Assholes!

[tomhampton]

wow...i just read this whole thread, and there sure is a lot to digest here...

a few of my thoughts...

1. - i admire those of you who are so passionate about third parties...i think that requires a level of optimism that i'm just not capable of anymore. sometimes i wish i were, but as i'm looking down the barrel of 40 years old, too many things are painfully apparent to me to allow for that.

2. - as it currently stands, the republican party runs the executive branch, both houses of congress, the supreme court, the FCC, the house ethics committee, and countless other entities too numerous to mention. with that in mind, it could be argued that we currently have a one party system...or at the very least, a two party system consisting of Republicans and Miscellaneous.

3. two parties who share divided amounts of power are infinitely better than one party who holds the majority uncontested. I, personally, need no other reason than that to vote democratic this year. the past four years have illustrated beyond the shadow of a doubt, for me, the disastrous effects of trusting the country's well-being to a small handful of unpoliced leaders.

4. - money talks. we all know this. and as such, the only way a third party is ever going to amass any serious power in this country is by buying it. witness ross perot. please understand that no one believes in grassroots activism more than i do, but i don't know that i share that outlook with all those folks from "hick-ass alabama". and until perot or george soros or someone with the wherewithal to do so decides to buy some real power in this country on behalf of someone other than the two major parties, the status quo will remain.

5. - regarding the actual subject on the table - Sinclair - i think that there's a problem here. here's why.

the public airwaves belong to the public...if a local movie theatre wants to show F9/11, you have the option of not going to the movie. if Rancid releases a CD with some objectionable lyrics, you have the option of not buying it. BUT - the reason that urban radio bleeps hip-hop records past the point of legibility and the reason you can't see nipples on NYPD Blue and the reason you saw michael powell go batshit crazy over janet jackson's nipple ring last winter and the reason howard stern is significantly poorer after having been fined for "indecency" is because the public airwaves are subject to regulation. and those regulations allegedly exist to at least create the impression of fairness and "decency". that's why there are laws stating that campaign commercials state who pays for them and the like.

i think that sinclair is looking for a clever way to cross the line, and i think they're failing in their attempt to do so. i think that enough of the public is onto their shit that they'll ultimately fail to achieve their goal if they remain dilligent, and i think that eventually, they will suffer a financial loss, however insignificant.

and, perhaps most importantly....

i think that if george soros or someone on the other side of the political fence were to try the same thing, they'd already be on the carpet in front of the FCC's governing commission with their collective boots on their ass.


and again, this is why i think that this election, we should be voting for balance instead of clinging stubbornly to principle.

(/soapbox)



t

[saultime]

What they don't want you to do--what they're scared shitless of--is us contacting their local sponsors.

No local advertiser will completely and indefinitely shut off their tv ad budget. It may be a short term loss for sinclair, but in a few weeks or months after the companies have made it clear they are losing money by not having their name flashed on the screen, they'll be back. I remember major advertisers trying to get their money back for the superbowl last year, but they are all back. Politics and elections are one thing. Keeping their businesses succesful is quite another. Anyway, wasn't the program going to be commercial-free anyway?

I support the "Use your brain to filter out the nonsense and opinions from realities and use that information to form your own opinion" party. I completely do not support the "You are stupid if your opinions are different from mine" party. The people you piss off prior to the election will still be pissed off at you years after even the next presidential election. There are still people holding a grudge over the outcome of the florida election. Smart people. Famous people. And plenty of people that will believe anything a smart or famous person says without questioning it for themselves soley for the reason that statement is congruent with what they want to believe. Don't be somebody else's statistic. Be your own. Kerry, bush, nader, or one of the many other 3rd parties, it doesnt matter. Don't throw cheap shots if your candidate loses (like crying fraud or manipulation), and be a good sport if your guy wins. Please keep all rioting centered in LA.

Did you read my post, dude?

This isn't about my ideology getting supremacy. This is about Sinclair breaking the fucking law, and running unabashed propaganda on my airwaves.

Again: Cable is different that broadcast networks. Remember? They send their signal out over the airwaves. They lease the airwaves from us, for free?and in turn, they agree to a few things, one of which is to play an active and honest roll in the holding of fair elections?and not to spew out fucking propaganda.

IT?S NOT THE SAME AS MICHAEL MOORE SHOWING F9/11 ON CABLE OR PAY PER VIEW.

The ?just turn it off? position shows you don?t understand what?s going on here. Sinclair is fucking us all in the ass by abusing OUR airwaves. And you don?t care?

If Sinclair wants to do this, they need to get out of broadcast television and off MY airwaves. They should buy a printing press, a cable network or start a website instead. That?s how we do it here.

Do you think a Democrat FCC chair would let this stand? Do you think if they tried to air F/911 on a broadcast network the FCC wouldn?t be at their nuts in a second? Look at the stink they raised over Janet?s titty.

Not to mention the fact that this breaks federal election law.

So no, ?turn off your TV? is not an acceptable alternative.

How far does Sinclair have to stick it?s dick up your ass before you realize they?re fucking you?

[LTA]

This isn't about my ideology getting supremacy. This is about Sinclair breaking the fucking law, and running unabashed propaganda on my airwaves.

It is NOTHING MORE than a 1 hour political ad. Perhaps after you get sinclair to pull it, you should go persue the 30 and 60 second spots too.

The only rules are:

1. Sponsoring an ad which is not truthful.
2. Falsely claiming or implying a person or group endorses a candidate when he or she or a group does not.
3. Falsely representing a candidate as the incumbent.

And, of course, sinclair has to admit sponsorship to the program. As long as the facts check out, they can spin it any way they want to. The cost (or more accurately, loss of revenue) IS outrageous, but it is private corporation money being spent on a private ad. While the sinclair program is obviously huge, it isn't the only example of smear campaigns. Both sides do it, and do sink huge amounts of capital into getting the candidate they are sponsoring elected. It isn't a TV/media issue. It is a campaign reform issue. It isn't new, and it is something BOTH democrats AND republicans have neglected in the past. Both republican and democratic congresses have chosen not to do anything about it, and will continue. Until then, whoever is willing to part with the most money will have the most influence with the media. Thats the way it is until it changes. It won't get yanked just because 50% of the population (many who aren't even in their broadcast market) doesn't care for the content. You people are targeting the symptom with your campaign. Sinclair doesn't care how much it will cost them, but even if they are doing it for no other reason than to incense the opposition, they have gotten more back then they've put into it. Never get into a fight with somebody that buys his ink by the barrel, and don't flick off somebody that has the power to broadcast his middle finger into millions of households.

Then again, the add should piss off enough kerry supporters that would otherwise not have gotten off their duff to go vote. I am probably pretty safe to suggest that at least one of the political activists on this board alone that is 18 and has the right to vote won't even bother to show up to the polls. The car didn't start, my registration was current, i couldn't find the voting place, "my job wouldn't let me off," I was too busy, i showed up after the polls closed, i forgot to register in time. 1000's of excuses.

You guys need to be attacking the film like you attacked the infamous "bush military letter" that has garnered Dan Rather the wrong sort of fame. People eat up conspiracy theories like they eat up all-you-can-eat lobster for 15 dollars.

[saultime]

It is NOTHING MORE than a 1 hour political ad. Perhaps after you get sinclair to pull it, you should go persue the 30 and 60 second spots too.

Let me spell this out:

Sinclair is breaking the goddamn law.

There's this little thing called McCain \ Feingold. You may have heard of it. One of the things it outlaws is contributions from corporations to political campaigns. Regardless of if you think that?s free speech or not, it?s against the fucking law now.

So, if Sinclair?s ?documentary? IS nothing more than a 90 minute political ad?which you agreed it is?then by airing that ad, Sinclair is making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. This is illegal under McCain \ Feingold.

You're totally missing the real issue. There's a whole hell of a lot of difference between the 60 second ads BC04 are running, and the "documentary" Sinclair wants to show: Bush is paying for the 60 second spots. Sinclair is giving him a 90 MINUTE spot. It's illegal. If Sinclair wants to air a 90 minute politcal ad, Bush has to pay for it. That's the way it works in America.

The way Sinclair gets around this is by saying that it is not in fact a 90 minute swift-boat ad, but news. I believe that we're in agreement that this is NOT news, but propaganda.

See what kind of evil, lying, devil cock sucking FASCISTS we're dealing with here?

[ubertar]

It is NOTHING MORE than a 1 hour political ad. Perhaps after you get sinclair to pull it, you should go persue the 30 and 60 second spots too.

Let me spell this out:

Sinclair is breaking the goddamn law.

There's this little thing called McCain \ Feingold. You may have heard of it. One of the things it outlaws is contributions from corporations to political campaigns. Regardless of if you think that?s free speech or not, it?s against the fucking law now.

So, if Sinclair?s ?documentary? IS nothing more than a 90 minute political ad?which you agreed it is?then by airing that ad, Sinclair is making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. This is illegal under McCain \ Feingold.

You're totally missing the real issue. There's a whole hell of a lot of difference between the 60 second ads BC04 are running, and the "documentary" Sinclair wants to show: Bush is paying for the 60 second spots. Sinclair is giving him a 90 MINUTE spot. It's illegal. If Sinclair wants to air a 90 minute politcal ad, Bush has to pay for it. That's the way it works in America.

The way Sinclair gets around this is by saying that it is not in fact a 90 minute swift-boat ad, but news. I believe that we're in agreement that this is NOT news, but propaganda.

See what kind of evil, lying, devil cock sucking FASCISTS we're dealing with here?

[wayne kerr]

It is NOTHING MORE than a 1 hour political ad. Perhaps after you get sinclair to pull it, you should go persue the 30 and 60 second spots too.

Let me spell this out:

Sinclair is breaking the goddamn law.

There's this little thing called McCain \ Feingold. You may have heard of it. One of the things it outlaws is contributions from corporations to political campaigns. Regardless of if you think that?s free speech or not, it?s against the fucking law now.

So, if Sinclair?s ?documentary? IS nothing more than a 90 minute political ad?which you agreed it is?then by airing that ad, Sinclair is making an in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. This is illegal under McCain \ Feingold.

You're totally missing the real issue. There's a whole hell of a lot of difference between the 60 second ads BC04 are running, and the "documentary" Sinclair wants to show: Bush is paying for the 60 second spots. Sinclair is giving him a 90 MINUTE spot. It's illegal. If Sinclair wants to air a 90 minute politcal ad, Bush has to pay for it. That's the way it works in America.

The way Sinclair gets around this is by saying that it is not in fact a 90 minute swift-boat ad, but news. I believe that we're in agreement that this is NOT news, but propaganda.

See what kind of evil, lying, devil cock sucking FASCISTS we're dealing with here?

Hey hey watch the laguage!

SMH

[Electricide]

It is NOTHING MORE than a 1 hour political ad. Perhaps after you get sinclair to pull it, you should go persue the 30 and 60 second spots too.

The only rules are:

1. Sponsoring an ad which is not truthful....

that should be easy enough to prove.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001

[foley]

It will work against the Republicans. Trust the people. I know it sounds foolish, but trust the people. After all, the people are you and me (isn't that a song?).

As for Sinclair, I say let them have their little station with their little Mark Hyman stupidity. I remember coming up in the 70s and 80s when Walter Jackobsen out of Chicago had his editorials on CBS, and there were always talking heads on the news. The guy (Hyman) is an idiot, but he really does have the right to his opinion.

This shit aint as serious as it sounds. America has a way of working it out in the end. Trust the people - we're not as dumb as we look.

[TrumpsHair]

America has a way of working it out in the end. Trust the people - we're not as dumb as we look.

Bullshit. Look who was elected? (I mean 'selected.')
And it could very well happen again. I'll believe it when I see it.