ChasingBlueSky 0 #101 October 13, 2004 QuoteYeah, I went to Blockbuster too, and guess what... there were no copies of FarenHYPE anywhere to be found, but there was a whole wall of f911s. Another poster found ONE copy somewhere in his blockbuster. I went on a Tuesday - the 2nd busiest renting day Blockbuster has due to new releases. All the copies of Hype were cheked out (I was going to rent it), and almost all the copies of F911 were still there. I saw it once, and that was enough for me. On my way home I stopped at Best Buy (the largest/busiest one on the south side of Chicago) and they still had both movies in the NEW RELEASES stand. Chicago is pretty much a democratic city and I know my area is as well (its mostly blue collar). I don't want to argure about F911, but all of it is not crap. There are some truths in there as well. I want equal time on broadcast media. I could care less who makes the investment to get anything into the bookstore, video store or theatre. Broadcast media is something almost everyone can tap into. By using a loophole and not calling this news is unethical. I would go so far to say that trying to air F911 right now would be unethical as well. If Moore found a way to get a broadcast station to carry his movie, I would want equal time for the GOP. Only fair. Quote Unfortunately, the left cannot complain about the SBVFT commercials when they fully support MoveON and all the other Hollywood 527s. I've seen way more anti-bush ads than anti-kerry. I won't complain that they had air time, because both sides had equal time. I am dissgusted by the mudslinging both sides have done - I've seen children call less names on the playground. It's stupid and an insult to the American populace._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #102 October 13, 2004 Yes, you're right about the capitalist regime of Blockbuster, just trying to make a buck! BUT, it is defacto campaigning against bush. Shit maybe they should regulate it too! My point wasn't about the public airwaves and what not (originally), but that the same people who fell all over themselves about f911 would cry piss and vinegar when they read the article... mainly because free speech only applies to their ideas. Since then, it has become a debate about broadcast rules, FEC, and FCC stuff. I still think it's okay to put it on... it's just a background piece on the guy!! Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #103 October 13, 2004 Yes perfectly clear thanks. I guess my confusion was coming from the earlier posting that gave me the very slight impression that you were a little biased. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #104 October 13, 2004 Oh, make no mistake, I -am- a bit biased. I -try- to be fairly Constitutional in my beliefs of what government should be, however, to some that makes me a leftist pinko commie. Usually because we disagree on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment as well as parts of the 1st.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #105 October 13, 2004 And I can respect you for admitting that! Plus your photos are great!!! Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #106 October 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteYes, there is a difference. One is seeing a nipple for a split second, and the other is trying to alter the course of the nation. I watched about 10 minutes of Frontline (PBS) last night and a little bit of the Today show this morning. I found myself thinking that Today's interview with Kerry people commenting about Bush's plan for the debate tonight and Frontline's defending Kerry's voting record re: Iraq, smelled less of "news" than of agenda. So, why aren't we talking about them too? Sometimes those shows do cross the line. The FCC is usually powerless to do something unless someone files an official complaint. Then again, that complaint dies if the program can prove they offered fair time and it was turned down by the other side. To this day I wonder how Leno got away with Arnold on his show to announce his campaign._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #107 October 13, 2004 And Sinclair has offered Kerry time in the report. It has yet to be answered... so then it'll all be okay when it runs. Right?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #108 October 13, 2004 QuoteAnd Sinclair has offered Kerry time in the report. It has yet to be answered... so then it'll all be okay when it runs. Right? If Kerry turns down equal time, it may be ok. However, this whole situation is still very unethical. Put it on the shelf and run it in 4 weeks. I would have no issue at that time._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #109 October 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit. How do you explain the governmnet fining CBS for Janet Jackson's nipple? Or FOX for showing people licking whipped cream off of each other? Or fining Howard Stern? Either the gov't regulates content or it doesn't. Please show me where I EVER said I agreed with those things. I think the FCC is not a legitimate agency. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the power to regulate airwaves to the government. Hey, if liberals can claim that we don't have a right to AR-15s because the founders had never heard of them, and had no comparable technology, then sure as heck we can say that the government isn't entitled to powers that had not been dreamt of at the time of the founding, either. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #110 October 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit. -Jeffrey Really? I've been forced into diversions I didn't really want to take, because the govt. had closed roads for a motorcade. I think the govt can indeed dictate what route you drive. You are being disingenuous. It is quite clear to anyone willing to discuss this subject in good faith that I am not talking about sporadic, rare, extenuating circumstances, but instead on the everyday kind of occurrences, like driving to the store. I am talking about essentially "commandeering" your property -- stuff you bought for your personal (or commercial, in this case) use -- for the government to force you to use it as they see fit. They don't tell me that despite not wanting to, I have to drive your car from West Palm Beach to Miami first before you go up to Sebastian to skydive. They don't order me to give rides to people I would not ordinarily transport. They don't forbid me to give rides to specific people or kinds of people. They don't forbid me to make certain kinds of trips only after certain hours of the day... -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #111 October 14, 2004 QuoteYes, there is a difference. One is seeing a nipple for a split second, and the other is trying to alter the course of the nation. But that's not the point. Jeff was trying to contend that the media is not subject to governmental regulation and can air anything that it wants because they control the airwaves. That's simply not true. WTF?! Way to misrepresent or just misunderstand what I have said, Kev! I have not said the media are not subject to governmental regulation. I have been saying that they should not BE subject to any governmental regulation that amounts to content censorship. PERIOD. Please don't allege to speak to paraphrasing my points if you're going to get it so wrong, Kev. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #112 October 14, 2004 QuoteQuotebut there was a whole wall of f911s. Another poster found ONE copy somewhere in his blockbuster. Super equal there! Does the liberal media control Blockbuster, or are they simply a business putting into the stores that they own the movies that they think will give them the most profit? There are many corporations that support, financially, liberal causes (and there are those that support conservative causes, too, yes). Northwest Airlines gave discounted fares to people flying that first "Million Mom March," for example. Levi Strauss has donated to gun control causes. George Soros has given $18,000,000 of his own money to MoveOn.org to try to prevent Bush's reelection. Do you suppose that Soros is betting that if Kerry is elected, he will somehow recoup that money, with a profit? Or is it reasonable to possibly suspect that sometimes corporations, or even just big-money individuals, are willing to take a loss just to influence things along the lines of their ideology? I have no difficulty imagining that Blockbuster could -- could -- as a corporate entity with a social agenda (as some are known to have) have made a decision to overhype F-911 beyond the normal demand for it, just in the hope that they can spread its message. You know, flooding the market. I mean, liberals claim that gun manufacturers "flood the market" in places where there is less demand for guns than the number that they send to market there. (I don't know why they think the gun manufacturers would have an interest in making guns more likely to end up in criminals' hands -- which just makes guns and gun-makers look bad). So if there's any truth to the idea that sending more guns than the market desires results in them creeping into the black market somehow, there must be truth to the idea that putting more copies of F-911 out there might cause additional people to get infected with its message. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #113 October 14, 2004 QuotePlease show me where I EVER said I agreed with those things. I think the FCC is not a legitimate agency. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the power to regulate airwaves to the government. And there's nothing in the constitution that gives the gov't power to regulate airspace. So should we get rid of ATC? You do realize that there is limited spectrum and if it weren't regulated then whoever has the most powerful equipment wins and drowns out everyone else's signal, right? There's is that part about promoting the general welfare, you know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #114 October 14, 2004 Apparently the guys who probably know the rules even better than anyone here think it's okay! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135461,00.html WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission (search) won't intervene to stop a broadcast company's plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's (search) anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency's chairman said Thursday.... Whine away!Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #115 October 14, 2004 Yeah, saw that this morning and knew you'd have a field day with it. Of course, Powell, a Republican, was appointed to the position by GWB, so this opens up yet another can of worms and lot's of opportunities. I hope he fully understands what he's getting into by doing this. What Powell has said is that he can't do anything until -after- the program airs, by which time, of course, it's -way- too late. Hopefully the FEC will be a little less partisan.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #116 October 14, 2004 Waaaaah! Right or wrong... that's the FCC position apparently. What authority does the FEC have in situations like this? Can they actually block it, or do they have to request that the FCC do it? Remember, I'm ignorant.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #117 October 14, 2004 Yeah, and Powell has proven himself to be completely neutral and unbiased. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirage63 0 #118 October 15, 2004 "Of course, Powell, a Republican, was appointed to the position by GWB, so this opens up yet another can of worms and lot's of opportunities. I hope he fully understands what he's getting into by doing this." Quade I know in the heated debate of this question we all generally fall into our established camp (Kerry/Bush) but: Do you have any knowledge of Powell other than he was appointed by Bush and that he is a republican that would lead you to believe that he made the decision based on his party? Have we reached the point that there can be no good decisions by someone from the "other" party? Fortson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #119 October 15, 2004 QuoteDo you have any knowledge of Powell other than he was appointed by Bush and that he is a republican that would lead you to believe that he made the decision based on his party? Well, besides the inherent impropriety of appointing the son of your Sec. of State (I'm sure he was the most qualified man in the country for the job ...right). Michael Powell gutted the longstanding FCC rules about media monopolies without holding public hearings and after refusing to attend 9 public hearings on the issue being held by other FCC officials. This issue was markedly partisan and based on the republican agenda. Then there's the whole censorship issue where he fined Howard Stern for REPEATING what Oprah Winfrey said on her show. When Powell was asked directly why fine Stern and not Winfrey for the exact same comment his response was "Oprah Winfrey is too beloved". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mirage63 0 #120 October 15, 2004 "When Powell was asked directly why fine Stern and not Winfrey for the exact same comment his response was "Oprah Winfrey is too beloved". Sounds like a smart man But thanks for the info. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #121 October 15, 2004 __________________ I don't know but for some reason that made me laugh------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #122 October 15, 2004 And yet more info. Yesterday the FCC scrapped the rules requiring Verizon and other former Bells to share their bandwidth capabilities with competitors. Now, even though the gov't subsidized the cost of creating that infrastructure, it is being handed to a couple of big monopolies instead of being available for regional competition. Thank you Michael Powell for ensuring higher costs for all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #123 October 15, 2004 >Now, even though the gov't subsidized the cost of creating that >infrastructure . . . I don't get that. How did the government subsidize cellular infrastructure? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #124 October 15, 2004 You think that's bad? Take a look at how the FCC gave Nextel consoldated bandwidths. I posted a link to it a few months ago. edit: It made CAGW's Porker of the Month. www.cagw.orgwitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #125 October 15, 2004 Quote>Now, even though the gov't subsidized the cost of creating that >infrastructure . . . I don't get that. How did the government subsidize cellular infrastructure? It's not cellular, it's fiber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
