Trent

So you think those are good enough reasons for people to kill civilians and wreak terror throughout the world? Good for you. Yep, I did. And I'm betting that that's not why they hate us. I wouldn't be too surprised if a militant islamic guy didn't already realize that we didn't value his life very much. Oooh ooooh and guess what, I bet somewhere some of those "jihadis" are referring to the remaining US population as "Americans we haven't killed yet". Fuck em. Oh, hello again!

And from PK... While I can appreciate your opinions, I don't appreciate your apparent condescending tone. So for all of you guys... If you don't consider history to be "NEWS" then wtf was with all the reporting on Bush's service records? What about a report on the history of the mid-east conflicts? Background history isn't a part of news? Where does the line stop... a day ago, two weeks ago, or just where you feel is best since clearly you're the authority on it? And if Sinclair finds a loophole... they can use it. Remember, if they're not VIOLATING the law, it's not illegal. If a news outlet found out that Kerry had molested a child in the past the day before the election, would it not be in the public interest to say so? Is it not in the public interest to know what the candidates have done on public record... even in the past? It seems to me that you guys are hoping that it won't run based on a technicality just as much as some of us are hoping that it will run based on a technicality. Just say that you don't want it to run because you don't want it to *maybe* help Bush out and be done with it. Oh, hello again!

Listen, Philly... I get whatever any network wants to show me. Sometimes it's what I want, a lot of times, it isn't. I NEVER get exactly what I want in broadcasting. And guess what, they don't own PBS so anyone not wanting to watch what's on major networks can go watch that. Same as every day... or the same as when the debates or state of the union speeches are on every channel. Find another channel, or go do something else. Simple. So you wouldn't be okay with them running a GWB documentary unless, in your opinion, it was as damaging as the one about Kerry, right? I guess they should create a scale for that so it'll always be fair huh? According to the laws I'm seeing, equal time is equal time. And no, I haven't seen you complaining about the media bias all along, just making fun of conservatives when they say that the media seems to have a liberal bias. The fact is, this program is no less "news" than the bullshit we see on CBS. IMO, it's more news than not. Oh, hello again!

Chicken or the egg, Bill? Did we start terrorizing the extremists before they started terrorizing the world? See, you never did respond to my statement about the fact that us helping Israel alone is reason enough for the fuckers to hate us. Add the fact that we have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and they hate us more. So really... do you REALLY think that it's all our fault that extreme islam has declared a jihad against the west? And I fully understand that when we kill arabs, some of the leftovers will hate us. But there is a cultural cycle of hatred bred into many islamic fundamentalist communities... it really doesn't take us killing arabs to make them mad. You have to see that. Oh, hello again!

So if they ran a film based about GWB during his tenure as governor or something, would you be okay with it? It doesn't say (that I've seen) that the implications of the broadcasts have to be the same. So they could air something about Kerry (even if it makes him look bad) then something about Bush (even if it makes him look good) and they'd fit in, right? I think broadcasting rules about serving the public trust went out the window when almost every network chose sides. It's suspect that NOW, you guys are complaining about it. Oh, hello again!

See Jimbo's post. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1292912#1292912 Oh, hello again!

Ahhhh, so "news" is okay. So then a factual movie based on Kerry's testimony in front of the senate and the ramifications it had is okay. It's more news than Rather's BS about the military records, isn't it? Case closed. Sorry I don't spend all my time looking for reasons to ban speech when it doesn't support my agenda, so excuse my ignorance of these laws. But I'm glad you support free speech for everyone! Oh, hello again!

Really? So it would be okay and in the public interest to show Die Hard 3, but not a show about a political figure? Should we cry when the nightly news covers what Kerry did more than what Bush did? Or how about when a 527 buys more commercial time than an opposition 527? Remember, the owners didn't produce the movie, just decided to air it at their own expense. Sounds like a not that great business decision, but it's their decision... not yours or mine. But interestingly, I didn't hear you or any of the other anti-Bush crowd bitching too loudly when 60 minutes repeatedly aired segments that were clearly anti-Bush without giving us an equal share of anti-Kerry time. How does that figure into your equation? Oh, hello again!

But I thought it was okay for people who own things to do what they wished with them... or is that only okay when it goes against Bush? Seriously... if I owned a TV station, I do what I wanted too. Oh, hello again!

Gee didn't see that scathing, value-adding comment coming! I just thought people might be interested. Do you also *yawn* to every thread that doesn't interest you? Oh, hello again!

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes And the liberals are steaming. It's okay to make anti-Bush movies and release them on video weeks before the election, but this is not okay. Interesting either way. Oh, hello again!

That has nothing to do with my comment. Like Jimbo said, it's been done to death. Oh, hello again!

So the crazy islamic fundamentalists absolutely LOVED the US before we invaded Iraq this time around? Strange, I guess, like you, I should pretend not to have seen the unprovoked terrorism towards the US and its citizens worldwide. I guess in your world helping Israel exist, making the arab world rich by buying their oil, and helping Kuwait and Saudi Arabia stay secure by having troops there is reason enough for you to actually think that their bullshit jihad is warranted? Oh, hello again!

I agreed with most of your post, but 2 minor points. He was actually NOT on vacation, but visiting a school in Florida. Small difference, right? Actually, the movie accused him of having ties to the Bin Laden family... specifically their oil companies. What it fails to mention is that almost any company involved in oil dealings with the middle east is involved with one or more of the Bin Laden companies since they are some of the largest corporations in the Mid-East. I wouldn't be surprised in many an oil exec from Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Texaco, etc hadn't met or dealt with someone from the BL Group companies personally. Oh, hello again!

If being a wealthy and powerful nation that has freedom of religion and speech pisses off some neighbors, fuck 'em. Someone will be mad at us no matter what we do. Oh, hello again!

Unfortunately, Kerry is still in the running.

Are you sure? I thought at least some French companies were certified. Maybe not. Either way, apparently there's good reason for the FDA to NOT certify companies outside the US when they get bunk drugs crossing the border all the time. I have to agree with the doctors here... unless we KNOW what we're getting... screw it. Pay more and be much more sure. Oh, hello again!

Sure about that? Canadian pharmacies can also get cheaper generics than we can because they're being made in India and Mexico. I know several doctors (not drug company employees) who are rabidly against letting these drugs in the us because there is virtuall no control on their quality. In fact, some have been found to have traces of heavy metals and other contaminants. These 3rd world companies even go as far as to forge packaging and sell the drugs as name-brand medication. Until there's more control from the Canadian side, I'm not all for this "re-importation", because that's not always what you get. Now, the drug companies selling the same shit to Canada for lower prices is BS for sure. Maybe they'll just solve the problem by raising ALL their prices? After all, we don't want the entire US drug industry to move somewhere that will let them do what they want, right? Oh, hello again!

That's not all they wanted, they wanted to be independant of Spain because they were economically and "genetically" superior. Look up communist influence in the basque movement. Or just basque communists. I can understand wanting to be out from under "the boot" of whoever you think is oppressing you. How could you know otherwise? Oh, hello again!

Watch this: There has been an ongoing coup attempt in Iraq over the last year by many Al Queda organizations. Seems to me letting Al Queda take control of an entire government is more threatening to us than anything else. Go call the UN... quick... they'll have to talk about it for a year or 10 before they get around to helping Sudan without us. Oh, hello again!

And their track record has proven them to be excellent at their job, right? Maybe its that our government overlooks things that aren't deemed to be a growing or immediate threat to us? Maybe? Reagan did bomb Libya in the 80's remember? They bombed his palace and his refineries. As for Pol Pot, do you think the same anti-war politicians and citizens would have supported another SE Asia war right after they got their way abandoning the S.Vietnamese? Please.... What about Sudan? We're busy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, perhaps the beloved UN could handle that until we get there? Oh wait, their shuffling their feet and making recommendations right now... not DOING anything is policy. One thing at a time. Like I said before, someone is deciding what crisis poses a greater threat to our way of life, now or in the future. No one wants people to die... but they always will in a war. I understand that you don't like war, specifically THIS war, but us not protecting our perceived safety and interests is not the answer either. Oh, hello again!

From what I know... not what I read on google searches, if that matters... it seems to me that the whole basque separatism movement began reasonably enough with a fight against Franco. That much I can understand, even though their communist utopian ideals were severely misguided and unattainable, IMO. I also know that in the past many Basques felt that they were ethnically superior to the rest of their European neighbors. It is a very different cultural group who feels like it is fighting for its survival between to countries viewed as enemies. See where the story above can be related to islamic fundamentalism, then see where they both use terrorism to further their agenda. Oh, hello again!

Do you really want to know? Or are you just being nitpicky with me taking an example in a direction you don't like? In the future, try not to question people's knowledge... many people will just answer your questions to shut you up... the others will go to google, find the answers and shut you up. In the end, it's silly that you even asked. Oh, hello again!

So... are you guys saying that we should go to war or "police actions" any time theres a fight somewhere? I thought you (for the most part) wanted us out of the worlds hair? I don't suppose that somewhere, someone in the government is making educated decisions based upon the information they have available... and that some of those decision are weighed according to how important or volatile each crisis is deemed. Regardless... the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. This argument is just evidence of that. Oh, hello again!

When is it unnecessary? Was Vietnam unnecessary since it was so far away, or was it important to help the South against a growing tide of Asian communism? If the Chinese and Russians had been able to just walk through Asia without having a few fights on their hands (Korea too) would they have been a serious threat to the US and the world later? Similarly, would Iraq have developed into a threat with the rising tide of mid-east extremism? Would they have used this "jihad" mentality to support attacks and terrorism against the US and others? Maybe... and probably, in my opinion. It sounds like you're arguing that in hindsight a war may have seemed unnecessary because nothing ever happened after... but maybe that's EXACTLY why it was necessary... to stop something that might have happened. Do you really come from the wait-till-something-terrible-happens-before-we-react camp? Or how about the don't-nip-things-in-the-bud-maybe-they-want-to-be-friends camp? Argue that point till you're blue in the face... you'll always have someone disagree and they'll have AT LEAST just as valid a case as you. Oh, hello again!