But if these are your tactics for a time-sensitive goal, then you're using the wrong tools for the job.

4. If this is the only place I was posting or talking about it, you might have some validity in trying to say that I wasn't reaching people. But again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Of course, most people like to hide their ignorance, but you seem to be flagging us down with yours. Why is that? Additionally, your claims that I'm "singling out" writing letters are absurd. The fact that you later go on to mention boycotts proves that writing letters is hardly the extent of what I've suggested, nor have you proven why suggesting a couple things is exclusive with engaging in other activities. gg strawperson.You singled out writing letters, remember? ...would've only "sent letters to their senators" And I couldn't care less what you do outside of this thread. I only commented on the effectiveness of this forum, "If you think posting here changes laws...

5. "No large business has ever been successfully boycotted" - care to provide some evidentiary support for that? And please tell me what you define "successfully boycotted" as? That's a mighty big claim to prove, but I'll give you the chance to do so.Define it anyway you want, it hasn't been done. I can't give you examples of things that didn't happen. You'd have to give me an example to the contrary... which you didn't.

1. You don't have the faintest idea what kind of population is being reached on these forums. But I'd be willing to place a nice, fat wager on it being more than 18. Care to take that bet?
Congratulations, you pointed out my exageration. I'm not talking about potential audience... I'm talking actual. Only Stephistan could help with those numbers. I'll concede that it's more than 18 if it makes you happy.
- snip -
Looking at the General Forum Thread Display, as of now this thread has 539 reads. If that means distinct individuals or multiple counts of a given individual I cannot say.

Mod comment invited.

Congratulations, you pointed out my exageration. I'm not talking about potential audience... I'm talking actual. Only Stephistan could help with those numbers. I'll concede that it's more than 18 if it makes you happy.

It doesn't make me happy. It shows me that your argument has little or no relevance, since you have no support for it. It's purely supposition on your part.

Please show me where I said debates don't work here.

How about this quote:

Debates work, just not here.

Or is that not sufficient?

Did you forget what the topic of the thread was? This is about protesting the broadcast of a film in eight days. I never said these methods don't work. But if these are your tactics for a time-sensitive goal, then you're using the wrong tools for the job.

Ah, so lobbying for changes in the law (as you suggested) would be a better solution to fix something that's happening in 8 days? Are you sure you should be trying to act like I'm the one forgetting something?

You singled out writing letters, remember? And I couldn't care less what you do outside of this thread. I only commented on the effectiveness of this forum,

So now writing letters AND discussing on this forum are the "only" comments you're making. Which is it? Do you have any idea how disjointed and contradictory your arguments are becoming? Letters, protesting the company and its advertisers, boycotts, pushing for legislation...all of these things are things I've referenced at one point or another. Yet you keep making more straw person arguments.

Define it anyway you want, it hasn't been done. I can't give you examples of things that didn't happen. You'd have to give me an example to the contrary... which you didn't.

Oh, so if I define a successful boycott as getting a company to change its policy, you have evidence that that kind of success never happened?

The Rainforest Action Network has called off its long-standing boycott of Mitsubishi. The two main companies targeted by the boycott, Mitsubishi Motors and Mitsubishi Electric, have signed an agreement with RAN committing themselves to making important changes to their wood and paper purchasing policies, and the rest of the Mitsubishi group is also said to be looking at ways of improving its environmental management. This signals an important victory for the campaign to promote more responsible forestry practices in the world’s rainforests. http://www.ran.org/home/victories.html

I've got my example. Now you show me how you can support YOUR claim.

The quoting mechanism isn't working well for this one... oh well.

That was a comment on the effectiveness of the debates. Winning a debate in this thread will not accomplish anything like winning a televised presidential debate would.

Wait! Did you just concede that you can't stop this film from airing? That you can only change the policy that allowed it over the long term, so bitching now doesn't accomplish anything? (What I was saying the whole time).

And why are you still attacking me for things that you are singling out? I'm not "only" saying anything. I mentioned all of those things, too. Did you miss that that quote was from you?

You misquoted me earlier. I said:
no large business in this country has ever been successfully boycotted. Many boycotts have worked with foreign companies. Sinclair is not a foreign company.

We may just have an issue of goals here. I'm saying that you can't stop the damage this film may do by swaying voters to vote Bush in this election. What are you arguing?

I beg to differ. This smacks of a Karl Rove proxy. And the Democratic Party does not attack with smears. Every shot we have taken at George Bush has been based on his record. It's a pathetic record, so there's lots of shots to take.


Aha. That whole Farenheit 911 thing, the 60 minutes thing, that gathering of celebs in NYC where Whoopi Goldberg went trash talking were all based on his record? Riiiiight.

Please take off the rosy-colored glasses, both side fling crap at each other with equal alacrity and skill.

PUNDITRY SUCKS!!

That was a comment on the effectiveness of the debates. Winning a debate in this thread will not accomplish anything like winning a televised presidential debate would.

What? You said that debates work, just not here. I said "is there some magical property of these forums that uniquely make debates not work?" You said, "I never said that debates didn't work here!" This is simply absurd. Try being consistent in your arguments (and saying what you "mean"). It'll help.

Wait! Did you just concede that you can't stop this film from airing? That you can only change the policy that allowed it over the long term, so bitching now doesn't accomplish anything? (What I was saying the whole time).

I just "conceded" that YOUR proposed solution (ie: changing the law) won't happen in 8 days. Do you really think legislation could be passed that quickly? However, MY proposed solutions CAN work. See how different that is?

And why are you still attacking me for things that you are singling out? I'm not "only" saying anything. I mentioned all of those things, too. Did you miss that that quote was from you?

I saw you quote me referencing writing letters once. However, you took it out of context of the rest of my post (and other posts as well). Let's try these quotes from me:

Encouraging others to boycott Sinclair Group programming or companies that advertise on it isn't doing that?

In addition to failing to note that I only listed a couple of the actions I was taking (if you need it written explicitly, that means I'm already going to be doing all the things you claim I -should- do and doing other things as well)

Additionally, your quote of me singling out letters was my characterization of YOUR ideas for protest, not MY idea for protest. Geez, your reading comprehension AND argumentative skills are getting worse.

You misquoted me earlier. I said:
Many boycotts have worked with foreign companies. Sinclair is not a foreign company.

Ah, so does it have to be exclusively domestic? For instance, since McDonald's operates in other countries, would a successful boycott of McDonald's not meet your criteria? Just trying to make sure I understand the kinds of limits you're placing on things.

The companies listed in the follow website include General Electric, Texaco and Phillip Morris. Hopefully you will admit to those being US companies.

http://www.boycotts.org/pdf/Boycott_Organizers_Guide.pdf Check out page 5. Disprove all of those, if you will.

Liberals, geez, we can live without you. Why don't you take kerry, and go start a new colony somewhere?

I don't remember seeing this kind of BS when the moore shit was released. I guess you think since it's against The President it's fine. Lets take mm to court for slander, and illegal use of the airwaves. Better yet, shut the hell up, and let the other side run it's documentary. I'm not going to watch, but hey, what's fair is fair, now go wipe!

I urge my fellow Americans to email Sinclair Broadcasting at comments@sbgi.net and protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!



YAHOO! News:
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry (news - web sites)'s anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday.

"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so," he said.

He said he would consider the senators' concerns but added that they may not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC (news - web sites) rules require that a program air before a formal complaint can be considered.

Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations — many of them in competitive states in the presidential election — to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress and links him to activist and actress Jane Fonda (news). It includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim Kerry's testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.

In the letter to Powell, the senators — led by Dianne Feinstein of California — asked the FCC to determine whether the airing of the anti-Kerry program is a "proper use of public airwaves" and to investigate whether it would violate rules requiring equal air time for candidates.

Separately, the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign.

bullshit attempt at censorship. I have one response to this. bullshit.

Bush is the only President since Herbert Hoover to have four straight years of steady job losses

He's not, you know. He's the first since HH to have a NET job loss after 4 years in office. There is a difference. (Please note the graph, especially)

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/economy/jobless_august/

I'm not saying Bush has done a great job, or that it's as good as it could be out there. But he hasn't had 4 straight years of job losses, either.

Liberals, geez, we can live without you. Why don't you take kerry, and go start a new colony somewhere?

I don't remember seeing this kind of BS when the moore shit was released. I guess you think since it's against The President it's fine. Lets take mm to court for slander, and illegal use of the airwaves. Better yet, shut the hell up, and let the other side run it's documentary. I'm not going to watch, but hey, what's fair is fair, now go wipe!

Ignorant comment from someone who routinely ignores peoples' arguments in favor of making sensationalist and warrantless claims. Kindred spirit with MunkeBrain.

http://www.boycotts.org/pdf/Boycott_Organizers_Guide.pdf Check out page 5. Disprove all of those, if you will.The links to what was done and what happened are questionable. How does a boycott create a worker's union? The workers do that by uniting and preventing non-union labor (strike). And most of these are not domestic issues. The weak showing is fairly evident that boycotting an American company on a domestic issue doesn't work. The only issue I've seen to the contrary is racial discrimination against blacks. Boycotts have worked well for them, mostly with small local businesses though. Also, this document is not an objective source, since it's realeased by Co-op America. A study by a third-party on the effectiveness would be much more reliable.

Hopefully you've answered my goals question so we can realign this debate.

I just "conceded" that YOUR proposed solution (ie: changing the law) won't happen in 8 days. Do you really think legislation could be passed that quickly? However, MY proposed solutions CAN work. See how different that is?What did you propose that works in 8 days??

The links to what was done and what happened are questionable. How does a boycott create a worker's union? The workers do that by uniting and preventing non-union labor (strike). And most of these are not domestic issues. The weak showing is fairly evident that boycotting an American company on a domestic issue doesn't work. The only issue I've seen to the contrary is racial discrimination against blacks. Boycotts have worked well for them, mostly with small local businesses though. Also, this document is not an objective source, since it's realeased by Co-op America. A study by a third-party on the effectiveness would be much more reliable.

Hopefully you've answered my goals question so we can realign this debate.

Ah, so now instead of being able to say "no boycott has ever worked", you're down to claiming that there's some question of causal relationship. Show me refutation of the claims in this instead of hypothetical reasons why they might not all be 100% accurate. I've given my evidence. You give yours. Oh wait, you've already admitted that you don't have any evidence, just a grand assertion that NO boycott has EVER worked against a large US company.

Additionally, if boycotts can work against local companies for limited goals, why couldn't a focused boycott/protest work against this company for limited goals? I still don't understand the warrants for it.

What did you propose that works in 8 days??

Um, protesting the company, protesting to the advertisers, boycotting the company, public discussion in as many forums (debate, encouraging people to view the documentary and the motivation for it being broadcast now with a critical eye, speaking out against the partisan motivation for this "news" story)...seems like I've got a little more breadth of options than you've proposed.

And I like how you drop practically every other argument I've made. Are you conceding those or just hoping they'll go away?

Ah, so now instead of being able to say "no boycott has ever worked", you're down to claiming that there's some question of causal relationship. Show me refutation of the claims in this instead of hypothetical reasons why they might not all be 100% accurate. I've given my evidence. You give yours. Oh wait, you've already admitted that you don't have any evidence, just a grand assertion that NO boycott has EVER worked against a large US company.

Additionally, if boycotts can work against local companies for limited goals, why couldn't a focused boycott/protest work against this company for limited goals? I still don't understand the warrants for it.OK, you got me with some questionable evidence of successful US boycotts. And of course I didn't have evidence... that's why I made the assertion. I already told you that you can't bring evidence of something that didn't happen. For instance, you can't prove to me that you have never done 20 jumping jacks. I would just have to believe you until there was evidence to the contrary. Now please answer the important questions I posed so we can get back to the debate.

Um, protesting the company, protesting to the advertisers, boycotting the company, public discussion in as many forums (debate, encouraging people to view the documentary and the motivation for it being broadcast now with a critical eye, speaking out against the partisan motivation for this "news" story)...seems like I've got a little more breadth of options than you've proposed.

And I like how you drop practically every other argument I've made. Are you conceding those or just hoping they'll go away?What will that accomplish in 8 days? And I'm refocusing the debate so we're not typing 6 pages with every reply. You didn't answer all of my arguments either. Why would you want to keep the debate unfocused? Are you hoping to mask your inability to answer the simpler questions?

Yes, Censor anyone who would dare be critical of a liberal.

Hey people...FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

Hey people...FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

What part of, "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT," do you not understand? Geez.

This is about using the US airwaves in a clearly partisan way in order to give an illegal campaign contribution to the Bush campaign. It won't be enforced, of course, since Bush has a stranglehold on the government.

Yes, Censor anyone who would dare be critical of a liberal.

Oh, you know very well this will be a hatchet job. You also know very well that using the public airwaves is entirely different from making a movie and having it play in theaters. Michael Moore, while partisan, didn't wait until a couple days before the election to release his movie either. He, at least, was fair to that extent.

Criticize EVERYONE, but do it with some honor.

What part of, "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT," do you not understand? Geez.

This is about using the US airwaves in a clearly partisan way in order to give an illegal campaign contribution to the Bush campaign. It won't be enforced, of course, since Bush has a stranglehold on the government.
What's illegal about it? A company is uses its resources to further it message without violating the stupid McCain law. Sounds like freedom to me.

Hey people...FIRST AMENDMENT!!!
New York Times v Sullivan

judging by the "truth" of the swift boat ads in addition to how this was obtained, im pretty sure it falls well within new york times v sullivan in addition to several other cases i havnt looked up yet involving how this is being carried out

What's illegal about it? A company is uses its resources to further it message without violating the stupid McCain law. Sounds like freedom to me.

It does violate the McCain Feingold law. Read the other sections of the law than those provided to you by your right-wing buddies.

It does violate the McCain Feingold law. Read the other sections of the law than those provided to you by your right-wing buddies.
I have a better idea. Why don't you provide them from JohnKerry.com or some other such unbiased site? A private company is completely within its rights to promote a candidate.

It does violate the McCain Feingold law. Read the other sections of the law than those provided to you by your right-wing buddies.
Show me where it violates the law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Show me where it violates the law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

I already did in this thread.

I personally would like to see the documentary, just as I saw Fahrenheit: 9/11 and many other controversial shows. Don't tell me what is right and what is wrong, show me all the information and I will decide for myself.

I already did in this thread.
Where?

I have a better idea. Why don't you provide them from JohnKerry.com or some other such unbiased site? A private company is completely within its rights to promote a candidate.

Yes, they are. But there are limits to how much support they can give a candidate, and airing a commercial-free documentary on 62 channels translates to an enormous and illegal financial contribution.

Where?

tell you what, if you can't find the section in this thread where we discuss the law, why don't you look up the entire law and come to your own conclusion? That way, neither side is telling you what you should think.

Google works. Try it.

Yes, they are. But there are limits to how much support they can give a candidate, and airing a commercial-free documentary on 62 channels translates to an enormous and illegal financial contribution.
Except that they offered the Democrats a slot right after that, and the Dems refused it. They were given equal representation, and they refused it. That would be their own fault. Fahrenheit 911 was a good deal longer than this film, so you won't hear any complaints from me.

bullshit attempt at censorship. I have one response to this. bullshit.
they have no right to air this kind of BS 2 weeks before the election--thats unethical and biased so your wrong

Except that they offered the Democrats a slot right after that, and the Dems refused it. They were given equal representation, and they refused it. That would be their own fault. Fahrenheit 911 was a good deal longer than this film, so you won't hear any complaints from me.
where is your proof that they offered a time slot to democrats. if they want ot be fair why they air fahrenheit 9/11 the next day after it uninterrupted by commercials

and oh yeah F 9/11 was a lot longer, but oh wait. michael moore had to FIGHT to get it aired, and WAIT it gets BETTER, F 9/11 has ONLY aired in theaters and was blocked by many because of a bunch of republicans tight asses, now its about to come out on DVD. to see F 9/11 you would have to locate and PAY to see it.


this is the equivolent of an infomercial. you are NOT paying to see it. it is being FORCED to be aired by all stations which sinclair owns.

pelase explain to me how thats fair?

tell you what, if you can't find the section in this thread where we discuss the law, why don't you look up the entire law and come to your own conclusion? That way, neither side is telling you what you should think.

Google works. Try it.
i cited how this is illegal without even having to resort to the laws governing air waves, which im sure would bolster my case

New York Times v Sullivan


PERIOD

Except that they offered the Democrats a slot right after that, and the Dems refused it. They were given equal representation, and they refused it. That would be their own fault. Fahrenheit 911 was a good deal longer than this film, so you won't hear any complaints from me.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Allowing your handpicked people to grill Kerry right after a smear film is equal representation.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.
Fahrenheit 9/11 was not on TV right before the election.

If you guys really want us liberals to stop thinking you're idiots, you really need to work on your reading skills.

This documentary seems to be mostly interviews with veterans, and quotes from kerry. Is that unfactual? No, but its clearly propaganda like Mr. Moore's work. Also, how can you possibly assert that comparing Bush to Hitler is based in fact?
because Adolf Hitler was getting advice and material support from Prescott Bush--also Bush himself was quoted as saying he wishes he was a Dictator

Look, it's simple.

If it's breaking any laws, then it's illegal and should be stopped.

If it's not breaking any laws, then by all means, boycott away. Maybe it'll make a difference, maybe it won't. Maybe it'll be pulled.


Do consider what else it might do, though. Remember all those boycotts against Moore? Remember how they only made his movie even BIGGER?

Boycotting does two things. It makes people realize that you don't support something, but it ALSO brings what your boycotting to the people's attention.

Free Speech/Press: Don't you just hate it?
its NOT free speech/press when the rightwing monopolizes the media

Janet Jackson's exposed breast was a matter of indecent exposure on live national TV. A TV network agreeing to air a political documentary is exercising their right to Free Speech and Free Press.
Not when its done in a context like this where its a deliberate attempt to sway an election--thats grounds for an FEC complaint

Liberals, geez, we can live without you. Why don't you take kerry, and go start a new colony somewhere?

I don't remember seeing this kind of BS when the moore shit was released. I guess you think since it's against The President it's fine. Lets take mm to court for slander, and illegal use of the airwaves. Better yet, shut the hell up, and let the other side run it's documentary. I'm not going to watch, but hey, what's fair is fair, now go wipe!
Liberals arent the ones who run a propaganda media empire known as Foxnews--its only been in this past year that libs are fighting back against the barrage of rightwing lies in our media but its still a violation that Sinclair is running this political ad unchallenged

Yes, Censor anyone who would dare be critical of a liberal.
you should have more respect for your moral superiors

Hey people...FIRST AMENDMENT!!!
there is not First Amendment in our CORPORATE MEDIA

Liberals arent the ones who run a propaganda media empire known as Foxnews--its only been in this past year that libs are fighting back against the barrage of rightwing lies in our media but its still a violation that Sinclair is running this political ad unchallenged
i think assassins has one hell of a shitty memory

dont remember seeing this kind of stuff when the moore thing was released? shit that was released into the theatre months before the election, the republican threw a fucknig tantrum. everyday in letters ot the editor were republican tight asses sitting around sayingm ichael moore is evil and to boycott his film and saying they wont see it because its all lies and untruths and that bullshit. thats why it only came out in some theatres, THE REPUBLICANS THREW A HISSY FIT for MONTHS

and you cant sue him for slander because it bypasses the laws that would classify it as defamation. and it WASNT ON THE AIRWAVES.

What's illegal about it? A company is uses its resources to further it message without violating the stupid McCain law. Sounds like freedom to me.
its only FREEDOM if it existed out side of a monopoly--your just a typical conservative who only believes in freedom for monopolies

I have a better idea. Why don't you provide them from JohnKerry.com or some other such unbiased site? A private company is completely within its rights to promote a candidate.
but it depends on how its done and they should openly admit what theyre doing which theyre not

but it depends on how its done and they should openly admit what theyre doing which theyre not
Sorta like Moore's timely release of F911. Hmm?

its only FREEDOM if it existed out side of a monopoly--your just a typical conservative who only believes in freedom for monopolies
Nobody has a monopoly on speach until you allow censorship - which is what you seem to endorse.

you lefties make me laugh. you guys are so pathetic. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC & CNN run hit pieces on Bush every night and thats ok, but let some little 62 station broadcast group air a Anti-Kerry piece once and you guys loose your minds.

I love you guys :fluffle:

you lefties make me laugh. you guys are so pathetic. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC & CNN run hit pieces on Bush every night and thats ok, but let some little 62 station broadcast group air a Anti-Kerry piece once and you guys loose your minds.

I love you guys :fluffle:
really, want to outline those hit pieces?

and oh yeah, actual news like bush has signed blha blah into a bill or bush has underfunded blah blah is a fact and thus news

AND anything appearing on a pundit show is opinion, not assertion of fact

AND these all have commercials


sinclair is forcing its 62 controlled stations to air this partisan tripe without commercial and to stop any regular broadcast

oh yeah real fair, hypocrate


oh yeah and you must've missed the incessant motnh long bitching about Fahrenheit 98/11 being released in THEATRES

Sorta like Moore's timely release of F911. Hmm?
that was released uh.. months ago?

really, want to outline those hit pieces?

and oh yeah, actual news like bush has signed blha blah into a bill or bush has underfunded blah blah is a fact and thus news

AND anything appearing on a pundit show is opinion, not assertion of fact
umm memogate, the ABC Memo, CNN's LONG history. Just watch every so often I am not gonna do your homework for you

AND these all have commercials.
that has what to do with anything


sinclair is forcing its 62 controlled stations to air this partisan tripe without commercial and to stop any regular broadcast

the station owners can choose not to run them, oh wait sinclair OWNS the stations, They can do what they want

oh yeah real fair, hypocrate
since when is life fair


oh yeah and you must've missed the incessant motnh long bitching about Fahrenheit 98/11 being released in THEATRES
I must have missed the fact that i didn't bitch about a piece of fiction being released in theaters

umm memogate, the ABC Memo, CNN's LONG history. Just watch every so often I am not gonna do your homework for you
.
that has what to do with anything



the station owners can choose not to run them, oh wait sinclair OWNS the stations, They can do what they want

since when is life fair


I must have missed the fact that i didn't bitch about a piece of fiction being released in theaters
another ignorant hypocritical republican asshole to the ignore list say hi to corneliu eutrsuca and all the other asses

This message is hidden because Chess Squares is on your ignore list.

huh? I can't hear you

if you can't take the heat stay out of the fire

another ignorant hypocritical republican asshole to the ignore list say hi to corneliu eutrsuca and all the other asses

Your ignoring someone when they produce an opinion/fact and because there Republican? That's seems odd. You may as well put me on the list to, because I'm also Republican.

Your ignoring someone when they produce an opinion/fact and because there Republican? That's seems odd. You may as well put me on the list to, because I'm also Republican.
it is because he is a hypocrite

suddenly the world isnt fair when its the democrats bitching, when the republicans bitch, the world has to be as fair as a midevil (i know thats spelt wrong) maiden

You're as bad as everyone else on these threads... leaving out the parts that don't suit your case:

From Sinclair's own website <-- You know, the SAME STATEMENT
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.
Why would he participate in this? His service record which hasn't been questioned in 33 years is now under fire why? He was awarded 2 medals for valor in the field, one saving a man's life after he was wounded and another leading an attack on enemy positions. He came back home and joined with many other soldiers who marched on Lexington and Concord and did everything they could to end that war. Republicans are pissed off about that and the fact that he busted the Reagan administration on the Iran/Contra affair. His solid record in Vietnam was never in question and it's a lie now.
All this viscious BS about his service record has prompted me to really take a look and find some things I like about this guy.

Why would he participate in this? His service record which hasn't been questioned in 33 years is now under fire why? He was awarded 2 medals for valor in the field, one saving a man's life after he was wounded and another leading an attack on enemy positions. He came back home and joined with many other soldiers who marched on Lexington and Concord and did everything they could to end that war. Republicans are pissed off about that and the fact that he busted the Reagan administration on the Iran/Contra affair. His solid record in Vietnam was never in question and it's a lie now.
All this viscious BS about his service record has prompted me to really take a look and find some things I like about this guy.

Well, it might have helped if he hadn't lied about us ( Vietnam veterans ).

In Demand Pay Per View has refused to show F/911 until the election is over and are now being sued by Moore. All the Democrats here are probably going to be in an uproar that the company isn't showing F/911 before the election. I say just take it like a man, Moore.

When Michael Moore released Farenheit 9/11 it was freedom of speech.
Kitty Kelley writes "The Family" and it's freedom of speech.
Al Franken - "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" = freedom of speech
Richard Clarke - "Against all Enemies" = insightful freedom of speech
Molly Ivins - "Shrub" and "Bushwacked" = witty, insightful freedom of speech
Maureen Dowd - "Bushworld" = keen political analysis and freedom of speech
Dan Rather - Bush service report = honest mistake probably planned by conservatives.

POWs and Swiftvets for Truth - "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" and "Unfit for Command" = propaganda and smear :confused:

These are men, many of them true decorated war heroes, who have a legitimate complaint against Kerry. If our vets can't be allowed freedom of speech, how can any of the rest of us claim it as our right? Sinclair is airing a news story that other networks have failed to present. Sinclair offered Kerry or a campaign member of similar background (not some 25 year old spin master), the opportunity to discuss and rebutt the movie. He has refused. Why? Maybe because the claims are true and there is no valid rebuttal?

You forget, these are the same people who think terrorists are 'misunderstood' and Kim Jong Il is a benevolent leader.

They believe in the same tactics as these two groups - censor and 'eliminate' any who would dare speak out against them.

its only FREEDOM if it existed out side of a monopoly--your just a typical conservative who only believes in freedom for monopolies
No it's not. It's like saying that you can have freedoms until you're part of a group, or more correctly, certain groups. Moveon has freedom as a group, but Sinclair does not. Bullshit. You don't give up rights when you assemble. A corporation can say whatever the hell it wants, until it infringes someone else's rights. So unless Kerry proves this is slanderous, all you whiners need to stop bitching because your panties are in a twist. Case in point:


another ignorant hypocritical republican asshole to the ignore list say hi to corneliu eutrsuca and all the other asses

Honestly, when you post like that, you just alienate anyone you may be trying to win over, and come off as the prepubescent dick you probably are.

These are men, many of them true decorated war heroes, who have a legitimate complaint against Kerry. If our vets can't be allowed freedom of speech, how can any of the rest of us claim it as our right? Sinclair is airing a news story that other networks have failed to present. Sinclair offered Kerry or a campaign member of similar background (not some 25 year old spin master), the opportunity to discuss and rebutt the movie. He has refused. Why? Maybe because the claims are true and there is no valid rebuttal?
that doesnt save them from smear and propaganda, they are led by john o neill, a hired republican attack dog from the nixon era. the many that actually serve with kerry supported him years ago in his run for teh senate, in many more words than they support him now, facts and records support kerry.
they are slandering and libellnig kerry, that is not protected by freedom of speech

maybe you missed all the bitching and moaning thats been going on sicne BEFORE F9/11 came out by teh republican trying to prevent it from airing in THEATRES, they were trying to prevent people who WANTED to see it from seeing it. then their attack dogs FORCE a obviously libellous "documentary" on us and claim free speach? BULLSHIT

that doesnt save them from smear and propaganda, they are led by john o neill, a hired republican attack dog from the nixon era. the many that actually serve with kerry supported him years ago in his run for teh senate, in many more words than they support him now, facts and records support kerry.
they are slandering and libellnig kerry, that is not protected by freedom of speech

maybe you missed all the bitching and moaning thats been going on sicne BEFORE F9/11 came out by teh republican trying to prevent it from airing in THEATRES, they were trying to prevent people who WANTED to see it from seeing it. then their attack dogs FORCE a obviously libellous "documentary" on us and claim free speach? BULLSHIT
You wrongfully assume all Republicans acted against allowing 9/11 to come to theaters. I, although I thought the film was going to stupid, slanderous, and probably fraudulant, did not feel the need to protest it being released, since it was Mr. Moore's right to do so.

OK, you got me with some questionable evidence of successful US boycotts. And of course I didn't have evidence... that's why I made the assertion. I already told you that you can't bring evidence of something that didn't happen. For instance, you can't prove to me that you have never done 20 jumping jacks. I would just have to believe you until there was evidence to the contrary. Now please answer the important questions I posed so we can get back to the debate.

So I present evidence, you provide no counter evidence. That's pretty clearly more proof than you've offered. You don't even offer anyone's OPINION that boycotts have never worked (other than your own, which given your other "arguments" in this thread, I'm understandably skeptical of), nor do you offer evidence that counters my specific examples. As for "getting back to the debate" and "answer the important questions", you wanna remind me of what those are? You keep conceding my arguments to "refocus" the debate, whereas I keep 1. responding to all your arguments, and 2. making arguments you can't answer.

Try again.

(teach me to go out of town and miss out on all this stuff)

What will that accomplish in 8 days? And I'm refocusing the debate so we're not typing 6 pages with every reply. You didn't answer all of my arguments either. Why would you want to keep the debate unfocused? Are you hoping to mask your inability to answer the simpler questions?

I'm answering every argument you make on the line-by-line (you know, like pointing out how YOU'RE suggestion is the only made here that has NO chance of succeeding in 8 days...kinda embarrassing for you, eh?).

Now, for what boycotts, letters, etc. can do in 8 days is: 1. make it too controversial for advertisers to want to support, 2. create more negative publicity than Sinclair is willing to deal with, 3. point out to more people how partisan and biased the motivations for airing this are, and 4. provide economic disincentive so that if Sinclair does go ahead and go through with it, the loss of advertising revenue/viewers will discourage other people from engaging in the same kinds of practices.

Now, refocus away, since you obviously want to ignore all the arguments you're getting crushed on, but it's okay, since you haven't had a valid argument yet.

I urge my fellow Americans to email Sinclair Broadcasting at comments@sbgi.net and protest their partisan use of the airwaves to try and influence the election in Bush's favor!



Wait, didn't something similar to this happen in Kerry's favor on CBS?

its only FREEDOM if it existed out side of a monopoly--your just a typical conservative who only believes in freedom for monopolies

Is Sinclair a monopoly? Last time I checked, no, it isn't. In fact they only have 60 some stations nationwide. I hadn't even heard of Sinclair prior to this.

Protest freedom of speech? Why? If a PRIVATE broadcaster wants to show something, why not?

How would you feel if Michael Moore ran Farenheit 9-11 a week before the election?

Sinclair is running a smear documentary and presenting it as real news. Sinclair's Washington Bureau chief protested this last night, claiming Sinclair was marketing propaganda in the form of real news. He was fired this morning, without his severance pay, in retaliation.

How would you feel if Michael Moore ran Farenheit 9-11 a week before the election?

Sinclair is running a smear documentary and presenting it as real news. Sinclair's Washington Bureau chief protested this last night, claiming Sinclair was marketing propaganda in the form of real news. He was fired this morning, without his severance pay, in retaliation.
I would feel crappy. But then gosh darnit if it isn't his right to do so, regardless of how crappy that makes anyone feel. Dang, these civil liberities the left keeps whining about are such are such a hindrance.

Civil liberties come balanced with civil responsibilities. Sinclair has a responsibility to present accurate, fair, and balanced news. It is not doing this. It censored Ted Koppel earlier this year when it might have looked bad for Bush. And now it's cheerleading and smearing on his behalf. That is not free speech, that's propaganda.

I would feel crappy. But then gosh darnit if it isn't his right to do so, regardless of how crappy that makes anyone feel. Dang, these civil liberities the left keeps whining about are such are such a hindrance.

And I've noticed something about the right. They rarely construct logical arguments to the contrary. Instead, they simply attack the credibility of the left. They point out hypocrasies and muddy the waters, then try to paint you a rosy picture in nothing but black and white.

How would you feel if Michael Moore ran Farenheit 9-11 a week before the election?

Sinclair is running a smear documentary and presenting it as real news. Sinclair's Washington Bureau chief protested this last night, claiming Sinclair was marketing propaganda in the form of real news. He was fired this morning, without his severance pay, in retaliation.

You are aware that the DVD release was sped up to before Election Day? And have heard Moore's own rhetoric on the topic?

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-08-29-oscar-preview_x.htm
"Controversy is just what Fahrenheit has generated. And director Michael Moore, who thrives on challenging the status quo, repeatedly has said he wanted his anti-Bush polemic to affect the November election."

They're *both* deplorable, Shal, and you'll get no props from me by using Moore as a role model. :)

Civil liberties come balanced with civil responsibilities. Sinclair has a responsibility to present accurate, fair, and balanced news. It is not doing this. It censored Ted Koppel earlier this year when it might have looked bad for Bush. And now it's cheerleading and smearing on his behalf. That is not free speech, that's propaganda.

Sinclair, being a PRIVATE broadcaster has the right to air whatever it wants to. If they want to show the same episode of the Simpsons 24 hours a day they can do that. It does not have to make sense.

Now, if it was a public company, there would be shareholders and such to answer to, but that is not the case here.

If we were to stop a PRIVATE company from airing this because we do not agree with it, what would we censor next?

And I've noticed something about the right. They rarely construct logical arguments to the contrary. Instead, they simply attack the credibility of the left. They point out hypocrasies and muddy the waters, then try to paint you a rosy picture in nothing but black and white.
All the logical arguments have been ignored, so we have to sink to your level. A corporation has freedom of speech, just like you do.

Sinclair, being a PRIVATE broadcaster has the right to air whatever it wants to. If they want to show the same episode of the Simpsons 24 hours a day they can do that. It does not have to make sense.

Now, if it was a public company, there would be shareholders and such to answer to, but that is not the case here.

If we were to stop a PRIVATE company from airing this because we do not agree with it, what would we censor next?

Ah, but the airwaves are PUBLIC. PRIVATE companies just lease them from us, the PEOPLE. As such, there are greater responsibilities attached to the use of the airwaves for partisan purposes.

All the logical arguments have been ignored, so we have to sink to your level. A corporation has freedom of speech, just like you do.
Can that be proven? I don't think they ever mention them...

All the logical arguments have been ignored, so we have to sink to your level. A corporation has freedom of speech, just like you do.

Fine. I have no problem with them releasing a DVD or showing their film in theaters. Using the PUBLIC airwaves (corproations merely lease them from the public, technically,) is a different matter, and is the very point of the discussion. NO ONE is saying that can't make and distribute their documentary. The problem is with using the PEOPLE's airwaves in a partisan manner and calling it NEWS. Period. End of story.

To sum up: Make your film. Distribute it. Don't call it news. Don't use our airwaves.

All the logical arguments have been ignored, so we have to sink to your level. A corporation has freedom of speech, just like you do.

You know what? Screw you, buddy. I've made logical argument after logical argument, and you have done nothing but ignore them. NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT THEIR RIGHT TO THEIR OPINION. Period. The problem is, since they don't qualify as a 527 and their message is clearly partisan, using the PUBLIC airwaves and calling their one-sided documentary NEWS in order to circumvent campaign laws.

See, a theater is owned by a private citizen. A DVD is released by a private company. The AIRWAVES are publicly owned. The government leases out specific frequencies, but they belong to all of us.

Anyone else notice that Sinclair is taking a beating on Wall Street? They've been down seriously the last couple of days because advertisers are walking--they've lost around 80 so far.

Anyone else notice that Sinclair is taking a beating on Wall Street? They've been down seriously the last couple of days because advertisers are walking--they've lost around 80 so far.

Well thank god for the free market actually working. If conservatives have a problem with this, then I suggest they also reject Bill "loofah falafel" O'Reilly's boycott of France. Ha!

Ah, but the airwaves are PUBLIC. PRIVATE companies just lease them from us, the PEOPLE. As such, there are greater responsibilities attached to the use of the airwaves for partisan purposes.

Thats right!! NOW you are onto something. They have every right to air what they want to, but IF they violate the provisions of their license, they can lose it. With rights come responsibilities. They certainly have the RIGHT to air it though.

Thats right!! NOW you are onto something. They have every right to air what they want to, but IF they violate the provisions of their license, they can lose it. With rights come responsibilities. They certainly have the RIGHT to air it though.

That's like saying you have the right to commit a crime...unless you get caught.

That's like saying you have the right to commit a crime...unless you get caught.

No, you have the right to own a gun until you shoot someone with it.....thats more accurate.

No, you have the right to own a gun until you shoot someone with it.....thats more accurate.

Only if they plan on making the documentary, but not showing it. Once they show it on the public airwaves, they are effectively "shooting" it.

Only if they plan on making the documentary, but not showing it. Once they show it on the public airwaves, they are effectively "shooting" it.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the documentary was already made and was looking for an outlet to air it. Sinclair decided to do so. They have 62 of the more than 1600 stations in the US. How much coverage is that anyway? 3.5%

I may be mistaken, but I believe the documentary was already made and was looking for an outlet to air it. Sinclair decided to do so. They have 62 of the more than 1600 stations in the US. How much coverage is that anyway? 3.5%

Two things. First, the documentary the "news" program is based on is already made, but the actual show that will air has not.

2nd, the 1600 stations overlap. I do not know the coverage of the Sinclair stations, but it is obviously greater than a simple ratio between the number of Sinclair stations and the total number of stations, since several stations always coexist in a region.

3rd. Sinclair stations are most heavily concentrated in battleground states, though this is mere coincidence.

Hahahahahahahaha! http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D85QQ3100_story

also the TIMING of this documentary is a clear and biast attempt by the rabidly partisan Sinclair to sway the election as well