Dr. Tyler; Captain America

What did Poo-Face say? "Can't win 'em all, Tom." OR "Us race-baiting pieces of shit can't spot the racists ALL the time." OR "I'm sure those cops pulled over a black motorist in the past, so I was justified..." Basically said something to the effect of "Well, I still stand by my convictions. I didn't know she was lying, and there was no reason for me to believe that was the case."

Nine, and it would be interesting.

Oy. Morons. LOL I BET THE BULLETS WE SHOOT INTO THE SKY WILL GO INTO SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brokaw isn't taking it easy on the candidates. He just asked Sharpton about Tawana Brawley. Heh.

It's been pretty funny so far. Everyone and their mother are attacking and misquoting Dean so far.

Because they see Americans as imperial; the UN's charter and mission in and of itself is one of peace, not of "imperialism and capitalism and..." I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it's seen.

But, in all honesty, the burden ISN'T unfair. They're being asked to forfeit money, yes, but all of their competitors are also forced to do the same thing. It's still not the government's responsibility to make an industry economically viable, especially not one that reaps the rewards of a monopoly power over the population. I mean, come on, it's absurd how much they charge for advertizing. This isn't an argument that the FCC would use, but stepping back, they make MORE than enough profit to be able to take a hit of a mere 20 minutes a day in advertizing time. I don't get what you're implying here. They're not getting extra time, they're getting the same amount of time. Some candidates would simply have airtime in states which they aren't ballot qualified, potentially, and I don't think that's an equal protection issue since the overlapping markets occur in nearly every state. Thinking about it after I got sleep, every channel showing this sounds stupid. It'd probably be the same channels which must accept public service requirements as a stipulation for licensing (so, then, it MIGHT be all stations, but I doubt it). As per the first point, it'd raise equal protection issues if it wasn't enforced, and therefore, they'd likely enforce it tightly just to avoid those issues. With the second point, yes, but then again, campaigns which rely primarily on the advertising are not likely to win, anyways. However, the advertising is a very good way to at least get their name and message out there, and inform people how to further find information about their candidate if the advertising piques information. I mean, in all honesty, the average person doesn't even know who's running, yet alone what their website is. You still run into the same problems, because if both sides have their hands in the honeypot, neither one of them is going to say a damned thing about it. In addition, probably all of two people would read those reports. It's a decent idea, but just like the Freedom of Information Act, there are hurdles you'd have to jump to see ANY information; hurdles that aren't likely to be jumped by the average American seeking to become a more informed voter. Television is the most widely held medium in the country (and probably the world). It is a much better tool for spreading information than simply records. To a certain extent, I agree; however, I also think that if done right, it would encourage people to research their candidates more and figure out what the difference is, etc.

I don't think you really have a good grasp on the fairness doctrine as it applies to constitutional law, Wildbomb. Nobody is trying to remove bias from the media; the fairness doctrine was simply a badly worded restriction that, if interpreted literally, would bar stations from having any opinion pieces whatsoever. That's different than, say, Fox News spinning a Clinton aide's disappearance as a possible murder.

This one's blank, too. Keep going.

Wow, triple post.

*points to post above*

The proposal was that each candidate got their amount of airtime to be used anytime 90 days before the election. And again, Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, the licensee has no right to profit unless it is expressed in the contract (which it isn't). It's not the government's problem that this costs the broadcaster money. That's not a statement of whether that's right or wrong, it's simply how it is. No, I know that this nitpicking would occur. I, personally, don't know what the provisions had to say about that, but I'd presume that they would simply give equal time to all candidates who were ballot qualified in the state with more candidates. Indeed, which would lead me to believe that it would be required of cable television as well. I'm simply not sure about the rules' provisions, etc. I apologize for not having specifics about that. I'd presume that the SOTU falls under their public interest requirements on their licensing agreement, and yes, the FCC *does* have the power to revoke those licenses. That's one thing I'm sure about; they're the presiding body in this, and they have the right to revoke the license (and basically kick the channel off the air) if the requirements aren't followed. Likely so. However, if you argue public roads being used for distribution (which, frankly, is quite a weak argument, even though it'd probably be used), you have to concede that not every recieves these publications by delivery and whatnot. It's somewhat of a weak argument, and I don't think it has THAT much bearing in this particular case. Indeed, and there would be much less of an argument against their rights. However, like I said, this is simply a step in the right direction, not a fix all. The argument would be, again, that it's not the government's problem. They've got 90 days to show 90 minutes of programming per candidate. Even in the states with the most relaxed ballot qualifications, that'd be an average of 20 minutes advertizing per day. In a 3 hour block, that's hardly crippling (although it does put a dent in their profits).

Not substaintially enough to warrant argument. Plus, it's not as if they'd be aired at the exact same time every night. Naw, local ballots. Meaning, every candidate that qualified for the Virginia Ballot would have the air time in Virginia markets, etc. I doubt that it'd be a cable requirement. It's probably just the free broadcast channels. Not really. The FCC still has the right to stipulate the terms of license for any potential licensee, and being that these licensees don't own the property on which they broadcast, this can be done retroactively, too. Oh, I know they'd fight it nonstop, but it doesn't mean they'd win in court. There's too much precedent against them, such as Munn v. Illinois (original precedent legalizing government price fixing), Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (if it's not specifically stated in the contract, there IS no right to profit), and any number of cases that state the FCC has the right to regulate content in the public's interest. And I could name about ten cases with language that assures us that learning about the democratic process etc. and becoming informed voters is in the public's best interest. Not in this case. If it were a newspaper, yes. However, the public owns the airwaves and the FCC, charged with upholding the public's interest, has virtual carte blanche over this sort of thing... DNC v. CBS aside. Also, DNC v. CBS was simply in favor of editorializing, which these channels wouldn't be forced to abstain from. True, but the difference -- I'd imagine, anyway -- would be pretty negligable and it's not like they'd be only shown at one particular time. In the mock court case I argued in, the scenerio was 90 minutes for each candidate. However, the numbers I've heard thrown around are from 30-60 each.

It would all, presumably, be in prime time. Thus, no complaints. If they qualify for the ballot, they'd be allowed the same benefits as major party candidates. Any and all, theoretically. Again, this isn't my proposal but I've done tons of research on it. Under that theoretical instance, the FCC would have the right to revoke that channel's broadcasting license. Probably, but it'd pass very easily. It's a slam dunk for the regulators with all of the precedent on their side (I can name the cases if you challenge that, but I'd rather not for the sake of sleep). It would change quite a bit. If you were to further regulate these soft money corporations and issue ad type folk (or even if you don't; free air time would at least let these candidates respond to the attacks, which is a big upgrade from the current system), it'd bring the system CLOSER to perfection. Key word is CLOSER because there is no one perfect solution to this or any problem. Again, there's not much of a difference between the 8:12 timeslot and the 9:55 one, so I don't think that issue would come to pass.

That's probably the worst kept secret in history, by the way.

Bomb the entire region? What about the innocent people that would get vaporized by those bombs? Or do they not matter? I'm with you on killing those responsible for killing our troops, but innocents should not have to suffer. We're the United States of America, not Al Queda. We have this same debate whenever anything bad happens in the Middle East. Someone suggests we bomb the middle east, JMA (and others) argue for the innocents. Someone retorts that there are no innocents in the Middle East. Big shitstorm kicks up over nothing. Overreacting like that is what they do, not us. That's why we're the USA and they're a despotic hell hole. Argument over, hopefully.

The television stations have no claim to their profits. They're using the public airwaves to broadcast their programs, and if you gave all ballot qualified candidates equal access to advertising (on all channels, at the same time slots in order to prevent equal protection issues), it'd eliminate a lot of the need for major fundraising. I've done a ton of research on this field, and if you'd like to debate it from a legal perspective, you're certainly welcome to try. You're not going to win, though.

I had the problem you mentioned with an old computer; it was an Acer Aspire, and it sucked ass. My problem then was the motherboard going bad, but it could be a variety of things, including your computer just going into sleep mode for some random reason.

If we were to do that, we'd be no better than them.

The obvious problem of "giving him a chance" is that he's appointed for life, and thus, it's nearly impossible to take that chance away if he does, in fact, show his biases.

I'd definitely agree with that, but then again, I'd also say that it's the same type of stuff the Right did en masse in the early/middle 90's against Clinton. There is no real solution to this problem, barring free advertising time for candidates (which, I believe, would go a long way towards fixing the problem). I haven't finished "Lies" yet, unfortunately. I'm probably going to end up reading it on Tuesday at the airport. I'll respond to the second comment then

Tom Flesher Sunrise with Charlie and Nina! Lunchtime Discussions At the End of the Day This week, Tom learns the two sweetest words in the English language. De-fault. Tom Flesher is a When Worlds Collide X finalist. Michael Craven This is what I live for Cold Up 2-1 in roleplays against an inferior opponent, Michael Craven should be on his way to the finals as well. Congrats. Me. Conclusion: Chapter Four Chapter 5.1 ("An Empty House") Chapter 5.2 ("Alone") Chapter 5.25 ("Death") I was doing well until my jackass opponent ignored the "three apiece" request. I should win based on quality, but it's closer than it should've been because I had to split up my final RP. Congratulations to Michael and Tom, though!

Comments from the judges. 3. Tom Flesher -Sunrise With Nina And Charlie *** (I like Tom's style, but to me this was your run of the mill, "Austin's On Sharon Osbourne, or Foley's on Conan type of interview. Job well done though on how it was constructed. Good for Flesher.) -Lunchtime Discussions *** (I can almost ditto my comments from the primary rp here. I can't decide whether or not he's trying to be TWF or SWF as far as style goes. He's caught on the fence in between. Nevertheless, a good rp.) -At The End Of The Day ** (Generic as shit. He's lucky I gave him two stars. I felt like I was reading the script for a long, lost episode of Cheers. Nonetheless. He'll secure the win over Storm because Press neglected to roleplay and kudos to Tom for going card limit. If he picks it up in the final round he could place, but in all honesty, if he doesn't, he'll end up like Northern Illinois, good, but not good enough.) Michael Craven: ** -To be quite frank, this was a house show roleplay. Yet, it had a generally different feeling than those kinds you see on the Geocities feds and such. I kinda liked it despite that daunting fact. Good in terms of wrestling based content, and the emotion of the character. **1/2 -I was happy to see that this was a solid old school type promo. Kept the theme of his tenacity and adrenaline that he started in the promo before, but without the house show match. Good promo, one I could actually envision happening. That realism is something Craven can capitalize on.

BRACKET 1 FINAL(Davis) Black Traveler ZK vs. Tom Flesher vs. Andrew Hurley (Tough draw with my stablemate, Hurley. You've already beaten zen man, though) BRACKET 2 FINAL (Lawson) Pete Ebdon vs. Michael Craven vs. Erick Caine (Caine's good, Ebdon's shit. Feast.) BRACKET 3 FINAL (Lloyd) Kevin Jones vs. Vex Badbed vs. Christian Atwater (IWF champion, FWF legend, and me. With a judge that hates me. Tables are a bit stacked, heh)

Whoops, no. Mods, move this. I didn't even look where I was posting.