Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 3, 2004 I remember this thread. Mike was firmly against TV stations having to run political crap over their normal programming because it unfairly took away ad dollars and the network should decide what to run because they pay the bills and bitch bitch bitch. Which Mike are you discussing, because it sure as hell wasn't me? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted July 3, 2004 Yeah, Mike, it really was. It was actually one of our more civil arguments we've had, and I remember it distinctly because I had just finished researching it before you started arguing with me about it. I was talking about free air time provisions and how they would be in the public's best interest, and thus fall under the FCC's charge. However, you countered that blah blah blah it's unconstitutional because of some amazing stretch of precedent that made little sense. I don't feel like finding the thread right now, but if I get up some motivation, I'll find it tomorrow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted July 3, 2004 It was the campaign finance case decision from the SCOTUS. I remember it because: 1) Jobber actually agreed with Mike that the ruling was not good. He brought up something about O'Reilly being able to diss Kerry as much as he wants within the 60 day period, and outsider groups can't help out in trying to debunk them with counter-ads. 2) Tyler said he read the entire decision the same day it came out. That amazed me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted July 3, 2004 It wasn't that same thread, though. I found that one, but it didn't have our argument in it. I had a few posts where I showed precedent and whatnot backing up my opinion, and Mike countered with the aforementioned right to profit argument. And yeah, I did have to read that entire decision that day. It sucked ten breeds of ass, but it got me the necessary lines to win my case, so I can't complain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 4, 2004 It wasn't that same thread, though. I found that one, but it didn't have our argument in it. I had a few posts where I showed precedent and whatnot backing up my opinion, and Mike countered with the aforementioned right to profit argument. And yeah, I did have to read that entire decision that day. It sucked ten breeds of ass, but it got me the necessary lines to win my case, so I can't complain. Tyler, why would I gripe about the media's right to profit --- when my complaint always was that the bill gave the media WAY too much power in Presidential politics --- as the only people legally able to discuss the candidates would BE the media? Stations do have the right to accept any ads they desire and to charge whatever they like --- as they do right before an election. However, these situations are vastly different. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 4, 2004 Well, let's find the thread in question so we can get this over with... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 4, 2004 Which thread was the one where I was shocked and appalled that Bush figured that the Supreme Court would declare it illegal, but he decided to sign it anyway? The fact that he put his signature to a piece of legislation that he personally thought was illegal should have woken people up to the thought that Bush tends to rubber-stamp Congressional waste without putting much independent thought into it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 5, 2004 Which thread was the one where I was shocked and appalled that Bush figured that the Supreme Court would declare it illegal, but he decided to sign it anyway? The fact that he put his signature to a piece of legislation that he personally thought was illegal should have woken people up to the thought that Bush tends to rubber-stamp Congressional waste without putting much independent thought into it. And I agreed. Bush had no business signing the legislation and if the Democrats had a candidate who actually had a pulse, I'd consider voting against Bush simply for that bill. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 Name a Democrat candidate you'd vote for POTUS... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 5, 2004 Name a Democrat candidate you'd vote for POTUS... Zell Miller, easily. John Breaux any day of the week. If he ever re-entered politics, Tim Penny was somebody I thought highly of. If I actually knew more Dems, I'd mention more. The batch for this election cycle were insanely weak. Lieberman was the least offensive of the bunch, but he was too into censorship for my tastes. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 Zell Miller Normally I'd just repeat the word "Democrat" and say LOL, but I think I'll add that anyone who votes in favor of making flag-burning illegal is automatically disqualified in my book. I don't care if you support flag burning or not, I think we can agree the good majority of us don't, but once you make a move on that, you can start moving further onto other things. He also voted yes on McCain-Feingold. Make of that what you will. That said, I'm curious how many people who like Zell this much were doing so prior to President Bush. I wouldn't say he's a BAD guy, but when you and Ralph Nader are being heralded like heroes by the Republicans, you gotta really wonder who you're helping. Assuming you care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 The problem with picking Zell is that there's no chance in hell he'd ever be the Dem nominee. Also, the problem with saying Nobody-cared-about-Zell-until-he-became-a-Bush-fan is because he wasn't a mainstream pol. until he began pimping Bush. That's like saying how many Dems would have voted for Jim Jeffords before made his bitch-ass move of leaving the GOP to become a pawn of the Democrats... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 Also, the problem with saying Nobody-cared-about-Zell-until-he-became-a-Bush-fan is because he wasn't a mainstream pol. until he began pimping Bush. Which is exactly what I'm saying. That's suddently when all this attention started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 But that's the only time he's ever gotten any National attention. I'm sure if Big Media would have paid as much attention to Zell over the years as, oh, say John McCain, that Zell would have been a big hit with more voters. I heard of this guy in 2000 and liked him ever since, so your U-just-like-him-cuz-he-likes-Bush line doesn't apply to me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 so it's not bad enough that major media networks want to take away the voice of any independent aka 3rd party voice, but now they even want to scale back on the 2 Giants voices.......lovely. It is once every four years, I think people can afford to miss an episode of some shitty drama show. Not to be an asshole, but if people are so interested in Law & Order, then go watch a public trial, or turn on court TV. Stop watching a drama show and pretend to care about "court cases" I know the DNC and the RNC are mostly just fluff these days, and rather then gathering to decide on direction, they are mostly comparable to a high school rally trying to pep up the football team, but still the Presidential election and the events leading up to it, are way more important then "prime time television" Well what do you expect? When Americans have to choose between garbage and Sewage why bother showing the two praise themselves on National TV? I'm not trying to sound negative here but it's the truth. This election has to have the worst presidential choises of all time...just nudging out the 2000 election. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 I heard of this guy in 2000 and liked him ever since, so your U-just-like-him-cuz-he-likes-Bush line doesn't apply to me... Well, hey, it's cool that's your Old Skool Zell Miller, from the days when he was underground, on the street, and hadn't turned pro. At the same time, you can have him. Being an independent voter suddently doesn't hold water when you're going to the other guy's convention. But that's just by me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted July 5, 2004 I don't want you to go away empty-handed. Here's good ol' Arlen Spector... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted July 6, 2004 http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...ic=45176&st=60# Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest FrigidSoul Report post Posted July 6, 2004 Black Entertainment Television will be broadcasting nightly from Boston’s Fleet Center. Earlier BET caught up with Barry Bonds and asked for his take on this whole thing "The Democrats suck. I've never been to one of their rallies but my father said they were terrible 30 years ago." Wouldn't it be nice if they made channels specifically for news and politics so people who didn't want to watch the convention coverage could just flip over to them...wait a minute... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 6, 2004 http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...ic=45176&st=60# Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 6, 2004 http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...ic=45176&st=60# How is being against free campaigns and being for a network's right to actually make money off advertising mean I should be against networks ignoring their civil duty to cover conventions? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted July 7, 2004 Free ad time for the candidates is a horrid idea. It won't fix the problem (the only way you can would be to BAN political advertising, which would be more than in mild violation of the Constitution) and would only serve as ANOTHER thing to gripe about. The really obscure party candidates will complain that they have no voice. So, TV stations will have to give time to ALL candidates --- which is absurd. So, Mike... Should the networks have to cover ALL the parties' conventions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 7, 2004 Free ad time for the candidates is a horrid idea. It won't fix the problem (the only way you can would be to BAN political advertising, which would be more than in mild violation of the Constitution) and would only serve as ANOTHER thing to gripe about. The really obscure party candidates will complain that they have no voice. So, TV stations will have to give time to ALL candidates --- which is absurd. So, Mike... Should the networks have to cover ALL the parties' conventions? Nope. WE are a two-party system. Until another one approaches the level of competition, there is no need for networks to cover them. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Brian Report post Posted July 7, 2004 And until the networks do, it will always be a two-party system. One of the many checks and balances of a duopoly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 7, 2004 And until the networks do, it will always be a two-party system. One of the many checks and balances of a duopoly. You can't blame the networks for political realities. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted July 7, 2004 No, we aren't a two-party system. We are a RICH-party system. If a 3rd party had the money to splash ads and campaign at the levels the Democrats/Republicans did, then they would be getting higher numbers, and eventually would have a decent-to-good shot at winning. It is more about funds then it is about, "oh people are fine and happy with a two-party system" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 7, 2004 No, we aren't a two-party system. We are a RICH-party system. If a 3rd party had the money to splash ads and campaign at the levels the Democrats/Republicans did, then they would be getting higher numbers, and eventually would have a decent-to-good shot at winning. It is more about funds then it is about, "oh people are fine and happy with a two-party system" What 3rd Party have we had that could actually attract a majority of voters? They INTENTIONALLY marginalize themselves. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted July 7, 2004 No, we aren't a two-party system. We are a RICH-party system. If a 3rd party had the money to splash ads and campaign at the levels the Democrats/Republicans did, then they would be getting higher numbers, and eventually would have a decent-to-good shot at winning. It is more about funds then it is about, "oh people are fine and happy with a two-party system" What 3rd Party have we had that could actually attract a majority of voters? They INTENTIONALLY marginalize themselves. -=Mike Well Ross Perot pulled high numbers basically SOLEY in the name of the money he had. Now of course you are never going to win, in a one shot deal, but if he was a lot younger, and kept spreading his message and kept running, and always had that money to back his campaign up, then quite possibly he could have one day won, or made it interesting. The key was MONEY. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted July 7, 2004 No, we aren't a two-party system. We are a RICH-party system. If a 3rd party had the money to splash ads and campaign at the levels the Democrats/Republicans did, then they would be getting higher numbers, and eventually would have a decent-to-good shot at winning. It is more about funds then it is about, "oh people are fine and happy with a two-party system" What 3rd Party have we had that could actually attract a majority of voters? They INTENTIONALLY marginalize themselves. -=Mike Well Ross Perot pulled high numbers basically SOLEY in the name of the money he had. Now of course you are never going to win, in a one shot deal, but if he was a lot younger, and kept spreading his message and kept running, and always had that money to back his campaign up, then quite possibly he could have one day won, or made it interesting. The key was MONEY. Then Steve Forbes could've had tons of attention in 1996. But he didn't. You need more than money to make an impact. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted July 7, 2004 No, we aren't a two-party system. We are a RICH-party system. If a 3rd party had the money to splash ads and campaign at the levels the Democrats/Republicans did, then they would be getting higher numbers, and eventually would have a decent-to-good shot at winning. It is more about funds then it is about, "oh people are fine and happy with a two-party system" What 3rd Party have we had that could actually attract a majority of voters? They INTENTIONALLY marginalize themselves. -=Mike Well Ross Perot pulled high numbers basically SOLEY in the name of the money he had. Now of course you are never going to win, in a one shot deal, but if he was a lot younger, and kept spreading his message and kept running, and always had that money to back his campaign up, then quite possibly he could have one day won, or made it interesting. The key was MONEY. Then Steve Forbes could've had tons of attention in 1996. But he didn't. You need more than money to make an impact. -=Mike Ok correction: Money isn't the ONLY FACTOR, but you need it, and lots of it, to even stand a decent chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
