"Stolen Honor" Will be Aired on B'cast TV.

[N8CPA]

Sinclair Broadcasting outlets have been instructed by their VP, Mark Hyman, to air a documentary called "Stolen Honor--Wounds That Will Never Heal" later this month. It is about Kerry and his anti-war activities. It will feature interviews with former POWs and their families, who were affected by what Kerry did. The outlets have been instructed to preempt network programming to air the 42 minute documentary in the coming weeks. Already the DNC is crying, "Foul," after granting Michael Moore a place of honor at their convention.

I Googled the title and found links to some excerpts from the program. A bit of goose and gander is about to served, without the obligation of paying a box office fee. Bon apetit, Mc Cauliffe & co!

[N7AAO]

I certainly hope one of the stations in my area shows it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W2LYS]

Here's a link to their website. It's kind of slow... everyone must be hammering to to praise or condemn them....

Sinclair Broadcasting (http://www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml)

[ai4ep]

well guess it cant be seen from here...closest stations in BIRMINGHAM, AL on 21 & 68 which are " snowy " even in good conditions.

[N8CPA]

I am happy to report that it will be broadcast in my area, on WSYX Ch 6. The date has not yet been announced. I will certainly watch for the announcement.

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (W2LYS @ Oct. 12 2004,10:43)]Here's a link to their website. #It's kind of slow... everyone must be hammering to to praise or condemn them....

Sinclair Broadcasting (http://www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml)
Nope, not in my area. Oh, well, I think they are selling it on DVD too. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[AI4FR]

Quote[/b] ]Already the DNC is crying, "Foul," Now why would the DNC want to keep the truth from the American public?.........Again.


I sure hope this will bury Kerry as that fellow really scares me.



.

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (AI4FR @ Oct. 12 2004,14:00)]Quote[/b] ]Already the DNC is crying, "Foul," Now why would the DNC want to keep the truth from the American public?.........Again.


I sure hope this will bury Kerry as that fellow really scares me.



.
Amen!

I consider this the most important election of my lifetime.

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (AI4FR @ Oct. 12 2004,11:00)]Quote[/b] ]Already the DNC is crying, "Foul," Now why would the DNC want to keep the truth from the American public?.........Again.


I sure hope this will bury Kerry as that fellow really scares me.



.
You hit the nail on the head... this will nail Kerry, so they don't want it out there.

[N8CPA]

I heard that Mark Hyman and Dick Durbin had a tete-a-tete on GMA this morning. #According to Rush, Durbin threatened Sinclair B'casting (Hyman) if Kerry wins.

As Flounder said, "Oh boy! #This is gonna be so great!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Update: The show was apparently Dayside on Fox TV. A Kerry rep said that the broadcast documentary would probably make him want to throw a boot through the screen. Poor fellow, all Kerry has is flip-flops. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K0RGR]

Yep - this is another fine example of the American Way.

When a member of the Dixie Chicks dared to slander our fearless leader, the two biggest radio broadcasting conglomerates, who effectively control radio broadcasting in this country, organized a boycott of them. President Bush, that champion of freedom, said " ... there are consequences...".

Now, on the eve of the election, Sinclair slithers out from under a rock to give Bush an hour of free air time to try to slime the only genuine war hero running in it.

I really hope that the American people aren't dumb enough to fall for this. It's too bad the Republicans think they are.

[K4JSR]

JUST DANG! Are all of you liberals named Slick Willy?
Bill, Nobody, but NOBODY slithers MOORE on their
bellies than you anti-Bush people.

As far as the Dippy Chippies are concerned, or even you or me, all of us have to answer to somebody, sometime,
somewhere for what we say or do. Radio station owners, individuals, all have the right to vote with their
pocket books. The liberals came up with the idea of economic boycotts years ago. It really came into its own
during the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement. It was
a marvelous and non-violent way way to show one's
disapproval of some company's or individual's ways.
Just why is it that you seem to think that the same tactics, when used on Dippy Chips, movie actors/studios, major TV networks, etc., that the activity is partisan?
Of course the activity is partisan! That, sir, is the American way, indeed!
As far as Sinclair, they have as much right to examine
Kerry's questionable Viet Nam service, his very questionable Jane Fonda like activities after his questionable service, and of course one of the sorriest
records held by any Senator on accomplishments.
It seems to me, and other conservatives, that your
big complaint is not Republicans defending themselves
against the most hatefilled DemocRAT campaigns in
years, but that the Republican's timing is by far superior!! HAW! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif HAW!!
I just wish that the Sinclair Production was available in
my area. However Bush is going to stomp the snot out
of Kerry in November, anyway! Better that the program
be broadcast where some folks just haven't decided yet.
Meanwhile, William, go get some of your liberal friends
and get in a hotub and stew! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73, Cal K4JSR

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Oct. 12 2004,12:39)]Yep - this is another fine example of the American #Way. #

When a member of the Dixie Chicks dared to slander our fearless leader, #the two biggest radio #broadcasting conglomerates, who effectively control radio broadcasting in this country, #organized a boycott of them. #President Bush, that champion of freedom, said #" ... there are consequences...".

Now, on the eve of the election, Sinclair slithers out from under a rock to give Bush an hour of free air time to try to slime the only genuine war hero running in it. #

I really hope that the American people aren't dumb enough to fall for this. It's too bad the Republicans think they are.
Hey, RGR...

If I stipulate that, if certain people did orchestrate a boycott of the Dixie Chicks, that it should be condemned, and give my solemn word that if it is proven true, that I will condemn it...

Will you then condemn the Democrats' trying to keep Stolen Honor off the air?

Or is that another liberal double-standard?

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

[N8CPA]

RGR, even Kerry did not honor what he did in Vietnam. And if honor can be quantified, I'd say the fellows who spent 7+ years in the POW facilities, as opposed to 4 months and out, have the far greater portion. Those fellows suffered over what Kerry, and even I as an idealistic 4F civilian, did at anti-war rallies and marches. We were the propaganda the captors used to break spirits.

The stories those men tell should have the greater weight of witness credibility. They should certainly be heard at a strategic time.

[WA5KRP]

This event is going to make for some interesting fireworks. It's not funded by the Republicans yet it has the potential for enormous negative political impact for the Democrats. Sinclair has offered the Kerry campaign equal time to rebutt the content - so far the offer has been declined or ignored.

Anyway you slice it, there's a lot of hair on this monkey. Since it's to be aired in multiple states (San Antonio has two Sinclair outlets - WOOHOO) I have a hunch there's going to be some fancy footwork done by the Democrats to get an injunction in Federal court.

Whether Sinclair is allowed to pull off this anti-Kerry program or not, the unwillingness of Kerry to respond to his fellow Viet Nam vets has tremendous liability in and of itself. Kerry is making a huge mistake by not dealing with these political demons once and for all. Fluff and bluff can only carry so far and real answers should be forthcoming. Unless of course, the answers indeed condemn Kerry's candidacy.



WA5KRP
Texas

[AI4FR]

The Dixie Chicks bashed America while over seas. There is a world of difference here. Apples and oranges.

[W4MAJ]

Someone pass the syrup, because waffles are in the menu! Sinclair owns three stations here and one of them is a Fox affiliate.

The only valid complaint the dummycrats may have is the rules governing what is seen in theatres are not the same rules that cover television. No one has to pay to see this documentary.

At any rate, I'm enjoying watching the left-wingers squirm.

[n9yb]

I guess Michael Moore engages in "satire" and that is okay. But when you engage in the truth, some folks have a problem.

[W4TEY]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ Oct. 11 2004,12:37)]I heard that Mark Hyman and Dick Durbin had a tete-a-tete on GMA this morning. #According to Rush, Durbin threatened Sinclair B'casting (Hyman) if Kerry wins.

As Flounder said, "Oh boy! #This is gonna be so great!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Update: #The show was apparently Dayside on Fox TV. #A Kerry rep said that the broadcast documentary would probably make him want to throw a boot through the screen. #Poor fellow, all Kerry has is flip-flops. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
This lib on Dayside was roundly booed by the audience as well. It's funny how it's OK for the Dem's to distort, lie, cheat, and use dirty politics but when the Repubs strike back the Dems start whining and crying like a bunch of babies.

[W8EFA]

From what I have heard this "documentary" has 2 components:

1. #Footage of Kerry's testimony which everyone has seen highlights of by now.
2. A bunch of Viet vets complaining about his testimony since they don't feel the same way.

Number 2 is not news - just some peoples opinions.

I would suggest that one of the Kerry support groups do the same thing.

1. Have Richard Clarke, Hans Blix, some Generals all testify once again that they new there was no rationale for this War right from the start.

2. Round up about 50 parents that had their kids killed in Iraq who have an opinion that they were misled to slaughter.

Honestly, isn't that basically the same underhanded win at all costs dirty politics tactics? #
You can always find people with opinions, #that is not news. #Kerry had every right to protest the war since he was there. This is nothing new, just dirty politics.

Do I have this right, its okay to promote a propaganda movie full of lies but not sold as propaganda at the DNC convention, but it's not okay for a documentary that tells it like it is on the TV, that will be outlawed. Seems like something like this happened before.
Sad, sad
N7SYY

[AB8TM]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Oct. 12 2004,23:26)]2. A bunch of Viet vets complaining about his testimony since they don't feel the same way.
From what I gather about it, they are talking to Vietnam POWS that were held by the NVA and tortured. John Kerry's testimony did not cause their torturers to go easy on them.

It should be on in my area if it doesn't get yanked. It should be interesting. I hope it is done right.

[AI4FR]

Kerry Aide Issues Warning to Sinclair Broadcasting



Drudge Says Kerry Aide Issues Warning to Sinclair Broadcasting
October 12, 2004 12:48:35 PM #
I missed this, but according to Drudge, on Fox News Dayside, Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton said of Sinclair Broadcasting (the company behind the anti-Kerry show set to air next week): "They better hope we don't win."
<u>
Decent people must call on John Kerry to denounce Clanton if he indeed made those remarks. And Kerry should dismiss him immediately as one who has no business being in a position of power. </u>I am more than confident that if a Bush aide made such an outrageously arrogant and reckless statement he would be fired forthwith. But Kerry governs his operation with much less integrity. I hope to be proven wrong on this. But you must remember that liberals don't hold their own to any standards of decency. It's a war to them and all's fair in war. I doubt that there will be any repercussions from this whatsoever. We'll see. #


Link to the story (http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/)


.

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (AI4FR @ Oct. 13 2004,05:35)]Kerry Aide Issues Warning to Sinclair Broadcasting



Drudge Says Kerry Aide Issues Warning to Sinclair Broadcasting
October 12, 2004 12:48:35 PM #
I missed this, but according to Drudge, on Fox News Dayside, Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton said of Sinclair Broadcasting (the company behind the anti-Kerry show set to air next week): "They better hope we don't win."
<u>
Decent people must call on John Kerry to denounce Clanton if he indeed made those remarks. And Kerry should dismiss him immediately as one who has no business being in a position of power. </u>I am more than confident that if a Bush aide made such an outrageously arrogant and reckless statement he would be fired forthwith. But Kerry governs his operation with much less integrity. I hope to be proven wrong on this. But you must remember that liberals don't hold their own to any standards of decency. It's a war to them and all's fair in war. I doubt that there will be any repercussions from this whatsoever. We'll see. #


Link to the story (http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/)


.
I mentioned this in a previous post. I heard the sound byte of Clanton's tirade. He said, the upcoming airing made him so mad he wanted to throw a boot through the TV screen. I said, too bad his boss only has flip-flops.

As someone pointed out earlier, it is fun to watch those weasels squirm. "They better hope we don't win!" Indeed! Tee hee hee.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[w0tdh]

Can't wait to see the movie, in the mean time try this;

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/taxes.htm


Then we have an opinion from over the pond;

Good analysis


Subject: A British Point Of View

#

Will Showbiz and Moneybags Hijack the Election? # # # # # # # # Paul Johnson,09.06.04



Here is one Englishman's view of the U.S. presidential election. I've been following them for more than half a century, always taking sides. I backed Truman in 1948, in gratitude for his magnificent backing of Europe's freedom, and Kennedy in 1960 because, as a Catholic, I wanted the taboo on a Catholic in the White House broken. In recent years I've backed Republicans simply because I feel safer with one as President and in charge of the West's defenses. This feeling has never been stronger than it's been since President Bush, in contrast to the careless and frivolous Bill Clinton, took on the terrorists after 9/11 and had the courage to root them out of their Afghanistan sanctuary and to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime, the epitome of militant Arabism. It's been a source of great satisfaction that my friend Tony Blair has backed Mr. Bush's efforts 100% and has made the "special relationship" stronger than ever.



In contrast, I view Senator John Kerry with growing suspicion. As a daily reader of Le Monde, which unconsciously reflects Jacques Chirac's preferences, I ask myself: Why are the French so keen to see Kerry in the White House? Does Chirac, a dedicated enemy of the U.K., hope to replace the special relationship with a Franco-American one? It certainly looks that way. The official French government observer at the Democratic Convention cheerfully described Chirac's relations with Bush as "execrable," and the French Socialist observer there said that a Bush reelection would be "catastrophic" for him and his friends.



Revolted by Bill Clinton's lies and reassured by George Bush's straight talk, I dread the return to a climate of White House mendacity. Yet what is one to make of Kerry's self-presentation? He has posed as a man of Boston-Irish background in order to garner the Catholic vote, when all along he's known his family origins to be Austrian, and last year learned they were also Jewish. Why the deception? And how can a man say he is a Catholic when he repudiates his church's teaching on major issues such as abortion? I do not admire these repeated attempts to have things both ways-indeed, all ways.



Does This Inspire Trust?



I'm also unhappy about the financial side of the Kerry-Edwards ticket. While calling for the votes of the poor, Kerry enjoys the advantages of his wife's fortune, estimated to be $750 million, and travels between their five mansions on a Gulfstream V jet. He wants to raise taxes, while his wife pays an effective tax rate of only 15% on much of her income by using (legitimate) tax-avoidance provisions.



Another skillful tax avoider is Kerry's running mate John Edwards, who shelters 90% of his income from Medicare tax by means of a "Subchapter S" corporation that enables him to take his money in dividends instead of in salary. Much of Edwards' tax-avoidance scheming is beyond my comprehension, but I don't like his tone or his clever monkey tricks. Nor do I relish the fact that he has made his money and pushed himself forward by practicing the kind of litigation we call "ambulance chasing." The kind of lawyer who makes his way by encouraging litigants who have a real or imaginary grievance to go for "deep pockets" is seen here as an American phenomenon we want nothing to do with, but which, alas, is sinking deep and damaging roots in the U.K. All in all, then, Kerry and Edwards strike me as an unsavory pair.



The People Backing This Liberal Ticket



I am one of those who resent the way in which many showbiz personalities abuse their popularity by trying to bully voters into supporting their left-wing views. Many of them in London seem to be in the Kerry camp. The pop star Elton John accuses the Bush Administration of censoring music (if only it were true), a preposterous claim typical of the abuse coming from the greasepaint brigade.



Hollywood, too, seems lined up on Kerry's side. I haven't seen Michael Moore's anti-Bush movie. But all I have to do is to mentally line up Moore alongside Bush to decide whom I prefer. As Hamlet says: "Look here, upon this picture, and on this ... Hyperion to a satyr." Bush looks to be a man who keeps himself trim through self-discipline, while Moore is a gross, shapeless, unshaven monument to self-indulgence and gobbling.



Perhaps the most sinister Kerry ally is the international financier George Soros, who boasts that he will devote huge chunks of his fortune to buying a Democratic victory. Soros has always struck me as an embodiment of the Marxist caricature of "finance-capitalism," a sinister spider figure weaving his webs across frontiers. He has a long record of interfering in the internal affairs of central and eastern European countries. Much of his wealth comes from his successful efforts to devalue the pound sterling at the time of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which inflicted significant damage on the welfare of the British people. No other financier of modern times has made such abusive use of his money to exercise power; I am tempted to recall the famous saying of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, written for him by Rudyard Kipling-that this is "Power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."



It seems to me, in surveying Kerry's allies, that what we have here is a species of conspiracy by money men, showbiz celebrities and other self-important pseudo-idealists to hijack the presidential election. I trust that ordinary American voters will recognize what is happening and vote accordingly.







Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author.

[K3UD]

There are three stations in Nashville that will be airing this.

If Sinclair made an offer the Kerry to respond, that is probably as fair as it gets. While it is a different situation, I don't think any movie theater operator who ran Moore's propaganda film offered Bush any screen time to respond.

For the Kerry campaign to threaten retaliation against Sinclair (if their guy gets in) harkens back to the time when Nixon forced funding cuts at National Public Broadcasting because of his perceived negative coverage of Watergate.

The liberals, and some conservatives, rightly screamed about this back then, (I guess it depends on whose Ox is being gored). If this kind of retribution was wrong then, it is wrong now.

I look at this as a contribution to the world of ideas, just as (and I hold my nose) Moore's movie was. They both have a right to produce and diseminate the info.

If the Kerry campaign really wanted it, George Sorros and MoveOn would find a way to purchase air time on enough stations to run Fahrenhei 9/11 in the hour following Stolen Honor.

73
George
K3UD

[N8CPA]

And I'm sure the mediafund and the other 527s with direct links to the Kerry campaign would chip in. After all, for them it's all about a chance to chip away at our income.

[KB9YCO]

So, in response to propoganda horses**t, namely Farenheit 9-11 which I thought was a narrow-minded, extremely biased, black and white supposed explanation to a complex situation, let's then go and make a similar, subjective, opinion oriented piece of propoganda in answer to another piece of propoganda (and piece of something else.) That's a solution, or even a good idea? Eeeesh, it about sums up the attitudes in this election from the extremists on both sides. More lies and spin with less talk about the reality of the issues going on now, spooky.

[ad4mg]

OK, fair is fair ... but wasn't Michael Moore's slant shown in theaters to a PAYING audience???

Is this opposite slant being BROADCAST on television to a NON-PAYING audience???

If the above is true, then there ARE issues with this.


I'm writing my vote in this time around ... gonna vote for Garfield. At least he's honest. Neither of these jackasses qualifies in that catagory.

IMHO - it doesn't matter who wins ... we lose either way.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Oct. 13 2004,08:40)]OK, fair is fair ... but wasn't Michael Moore's slant shown in theaters to a PAYING audience???

Is this opposite slant being BROADCAST on television to a NON-PAYING audience???

If the above is true, then there ARE issues with this.


I'm writing my vote in this time around ... gonna vote for Garfield. #At least he's honest. #Neither of these jackasses qualifies in that catagory.

IMHO - it doesn't matter who wins ... we lose either way.
Sinclair refused to air the Ted Koppel show where he read the names of the dead soldiers on Nightline. The owner also contributes heavily to Bush.

I didn't see Moores movie however from what I heard he basically showed facts. Of course he then tried to spin those facts. But he didn't go around just interviewing people and getting opinions like this piece.

Just don't think individuals opinions matter. For every vet they show stating their opinion that Kerry was wrong protesting you could have another Vet opining they agreed with Kerry and was glad he helped get us out of this war.

Also the Government started and organized this session when Kerry was invited. If it hadn't been Kerry speaking itwould have been someone else. So the Government organized it, not Kerry!

[WF7I]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Oct. 12 2004,15:50)]Sinclair has offered the Kerry campaign equal time to rebutt the content - so far the offer has been declined or ignored.
How could that be?

Just put the 911 movie out there for some "fair and balanced"-ness that the righties are always promoting, and we'd see a huge outcry of unfairness going the other direction!

With the 911 movie, people had to go pay for it and make a real effort to see it (and Moore had difficulty even getting it put into theaters in the first place). Although Sinclair doesn't have a full nationwide footprint, it has many large markets and people can easily tune into it for free.

Doesn't anyone see a danger in allowing slanted political info-mercials to invade our airwaves? Can't you see that whomever owns the conglomerate of stations will have an enormous amount of power over an election for President of our nation?? Don't give me the "well, the liberals have PBS and 60 minutes" routine. While the newsmen for those organizations may have a personal liberal-bias which occasionally seeps into their presentations (yes, I have seen it too), their newscasts are definitely not unabashed political operations for the Democratic party! I know many of you ultra-conservatives think so, but c'mon, this is clearly a different beast.

It seems like with this sort of stuff we're turning a corner in this country. Let them make movies all they want, but don't take over the airwaves with the garbage, unless you're going to do so for BOTH (or all) sides -- democrat, republican, libertarian, communism, fascist, green, whatever.

And I also have to add, the actions of this administration have made me very anti-Bush. Not necessarily anti-Republican as much as anti-Bush. The commentary from his supporters, especially on forums like this one, but elswhere as well, has done nothing but strengthen my conviction to vote for ANYone who is not involved with him. The debates have also pushed me more solid into the "anything but Bush" camp.

And yes I too think that this election is critical, and I for damned sure do NOT want his cronies in for another four years, and will take great satisfaction in negating at least one of the pro-Bush votes come election time!

[N8CPA]

How many people paid to see 60 Minutes? And on how many more broadcast outlets was it aired? #Did Michael Moore or CBS offer rebuttal time to Bush? #

Sinclair owns 62 stations nationwide. #And a lot of those potential viewers are paying cable or satellite fees to receive those stations. Also, just as only Bush haters were likely to pay to see Moore's screed, I suspect only Kerry haters are likely to watch "Stolen Honor," which further limits the audience. #I #don't think it will change any minds already made up. #But I certainly hope it sways a few undecided voters to the red.

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ Oct. 13 2004,09:26)]How many people paid to see 60 Minutes? And on how many more broadcast outlets was it aired? #Did Michael Moore or CBS offer rebuttal time to Bush? #
Ahh, CPA, you forget, the SeeBS hit-piece on Bush was "responsible journalism," just like the SeeBS hit-piece on the Reagans was "responsible drama."

Only when someone comes in with a plan to air anything that might make a Republican look good is it "propaganda."

[K3UD]

Quote[/b] (WF7I @ Oct. 13 2004,11:01)]Just put the 911 movie out there for some "fair and balanced"-ness that the righties are always promoting, and we'd see a huge outcry of unfairness going the other direction!

With the 911 movie, people had to go pay for it and make a real effort to see it (and Moore had difficulty even getting it put into theaters in the first place). #Although Sinclair doesn't have a full nationwide footprint, it has many large markets and people can easily tune into it for free. #

Doesn't anyone see a danger in allowing slanted political info-mercials to invade our airwaves? #Can't you see that whomever owns the conglomerate of stations will have an enormous amount of power over an election for President of our nation?? #Don't give me the "well, the liberals have PBS and 60 minutes" routine. #
First of all, I think that 9/11 should be aired as the counterpoint. However, Moore himself would never let it out without being paid for the privilege, and he would have every right to demand payment. Moore is as much about making bucks as he is about raking muck.

As far as slanted political infomercials invading the airwaves, I assume that you are talking about non paid infomercials and not the paid political ads. If so, then how do you justify the slanted infomercial that ran nightly on CBS news, as a NEWS item for almost 2 weeks with Dan Rather touting the validity of forged documents? Where was rebuttle time offered inside the newscast?

You say you do not want to hear about PBS or 60 minutes so I guess that puts them off limits for comment.

However, it is quite plain to see whom the networks are pushing. The president of ABC news sent a memo to all their news editors which in effect said to focus more on Kerry's positives and Bush's negatives. You might want to ignore it and not believe it, but the network bias is there on almost every news-cast they do as well as the 60 minutes type of shows. PBS and NPR are functioning as Democratic party house organs, as they have always done. However you are free to deny it if you want to.

One of the nice things about this country is that we have a right to free speech and opinion. As much As I dislike Michael Moore, he has a right to his opinion and to express it, As does the owner of Sinclair. This is the world of ideas and the great thing is that we can walk out of the theater or turn off the radio, TV, or computer.

73
George
K3UD

[K3UD]

The most interesting editorial comment I have seen concerning this.

18 Senators (http://www.vvdailypress.com/2004/109767240619160.html)


73
George
K3UD

[w0tdh]

Two articles; #One Pro Bush the other Pro Kerry;

Bottom Line though.......first article is yet another reason this old conservative is voting for Bush. The second article, very well written, does not sway my opinion. #

President Bush has made mistakes. We all know that. I am not happy with the National Debt. IMHO, it is the leading cause of our devalued Dollar. Reducing or eliminating the DEBT would increase the purchasing power of our Dollar, giving every Citizen an increase in goods and services at their same rate of Pay. I much rather would see that to happen than increase the Minimum Wage. Throwing more inflated Dollars at a problem is not going to help in the long term. Oil prices have caused EVERYTHING to increase in price. #Modern day "Oil Robber Barons" are stealing from the spendable incomes of everyone. Impacting the low and middle income classes the hardest, as they have fewer spendable Dollars after paying Bills, Taxes etc. By the way, I am in favor of Iraq paying their own way in this War. They can and should repay us for monies spent out of Tax Payer's pockets, from the sales of their oil. #No, I am not happy with President Bush at times over several issues, but IMHO, he is the clear choice.



1st article;





#Subscribe | #Archive | #Email Alerts | #Contact Us | #Advertise


October 13, 2004 > National > Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge

Mystery Surrounds Kerry's Navy Discharge
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
October 13, 2004
http://www.nysun.com/article/3107

An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.

The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.

According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.

A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.

The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.

The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?

NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."

Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.

The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."

For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.

Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."

The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.

Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.

Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.

If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."

There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.

================================================== ===========

2nd article;



By Doug Bandow
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
About the writer : #Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. #He served as a special assistant to President Reagan, and as a senior policy analyst in the office of the president-elect and the Reagan for President campaign and was a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Bandow is a nationally syndicated columnist with Copley News Service, and is the former editor of Inquiry magazine. Before that, he served as a special assistant to President Reagan


# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #.....Why #CONSERVATIVES MUST NOT VOTE FOR BUSH....
A Reaganite argues that Bush is a dangerous, profligate, moralizing radical -- and that his reelection would be catastrophic both for the right and for America.

- - - - - - - - - - - -Sept. 10, 2004 #| #George W. Bush presents conservatives with a fundamental challenge: Do they believe in anything other than power? Are they serious about their rhetoric on limited, constitutionally restrained government?

Bush appears to have remained strong in the presidential race by rallying conservatives behind him. In his convention acceptance speech he derided Sen. John Kerry's claim to represent "conservative values" and seized the mantle of promoting liberty at home and abroad.
Indeed, many conservatives react like the proverbial vampire at the sight of a cross when they consider casting a ballot for Kerry. Tom Nugent, a National Review Online contributing editor, wrote: "The last thing the Republican party needs is the reckless suggestion that conservatives vote Democratic." That is mild, however, compared with the American Conservative Union's mass e-mail solicitation headlined "Why Do Terrorists Want Kerry to Win?"

Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [Bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

Unfortunately, even the official spending numbers understate the problem. The Bush administration is pushing military proposals that may understate defense costs by $500 billion over the coming decade. The administration lied about the likely cost of the Medicare drug benefit, which added $8 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Moreover, it declined to include in budget proposals any numbers for maintaining the occupation of Iraq or underwriting the war on terrorism. Those funds will come through supplemental appropriation bills. Never mind that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had promised that reconstruction of Iraq could be paid for with Iraqi resources. (Yet, despite the Bush administration's generosity, it could not find the money to expeditiously equip U.S. soldiers in Iraq with body armor.)

Nor would a second Bush term likely be different. Nothing in his convention speech suggested a new willingness by Bush to make tough choices. Indeed, when discussing their domestic agenda, administration officials complained that the media had ignored their proposals, such as $250 million in aid to community colleges for job training. Not mentioned was that Washington runs a plethora of job training programs, few of which have demonstrated lasting benefits. This is the hallmark of a limited-government conservative?

Jonah Goldberg, a regular contributor to NRO, one of Bush's strongest bastions, complains that the president has "asked for a major new commitment by the federal government to insert itself into everything from religious charities to marriage counseling." Indeed, Bush seems to aspire to be America's moralizer in chief. He would use the federal government to micromanage education, combat the scourge of steroid use, push drug testing of high school kids, encourage character education, promote marriage, hire mentors for children of prisoners and provide coaches for ex-cons.

Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush "is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash."
Yet some conservatives celebrate this approach. Kevin Fobbs and Lisa Sarrach of the National Urban Policy Action Council opine that Bush is "a strong leader, a comforter in chief." A comforter in chief?


Why, then, would any conservative believer in limited, constitutional government vote for Bush? It is fear of the thought of a President John Kerry.
Bobby Eberle of the conservative Web site GOPUSA warns, "One can only imagine the budgets that would be submitted by Kerry." President Bush has made the same point, repeatedly charging that Kerry "has promised about $2 trillion of new spending thus far." Maybe that is true, though the cost of Bush's actual performance would be hard to beat. After all, the president initiated a huge increase in the welfare state with his Medicare drug benefit bill. Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute points out that, in sharp contrast to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, "Bush has cut none of the [federal] agencies' budgets during his first term."


Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally.

Maybe so, respond some conservatives, but how about the Bush tax cuts? The president tells campaign audiences: "They're going to raise your taxes; we're not." But even here the Bush record is not secure. Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

For some conservatives, the clincher in favor of Bush is the war on terrorism. Kerry, with more war experience than the current president and vice president combined, "resembles Neville Chamberlain," says Nugent. Answering his own hysterical question, "Why do terrorists want Kerry to win?" David Keene of the American Conservative Union says Kerry would submit to terrorists and "lead the free world to a second Munich," only this time with al-Qaida instead of Adolph Hitler.

Yet Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor is social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds that has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden.

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in its most recent study warns that the Iraq occupation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world. And acting CIA Director John McLaughlin worries that terrorists are plotting "something big" against the United States. For a time the Pentagon considered closing its child care center, lest it become the target of an attack. NRO columnist Goldberg observes that the president's contention that the war in Iraq has made America safer "is absurd." Goldberg backs the war for other reasons, but says it was probably "the risky thing in the short run."

Bush -- not even sure himself whether the war on terrorism is winnable -- has been unable to demonstrate how Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against America. Instead, he says: "I need four more years to complete the work. There's more work to do to make America a safer place. There's more work to do to make the world a more peaceful place." Alas, there's more work, far more work, to do because of Bush's misguided policies.

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush | 1, 2, 3


A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."


And opposed it he should have. The conflict is undermining America's values. As social critic Randolph Bourne long ago observed, "War is the health of the state." Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the so-called PATRIOT Act threatens some of the basic civil liberties that make America worth defending. Abu Ghraib has sullied America's image among both friends and enemies.
Still, there obviously are issues important to conservatives on which the candidates differ. On abortion and judicial appointments, for instance, Bush is clearly superior for conservatives. On business regulation Bush is probably better. For this reason Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation worries that "in punishing Bush, they [conservatives opposing him] may end up punishing the country." The administration has also sacrificed economic liberty on issues such as antitrust, telecommunications and trade.




But these differences in practice may matter little. Not much can be done on abortion given current court rulings and the fact that Bush has won approval of few of his most conservative nominees. Republican senators could limit Kerry's choices just as Democratic senators have limited Bush's choices.

Bush's record has been so bad that some of his supporters simply ask, So what? Bush is "a big government conservative," explains commentator Fred Barnes. That means using "what would normally be seen as liberal means -- activist government -- for conservative ends. And they're willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process."

But this political prostitution is unworthy of venerable conservative principles. Undoubtedly, reducing the reach of government is not easy, and there is no shame in adjusting tactics and even goals to reflect political reality. But to surrender one's principles, to refuse to fight for them, is to put personal ambition before all else.

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.

Some onetime administration supporters have grown disillusioned. Sullivan observes: "To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen ... is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments."

Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government.

In his farewell address to the nation on Jan. 11, 1989, Reagan observed: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." Even when politics forced him to give way, everyone knew what he stood for. Bush's biggest problem, in contrast, is not that he is a poor communicator. It is that he has nothing to communicate. Victory over terrorists, yes -- but then what American really disagrees with that goal? Beyond that there is nothing.

"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Although anecdotal evidence of conservative disaffection with Bush is common -- for instance, my Pentagon employee neighbor, a business lobbyist friend, even my retired career Air Force father -- for many the thought of voting for John Kerry remains simply too horrific to contemplate. And this dissatisfaction has yet to show up in polls. Fear of Kerry, more than love of Bush, holds many conservatives behind the GOP.

Yet serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is reelected. Is Kerry really likely to initiate more unnecessary wars, threaten more civil liberties and waste more tax dollars? #

Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power.






End
================================================== ==========




Thomas F. Fischel - KØPJG -
8274 Cullowhee Mountain Road
Cullowhee, NC #28723
k0pjg@earthlink.net


All msgs scanned per Norton Anti-Virus, in and out bound.

To view Collins equipment ;
http://www.qrz.com/callsign/k0pjg

Life Member of A.R.R.L.

[KB9YCO]

Wow, you win the prize for longest post ever, nice work.

[w0tdh]

It requires more ink & paper when you present BOTH sides http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (K0PJG @ Oct. 14 2004,11:41)]It requires more ink & paper when you present BOTH sides :)
I've got no problem with both sides, or the fact that it was long, I still read it. But damn, that was a lot of print.

[WA5KRP]

The FCC (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40930) will not block the airing of Stolen Honor by Sinclair's affiliates. #According to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, "I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so."

No matter what your point of view, the FCC messed with you one way or another today with regard to BPL and the upcoming election.

FUNKY.



WA5KRP
Texas

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Oct. 14 2004,18:33)]The FCC (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40930) will not block the airing of Stolen Honor by Sinclair's affiliates. According to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, "I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so."
I got a good laugh out of that one, what a hypocrital loser that Powell is.
"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."

Unless you're Howard Stern, or anyone that they may happen to disagree with. What a blowhard, liar, hypocrite, phony a***ole.

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 14 2004,16:41)]Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Oct. 14 2004,18:33)]The FCC (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40930) will not block the airing of Stolen Honor by Sinclair's affiliates. According to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, "I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so."
I got a good laugh out of that one, what a hypocrital loser that Powell is.
"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."

Unless you're Howard Stern, or anyone that they may happen to disagree with. What a blowhard, liar, hypocrite, phony a***ole.
Tell ya what, Brett... tell me which regulation that the FCC is in charge of enforcing would apply to this?

The regulations that are to be enforced by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) don't count, since the FCC cannot enforce FEC regulations, and vice versa.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

[K4JSR]

Quote[/b] (KB9YCO @ Oct. 14 2004,16:41)]Quote[/b] (wa5krp @ Oct. 14 2004,18:33)]The FCC (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40930) will not block the airing of Stolen Honor by Sinclair's affiliates. #According to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, "I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so."
I got a good laugh out of that one, what a hypocrital loser that Powell is.
"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."

Unless you're Howard Stern, or anyone that they may happen to disagree with. What a blowhard, liar, hypocrite, phony a***ole.
Hey Brett, We are back to disagreeing again.
The FCC has fined FOX TV 1.2 MegaBux and all of the
FOX-TV affiliates 7 kilo Bux each for airing some stupid
bachelor show. So they *ARE* going after folks other than See BS and Howie Sternum!
I guess we are next. I just saw a black helicopter with
Lo-Jack antennas fly over this thread! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Ain't life grand when everybody gets meted some justice?

Duck! There goes the helicopter again! Why ain't KWW
warning us? OH ME! OH MY!
KWW is gonna have some real fun dressing me funny and putting me in stange poses and taking photos when
my time comes! (I'll deserve it, too!) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

73 and remember, you ain't getting out of this world alive! However the IRS will still tax you!

Cal "Dead man walking" K4JSR

CORRECTION! Make that "Fat dead man waddling"! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] ]Tell ya what, Brett... tell me which regulation that the FCC is in charge of enforcing would apply to this? N7AAO

You're absolutely right, there isn't one. Even if one were written it would be contradictory to The Bill Of Rights and would apply in the exact same way that the FCC has applied it to Howard Stern, or anyone else that doesn't fit into some members of the FCC's often vague, yet blatantly ultra conservative ideals. Religious morality, from a minority, turned into law for the majority, un-American and sickening to any American that value their gauranteed rights.

Quote[/b] ]Hey Brett, We are back to disagreeing again.
The FCC has fined FOX TV 1.2 MegaBux and all of the
FOX-TV affiliates 7 kilo Bux each for airing some stupid
bachelor show. So they *ARE* going after folks other than See BS and Howie Sternum! I guess we are next...Ain't life grand when everybody gets meted some justice? K4JSR

No, life is not grand when the government ignores the basic principles of The Bill Of Rights and Constitution from which they derive their very power. Just because they are now extending their selective enforcement to other shows does not make it anymore right than it is for Stern or anyone else to be persecuted.
You jokingly ask who is next, but that is indeed the problem. When these precedents in law are set, they open the gate to go a little further each time. Just as in the Patriot Act where they allow incarceratation of people without due process, or contact with an attorney, and the government doesn't even have to release any details about who or where they are, or even why. There is a parallel between all un-Constitutional acts being justified for protection or the better good through our legal system; they erode our rights and go against the philosophy that this country has fought and died for. Justify it whatever way you wish, it won't change the fact that it is fundamentally un-American to ignore our basic liberties for the sake of one group's version of 'morality'.

[ai4ep]

Aint this fun ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 15 2004,17:31)]Aint this fun ? # # # # # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
YUP! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But I get to see it locally. I guess I'll try to sit through an hours worth of TV.

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 15 2004,19:05)]Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Oct. 15 2004,17:31)]Aint this fun ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
YUP! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But I get to see it locally. I guess I'll try to sit through an hours worth of TV.
Too bad I don't get to see it here.

Oh, well, my absentee ballot is filled out, signed, sealed, and stamped... and tomorrow if should go out in the mail for the blue-state election officials to ignore. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[k6pme]

Not in Spokane? I would have thought so.

But if your absentee then you won't be around?

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 15 2004,19:13)]Not in Spokane? I would have thought so.

But if your absentee then you won't be around?
I am on the permanent absentee list... it saves all that time waiting in line, and it's amusing to watch the politicians waste their money on me during the last 2 weeks... AFTER I've voted. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[k6pme]

I wish I would have thought of that! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 15 2004,19:44)]I wish I would have thought of that! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
It's probably too late to do it for this election, but you can always do it for the next one. Just call the county voter registration department, or whatever they call it in your neck of the woods.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/unclesam.gif

[k6pme]

I think I will. I like the idea of trying to get my vote after I voted!

[WA5KRP]

TONIGHT at 8pm CDT KRRT-TV will air "Stolen Honor". It will be aired tomorrow night on KABB-TV.


I still haven't heard if Kerry has accepted Sinclair's offer for equal time to rebut his fellow vets.



WA5KRP
Texas

[N8CPA]

The major disappointment is that Mark Hyman backed down a bit. On the 62 Sinclair outlets, they're only going to air a portion of the documentary. Not only that, but it will be in the context of a TV special report about the electoral impact of such films.

I am so disappointed that he basically caved in to outside pressure.

[K0CRX]

If you can't see "Stolen Honor", read "Unfit for Command". Guaranteed to make you just as upset with the DNC war 'hero'!!!!!

[k4kio]

I heard that the sound track of "Stolen Honor" is going to be aired by K1MAN. #

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Leo

[ai4ep]

so I guess tonight is the night to see this program...update later !!

[ai4ep]

Very informative program...was seen on wtto - 21 in Birmingham, Alabama.

The show was very well organized and informative and well- put together.

I dont know if any of the other SINCLAIR station actually showed the program tonight or will arrange it in their future schedules ( heck, this one I saw might have the back bone to show it again & again & again for those who did not get the privilege to see it tonight ) before the election.

Some folks and broadcasters are not easily intimidated to show the facts .