Assholes!

[wayne kerr]

This isn't some one minute ad that this group is paying for. This is a 42 minute "documentary" Sinclair is broadcasting for free. Under McCain/Feingold campaign finance laws, corporations can't give money or anything of value. Prime time spots on major network affiliates is definitely something of value. They're going to pre-empt scheduled programming during prime time to show this thing, on over 60 stations.

I was speaking to sonik's suggestion that a 'major tv network can choose to air ads favoring one candidate and not the other.' And I certainly understand the distinction. However, I say let the people decide. They can watch it or not. When I saw Farenheit 9/11, I didn't walk away thinking I had just been informed and educated by a 'documentary' but rather very well entertained by a master film editor. My point is, though I agree with Michael Moore (and have been watching his films since Roger and Me) in much of what he presents in F911, I also know his editorial disposition and must take that into account as I assess the factual content of his work. The same goes for the producers of the Kerry piece, which I doubt I will watch. But it is good that pelople are having this dialog as it is clear to me that there are some people who likely would view it as a hard news piece and it is clearly political propaganda (as was F911).

SMH.

[swingdoc]

Yes, we wouldnt want any truths about a presidential candidate to get to the voting public. That could be harmful.

I think it's pretty sad that this forum has delved into the depths of childish name calling over political views. I am neither democrat nor republican and I think all of the candidates suck (i just happen to think GW sucks worse). I am just a human being who is sick of all the bullshit of politics and having leaders who think we're all mindless fucking idiots who are incapable of thinking for themselves and excercising freewill. These forum debates have taken the same form as the real debates. Childish name calling further dividing this country instead of coming up with real solutions to solve the problems of mankind and this planet.

Um, I agree. But why did you use my question to make your point? Unless you are inferring to the childish name calling that is hidden in a secret numerical code between the letters of my post.

[wayne kerr]

Earlier this year, said a DNC statement, Sinclair-owned stations refused to air DNC ads criticizing President Bush.

The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."

Sinclair CEO David Smith contributed the legal limit of $2,000 Bush-Cheney 2004, and vice president Frederick Smith gave $175,000 to the RNC and maxed out his Bush-Cheney contribution.

FEC records show that two other top level Sinclair executives gave the maximum amount they could to Bush-Cheney.

Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a corporation to contribute anything of value to a federal campaign or a national political committee, including broadcast communications, said Cabrera.

I read the article. Neither the writer nor you have answered my question however- WHICH AD was rejected and under what circumstances?

They're clearly not an equal opportunity broadcaster.

Nor do they have to be. Other than running the required PSAs and 'educational' programming, they are free to broadcast whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate any of our very wise government's decency standards that they have so benevolently bestowed upon us lest we hear a naughty word or see a peepee on the tee-vee.

And as for Nazi's and child porn get real.

OK, that was an extreme example. Should Air America Radio have to accept advertising from the RNC? The National Right to Life Coalition? How about the John Birch Society? Should NPR be forced to accept sponsorship from a 'gentleman's club?' How about Rush Limbaugh? Should he be forced to air spots for MoveOn.org or NARAL during his show? How about Handgun Control, Inc. or the Lambda Legal Defense Fund? The Southern Poverty Law Center? PETA? EarthFirst! Man, I just realized Limbaugh's list could take up a few pages!

The real question this election season, IMHO, is why in the fuck were Ralph Nader, Michael Badarnik and David Cobb not invited to the debates? Never mind, we all know the answer to that one already.

SMH

[wayne kerr]

This is what I'm talking about.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_08_04b.html

The Democrats and Republicans are EQUALLY responsible for the destruction of democracy as we know it. Fuck them. Fuck them in the ear.

SMH

[ubertar]

This is what I'm talking about.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_08_04b.html

The Democrats and Republicans are EQUALLY responsible for the destruction of democracy as we know it. Fuck them. Fuck them in the ear.

SMH

I'm so sick of the third party whining. In order to get into the debates, you have to have significant support. Nader has, what? One percent of the vote now? How much less does Cobb have? Who the fuck cares? Build a movement first. When you've got some grass roots happening, you can build up momentum and eventually get taken seriously. It ain't gonna happen in this election, that's for damn sure. Third parties? Fuck 'em in the nose. Try for some city council seats, for Chrissakes.

[sonikbliss]

Earlier this year, said a DNC statement, Sinclair-owned stations refused to air DNC ads criticizing President Bush.

The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."

Sinclair CEO David Smith contributed the legal limit of $2,000 Bush-Cheney 2004, and vice president Frederick Smith gave $175,000 to the RNC and maxed out his Bush-Cheney contribution.

FEC records show that two other top level Sinclair executives gave the maximum amount they could to Bush-Cheney.

Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a corporation to contribute anything of value to a federal campaign or a national political committee, including broadcast communications, said Cabrera.

I read the article. Neither the writer nor you have answered my question however- WHICH AD was rejected and under what circumstances?

They're clearly not an equal opportunity broadcaster.

Nor do they have to be. Other than running the required PSAs and 'educational' programming, they are free to broadcast whatever they want so long as it doesn't violate any of our very wise government's decency standards that they have so benevolently bestowed upon us lest we hear a naughty word or see a peepee on the tee-vee.

And as for Nazi's and child porn get real.

OK, that was an extreme example. Should Air America Radio have to accept advertising from the RNC? The National Right to Life Coalition? How about the John Birch Society? Should NPR be forced to accept sponsorship from a 'gentleman's club?' How about Rush Limbaugh? Should he be forced to air spots for MoveOn.org or NARAL during his show? How about Handgun Control, Inc. or the Lambda Legal Defense Fund? The Southern Poverty Law Center? PETA? EarthFirst! Man, I just realized Limbaugh's list could take up a few pages!

The real question this election season, IMHO, is why in the fuck were Ralph Nader, Michael Badarnik and David Cobb not invited to the debates? Never mind, we all know the answer to that one already.

SMH

These are all somewhat false analagies because in the context of a presidential election, yes tv networks are bound by broadcast regulations to offer equal time to political candidates. In the elegantly stated words of mr.ubertar Fuck'em in the nose!

[wayne kerr]

These are all somewhat false analagies because in the context of a presidential election, yes tv networks are bound by broadcast regulations to offer equal time to political candidates. In the elegantly stated words of mr.ubertar Fuck'em in the nose!

Equal time to CANDIDATES, sure, but not to independent organizations broadcasting political beliefs or information about citizens of the USA who just may happen to also be running for president. So, assuming you are correct, WHERE IN THE COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING HELL IS BADARNIK, COBB AND NADER'S EQUAL FUCKING TIME?????? That's a bunch of policy wonk bullshit spouted by entrenched party tools TO ABSOLUTELY ENSURE THAT NOBODY OTHER THAN A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN EVER LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

SMH

[wayne kerr]

In order to get into the debates, you have to have significant support.

And why is that? Is it in the Constitution somewhere? The Declaration of Independence? Federal Statutes? United States Code? Tell me, exactly which amendment covers presidential debates? The answer is NONE because the debates are controlled by an unholy alliance of the ONE PARTY and the GIANT CORPORATIONS who control the media. That's why you must be one of the annointed ones to even step up to the podium. That's why David Cobb was arrested in St. Louis- because the PARTY DOESN'T want the majority of Americans who are such fucking ignorant tools to know that Nader, Badarnik, Cobb, et al even EXIST.

So don't tell me how sick you are of 'third party whining.' The playing field is SO OBVIOUSLY TILTED in favor of those already in power and the GIANT CORPORATIONS WHO OWN THEM. And until the fucking United Sheep of America pull their heads out of their asses and realize how hard they in Washington are slapping each other on the back as they're rolling on the fucking floor with laughter at how stupid and easily duped we are we are stuck with these self-important blowhards who couldn't hold down a real job if their lives depended on it. Fuck them until they bleed.

So tell me, Ubertar, which to you prefer, a nice hard kick in the nutsack or a nice anal violation with a broken beer bottle? Because that's the choice you have right now- and prob'ly until the third parties whine enough to actually get Dan Rather's attention. I wish those damn blacks would've quit their whining back in the '60s too. You can't even lynch a man anymore in this country.

SMH

[syrupcore]

WHERE IN THE COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING HELL ...

god that ruled.

I dont think it's ridiculous to speculate that if other candidates were on prime time TV more they might get more support. 15% in the polls and to be on enough ballots to win 270 electoral votes is what the debate commission says you must have to be invited to the debates. I mean, damn. 15 fucking %? Pardon the late night analogy but that sounds akin to you and I playing basketball and you saying 'before you can come on the court and play with me, you have to score 1/3 as many baskets as I do - from the stands. Now, I'll be on the court scoring away and you'd better keep up if you wanna get out here'.

?Debates aren?t just about who is going to win an election; they are the only forum where we can have unrestricted dialogue about the critical issues facing us. Third parties have a long history of changing the political landscape of this country. Restricting debates to two parties severely limits our potential for progressive change,?

doesn't seem too whacko to me.

Will

[comfortstarr]

In order to get into the debates, you have to have significant support.

And why is that? Is it in the Constitution somewhere? The Declaration of Independence? Federal Statutes? United States Code? Tell me, exactly which amendment covers presidential debates? The answer is NONE because the debates are controlled by an unholy alliance of the ONE PARTY and the GIANT CORPORATIONS who control the media. That's why you must be one of the annointed ones to even step up to the podium. That's why David Cobb was arrested in St. Louis- because the PARTY DOESN'T want the majority of Americans who are such fucking ignorant tools to know that Nader, Badarnik, Cobb, et al even EXIST.

So don't tell me how sick you are of 'third party whining.' The playing field is SO OBVIOUSLY TILTED in favor of those already in power and the GIANT CORPORATIONS WHO OWN THEM. And until the fucking United Sheep of America pull their heads out of their asses and realize how hard they in Washington are slapping each other on the back as they're rolling on the fucking floor with laughter at how stupid and easily duped we are we are stuck with these self-important blowhards who couldn't hold down a real job if their lives depended on it. Fuck them until they bleed.

So tell me, Ubertar, which to you prefer, a nice hard kick in the nutsack or a nice anal violation with a broken beer bottle? Because that's the choice you have right now- and prob'ly until the third parties whine enough to actually get Dan Rather's attention. I wish those damn blacks would've quit their whining back in the '60s too. You can't even lynch a man anymore in this country.

SMH

I think--and I say this respectfully--that you continue to ignore the idea that it might not be possible to suddenly create a real third-party at the presidential level--where the hell is the reform party these days anyways? Where has this happened in a mature "democracy?" While the previous post was a little inflamatory, what do you say to the comment about getting some city council seats first.

Also, comparing Nader et al to the civil rights movement is a little naive. The civil rights movement was nothing if not grass roots. The only reason Bobby Kennedy finally got invovled was because the freedom riders and other activists were getting their asses kicked in hick-ass Alabama.

I think third parties who try to become viable only during a presidential election are fooling themselves. I think all the energy you put into a libertarian candidate for president could be much better spent trying to get a libertarian council member, a libertarian mayor, a libertarian state house rep.

As to who and who shouldn't be allowed to debate, I do think there needs to be a formula of some sort. I mean, do you really want the Larouche candidate up there?

Finally... is your language supposed to make us take your arguments more or less seriously?

[ubertar]

"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow..."

[sonikbliss]

In order to get into the debates, you have to have significant support.

And why is that? Is it in the Constitution somewhere? The Declaration of Independence? Federal Statutes? United States Code? Tell me, exactly which amendment covers presidential debates? The answer is NONE because the debates are controlled by an unholy alliance of the ONE PARTY and the GIANT CORPORATIONS who control the media. That's why you must be one of the annointed ones to even step up to the podium. That's why David Cobb was arrested in St. Louis- because the PARTY DOESN'T want the majority of Americans who are such fucking ignorant tools to know that Nader, Badarnik, Cobb, et al even EXIST.

So don't tell me how sick you are of 'third party whining.' The playing field is SO OBVIOUSLY TILTED in favor of those already in power and the GIANT CORPORATIONS WHO OWN THEM. And until the fucking United Sheep of America pull their heads out of their asses and realize how hard they in Washington are slapping each other on the back as they're rolling on the fucking floor with laughter at how stupid and easily duped we are we are stuck with these self-important blowhards who couldn't hold down a real job if their lives depended on it. Fuck them until they bleed.

So tell me, Ubertar, which to you prefer, a nice hard kick in the nutsack or a nice anal violation with a broken beer bottle? Because that's the choice you have right now- and prob'ly until the third parties whine enough to actually get Dan Rather's attention. I wish those damn blacks would've quit their whining back in the '60s too. You can't even lynch a man anymore in this country.

SMH

I couldn't agree more. I think restricting this country to two choices for president is one of the most harmful things we can do to ourselves. I think the equal rights should extend to third party candidates and they should be able to participate in the debates. I also agree with the notion that a viable (and more realistic) starting place would be for them to take the positions of mayors, state reps, etc.

[ubertar]

What we need is instant runoff. If we had that, it would solve a lot of these problems. But I don't think the main problem is that there's not enough attention paid to other parties, but that there's not enough attention paid to other ideas and viewpoints. Why isn't there a broader spectrum of voices on the political discussion shows on tv? Washington and others didn't want there to be political parties at all. Maybe that's the solution. Abolish all the parties. Don't hold your breath, though.

[wayne kerr]

I think--and I say this respectfully--that you continue to ignore the idea that it might not be possible to suddenly create a real third-party at the presidential level--where the hell is the reform party these days anyways? Where has this happened in a mature "democracy?"

From the Libertarian Party website:

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/

The Libertarian Party ran 1,642 candidates in the 2002 elections, the largest slate of third-party candidates since before World War II. We contested 219 U.S. House seats, 21 U.S. Senate seats and ran 24 gubernatorial candidates. Our candidates for governor received 763,392 votes, almost twice as many as our previous best showing. We made history when our House candidates received over 1 million votes for the second time, a feat achieved previously only by the Democrats and Republicans.

In the off-year election of 2003, 46 Libertarians were elected to local office -- and nearly half of those victories came in higher-level races such as city and county council. The LP now has over 600 officeholders, which is more than all other third parties combined.

Currently the party is gearing up for the November 2004 elections, in which we expect to field more than 1,000 candidates for federal, state and local office.

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/congress/

149 Libertarians are running for U.S. Congress in 2003-2004

http://www.lp.org/campaigns/local/

747 Libertarians are running for local public offices in 2003-2004.

http://www.greens.org/elections/

The Green Party is running 435 candidates in 40 states - for everything from president to city council to county election boards.

Futhermore, the LP didn't just appear overnight and start fielding presidential candidates as some suggest. It was founded in 1971 by disillusioned Dems and Reps who thought we were on the precipice of a very slippery slope. Sadly, we have been sliding ever since. The Greens began as a worldwide political movement in 1972 in Australia and have been active in the US since about 1981.

While the previous post was a little inflamatory, what do you say to the comment about getting some city council seats first.

The debate commission is simply corrupt and owned by the Party and the Corporations who own the Party. Badarnik and Cobb have done their homework. They are both legitimate candidates for president. The LP is on the ballot in all 50 states and the Greens in 40. That means they have met the requirements to actually run- why is the bar so much higher for admission to the star chamber known as the debates? If anyone can't answer this question on their own, please contact me, I have a bridge for sale. It's in Brooklyn. It's a nice bridge- a vintage bridge in fact, but very well maintained- send an email to luv2fistallnite@aol.com and make an offer. Bidding starts at $35. Paypal accepted.

Also, comparing Nader et al to the civil rights movement is a little naive. The civil rights movement was nothing if not grass roots.

No, the Civil Rights movement was a perfectly legitimate exercise of democracy which had EVERY CONCEIVABLE OBSTACLE thrown in its path by- you guessed it- THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, just like the legitimate opposing political parties. I just really wish they'd quit their whining though, really. I'm getting really sick of it, as Ubertar suggests.

The only reason Bobby Kennedy finally got invovled was because the freedom riders and other activists were getting their asses kicked in hick-ass Alabama.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your point to this discussion. But since you have just insulted everyone in the entire state of Alabama and have exposed your prejudicial views, I should point out that you sir hail from a slave state yourself. And I've met people from Maryland- do you live in a doublewide or just a single? Is the pot calling the kettle.... dare I say.... black?

I think third parties who try to become viable only during a presidential election are fooling themselves. I think all the energy you put into a libertarian candidate for president could be much better spent trying to get a libertarian council member, a libertarian mayor, a libertarian state house rep.

I know you're from Maryland so you might have trouble reading this on your own, so maybe get one of your smart non-hick friends from DC or New York to help you, but please see the above web links.

As to who and who shouldn't be allowed to debate, I do think there needs to be a formula of some sort. I mean, do you really want the Larouche candidate up there?

On the ballot in all 50 states? Welcome to the debate. Or just buy your way in. You can borrow the money from Ross Perot.

Finally... is your language supposed to make us take your arguments more or less seriously?

I'm sorry if I've offended your delicate sensibilities. Really fucking sorry. Hey the title of this thread sure made YOU take notice though, didn't it?

SMH

-- edited for typos, jeezus lern to tipe sissy --