The is Bullshit *Political*
 

I just got this in an email. Go to http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/ to sign the petition. I watched the ad and it really isn't that bad. I'm sure PETA would have done something worse than that.

:1orglaugh

dude, outside of GFY, the rest of the country knows moveon.org is lunatic fringe.

TO: CBS President Les Moonves
CC: Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone
FROM: The Truth Hurts
SUBJECT: Fuck these hippies.
__________

Dear Gentlemen,

(serge loves the cock)

As one of the nation's largest media outlets and a respected source of
news (laughs uncontrollably) and entertainment (uhh if you say say), CBS has no obligation to be fair. By running
an ad from the White House Office of Drug Policy while turning down
ads by MoveOn.org Voter Fund and PETA, CBS appears to be acting out of
pure genius, refusing ads that suck balls and are created by fucking morons.

Please discard these ads in the Toilet Bowl. If you don't, you
risk losing your last viewer and David Letterman will kill you.

Sincerely,

(The Truth Hurts)
(Reality)

Outside of the US, the rest of the world knows the Bush admin is a lunatic fringe.

Damn, lucky for us CBS is inside the US, the truth might get out otherwise!:1orglaugh

If that is the spot, that is a mistake for CBS not to air it. The spot isn't any worse than those drunk driving spots...the ones where they show tapes of the kids playing then shots of wreckage.

Viacom is a private organization etc...
They can refuse to take money from anybody; however, they do operate on public airwaves and therefore do have to conform to the public good in some ways.

It's a bit troubling that CBS deny political groups the right to purchase airtime.

What's next religious organizations, the NRA, Alcohol companies again (airwaves already have a "soft" ban on hard spirits)?

Tobacco ads have been banned from t.v. since the 60s (so I have no idea why they lied about that, and that makes the story seem inconsistent).

perhaps they're just more knowledgable than your average 20something work at home, porn pusher and remember when the same type of dopey ads were run about Reagan.
(no one wants to look stupid twice, not even Viacom):1orglaugh

My response to CBS as entered on moveon.org

Your corporate decision not to air the Moveon.org ads, Childs Pay is wrong. It is wrong for you to censor political ideas. It is wrong for you to prevent knowledge from reaching the very people effected by the issues demonstrated. It is wrong for you as a Federally licensed and regulated entity to play fast and loose with the First Amendment the very shield you use for your own news departments.

Viacom owned CBS when Reagan was in office?

Yes, Reagan did run up a deficit as well. (funny now that you mention it)

The assumption moveon.org folks are trying to lead ppl is that their children will have to cover the deficits.

That depends on the future growth of our GDP, the effect of tax cuts and military spending etc...

That's rather hard to say; yet, that's how politics works doing the blame game.

Yes, and the children of the Reagan era are not paying for it. Reagan hauled us out of the Carter resession.
So you see, on one side we have the proof of history and on the other we have clap trap.
there's no need to run claptrap when you can run funny superbowl commercials.:thumbsup

The PETA ad would have been nice.

No, wether you get wealthier or not you're still gonna have to pay your debts. It's at $20k/person now.

www.belowstreetlevel.com

right hand column under the "punk't" heading.

Exactly. Whether you support the cause or not, people who support this type of political censorship are sheep. Bush gets to talk about how good his economy is doing during the most watched show of the year, but the other side can't point out the fact that he's racked up a 1 trillion dollar deficit and only made 1000 new jobs in December. Yeah you guys really live in a free country. :1orglaugh

So you're saying Bush is going to pull you out of the Clinton resession? :winkwink:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=224803

^^ More about CBS ^^

The media play an extremely large - if not decisive - role with regards to elections. The major media networks are owned by corporations. Corporations have no obligation to give a fair, equal and unbiased representation of the different political viewpoints. They do, however, have vested interests in certain political positions.

So, what should it be called?
A mediacracy? Or does the term oligarchy cover it already?

:glugglug

Edit: I believe we have a winner

Not exactly.
The FCC does have a bunch of goofy rules governing the coverage of political campaigns.

In addition, there are other responsibilites for ownership and usage of public airwaves.

so CBS declined to run the ad because they didnt support the political idea? hmmmm........... i dont remember reading that. sure it couldnt have been about the $$$

I must admit I don't know much about the rules regarding coverage of political parties and candidates in the media.

It seem to me that it would be quite easy for a media network to give a slightly biased representation of the facts (spending more positive time on one candidate and more negative time on the other, for instance), but then again, I may well be wrong.

But who is going to pull us out of the bush depression?

That's an easy one.

http://www.bigleaguebetting.com/sharpton.gif

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

If given the choice... I would vote for him over bush any day :winkwink:

No, both moveon.org and PETA put up the cash for a Superbowl ad. They turned them down because they were "too controversial". I don't like or support those assclown extremists at Peta, their commercial very well have been over the top, but have you seen the other commercial in question? It's nothing extreme at all, it just questions who's doing to pay for Bush's deficit. Simple facts that Bush's cocky smirk can't make disapear. However it seems his control over your media can.

Anyone who hasn't seen the ad in question yet, do yourself a favor and watch it. Form your own opinion on this one, even you 12clicks.

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

It's the very first one. Do you honestly think that is "too controversial" to be aired during the superbowl?

The Clinton recession ended not long after Bush took office. You might not like to hear it but it is a fact that the economy was in recession the last few months of Clintons administration.

Yep you got it. In fact he already did!!! :thumbsup

(Whether you want to admit it, because you don't like him, or not)

i did watch it and thought it was stupid, but nothing to controversial

Rich:

Dumping any of the usual US politcal crap and taking 50 paces back - that commercial has been presented well. In fact, very well!! :-) Forgetting the "message" (which some will agree and disagree about), - it is just a good ad which conveys a message well!

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

On the "contraversial" angle, yes of course it is gonna be contraversial when a sporting event is mixed with politics - this is unfortunate. The SuperBowl has nothing to do with any Democratic, Republican or any other party - it's about sport.

That dumps the issue back into the lap of the "the media", which to anyone looking inwards at the US, - it is 100% rock sold clear that the "average" standard of the media in the US is astoundingly poor and biased to an extent that is does not even portray any form of life outside US territory and is "limited" in the truth inside that country.

That is not to say, the personnel and reporters are basically crap, - there are many decent folks in this field, but they ain't got a chance!

There was a survey a couple of years back where a group of US reporters, - from both prominent national newspapers to regional publications were asked, - "If you were to tell a story as you saw it, and this was published, would you be concerned about your next paycheck?" 68% said yes.

Talk about being "owned" - tis a pity for a "land of freedom" to have this nonsense. I sure wish some US folks would wake up and take their country back from all the "greed merchants" and political liars who are currently pillaging the place, - the last thing these folks have on their mind is any form of democracy.

When did what end? Your head is aware that there's life outside your ass, right?

I'll take your Rush Limbaugh AND Fox News bullshit and raise you a Reuters/Congressional Budget Office factual graph.

[IMG]http://www.webmasterschool.org/hmm.gif
[/IMG]

Where do you think that little red line is at now? Simple enough for you?


I win.

See sig.

I guess you don't watch NFL football, it's a big GOP parade.

Originally posted by jas1552

The Clinton recession ended not long after Bush took office. You might not like to hear it but it is a fact that the economy was in recession the last few months of Clintons administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you seriously think that it really matters one toss whether you draw some line over "economies" and try to make some political issue over Bush or Clinton??

Clinton left office years ago. The US is not in any "depression" because of Clinton. The world had a "dip" in economy lately. The issue is that the US is currently in the biggest "dip" in many decades and far exceeds any "world dip".

You don't have to look hard to see why. If you don't see it yet, there is little hope...

i only see a lil red x. do you have a link?

Rich:

No.. I don't watch this, but think I better learn some more by having a look :)

http://www.bigleaguebetting.com/bush...it_graphic.gif


That's strange, red ex for me to, yet my Sharpton image shows up fine. hmm, maybe we can't post images with bush in the filename... but Sharpton is ok. I think we know what this means, Lensman endorses The Reverend Al Sharpton for President. You heard it here first folks. :Graucho

That's the way it should be. Unbiased reporting means they're not supposed to tell it they way THEY see it. They are supposed to tell the straight facts and let people decide for themselves. Unfortunately that's not how it works with any news I've ever watched. Some news outlets come from the left and some from the right. They all play up sensational news stories for ratings. Such as the Laci Peterson, OJ simpson, and Michael Jackson Cases. In my opinion Laci Peterson and other similar individual crimes shouldn't be national news at all. When celebrities get in trouble I can understand mentioning it but spending all day covering the problems of stupid celebrities is way too much. I remember when the earthquake hit Iran CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all were covering the Michael Jackson case all day and would every now and then have news updates where they would mention Iran's quake and other more worthy news for a few minutes before getting back to their all day coverage of Michael Jackson. That shit fucking pissed me off.

Rich:

:winkwink:

BTW... I got little doubt (yea, betting time!! *g*) that that deficit is going to hit 500 this year!

Mmm.. not sure, but it may already be near it...

Yes you win the dunce cap. I see you don't understand the difference between an economy and a budget deficit.

jas1552:


Sure.. understand! This is not related to "unbiased reporting". The survey was actually relating to serious issues in journalism and the question of biase was not the issue. The issue was that if the reporting staff did not present a picture they way it "was supposed to be" presented, - they would be fired.

These people are fully aware of biase - that is elementary stuff. It was more to do with them being pressured to actually produced biased stories where there were "contentious" issues.

Hell.. kinda funny when you think of it, but Johnson could not even watch a program with Cronkite without calling up the studio in the middle of the broadcast and ordering it off the air! *g* And.. Cronkite was lifted up by the lapels by Johnson on more than one occasion! These were the days when there was some freedom! :winkwink:

The US is not in a depression at all. The US economy had the fastest rate of growth in 20 years (if I remember correctly without going to look it up) during the last quarter.

To be honest. No I don't think Clinton is to blame for the recession that began during his administration. The bursting of the tech bubble is to blame for that.

jas1552:

I agree about this last quarter! The trouble is not that apparent stat, but the massive amount of data underlying it. If you take all that data into account, - this isolated statement is kinda like George's WMD threat :-)

Some stuff... the last quarter also established a pattern where .. eg.. the current foreign investment in Wall Street dropped from the "traditional" 50bill to 4bill/month. The fact the that dollar is currently weak is sure healthy for US exports, but flip the coin and this picture changes, - the actual earning from any increased exports are not actually staying in, or benefitting the US. They are being removed to other financial areas.

Hell knows how this Admin reckons they will "cover" the last spring budget from the US Treasury and plough on with some fiction for this year. Last year's Treasury report was one of the most damning in US history. Since that time things have got worse. It was mean't to be included in the budget last year, but was so bad Bush hide it and lied again. (Back to the biase in reporting *g*)

There are many other issues to all this stuff, - ie the fact that a considerable part of the *total* US economy is owned by other nations and is expected to reach 40% in the next year or so. That is just too much and does not do one damned bit of good for the US who basically get nada benefit. It is ironic that the people in the US are probably leading the rankings as the hardest working on the planet.

I don't claim to be an economist but something definately needs to be done about the exporting of US jobs (not that that's the fault of any politician). I'll be damned if I know what could be done about it though.

jas1552:

I am no economist either!! :winkwink: All I see is something, that if you were running a company like this, - I think I'd have the possibility of liquidation on the back of my mind :-)

Yes, agree! Same with jobs! There is a balance all round on this, but at the moment it is just getting worse and, guessing, but smell that will continue.

Forgetting any political stuff.. I really have no doubts whatsoever that the current Admin hold one massive responsibility for the economic state (forgetting the general world recession). They already have displayed no sign of any ability in fiscal management and are, almost daily, compounding it for the worse. They can't go on hiding it and issuing "selected statements" to portray some success in this area, - it just more lying to the people they are supposed to be "serving". (I think that's why they are in office?? :Graucho )

Uhh... but that is a political statement without any facts to back it up.

jas1552:

EH?? :Graucho It sure ain't mean't to be political!!! When I see folks lying and with no ability - I sack em!! :winkwink:

If they then think I was "political" by sacking em, well.. *lol*

Seriously, this stuff comes above "political" - I would go as far to say it is a gross betrayal of trust both to the folks within the US and several in other countries.

PS... Just look at the track record recorded in the financial press, not just in the US, but worldwide, then take a look at some statements from John Snow and Alan Greenspan. It does not take much to see they are not happy guys and certainly not "comfortable"! :-)

What the hell are you saying? That a deficit has nothing to do with the economy? I'm becoming more and more convinced that Bush followers have about a 3rd grade education level.

No. I'm saying they're not the same thing, and that the economy can be doing quite well even while the government spends more than it receives in tax revenue. The meaning of my statement should be obvious to all except for those who intentionally choose to misunderstand.

jas1552:

Getting you! But where does this hypothetical case apply right now?

I sure hope for many folks the "ecomony" is genuinely improving, but there is much work to be done before that is actually going to be of benefit. Basing "success" on one quarter results alone is not sound since this does not represent the full picture (see above for some of many reasons).

The deficit is the worst ever recorded and increasing.

So... the "theory" of an "economy can be doing quite well even while the government spends more than it recieves" is a little irrelevant in the current scenario? That's kinda like a bird with it's head in the sand.

I suspect it will take many years yet to recover from this, since the momentum still appears downwards and not flattening out.

I'm not basing anything on one quarter. The economy was doing well before the last quarter. I just mentioned the last quarter because the economy did extremely well then. As the economy continues to improve I expect tax revenue will grow as well. Could you imagine what the deficits would be if the government paid for all health care as some dems would like?

jas1552:

Where did you get the idea the "economy was doing well before the last quarter"?? The "economy" was in one bad state and sinking dramatically and this is evidenced by the billions removed out of the US and dramatic reductions flowing inwards. It sure ain't by "design" that the US $ has dropped in value!

To say the economy last quarter, "did extremely well" is just one of these "facts" that seem to percolate as some "reassurance", but simply don't stand up alongside all the other facts in that quarter. However, that "fact" is absolutely correct on it's own! :-)

It will take *years* to get back to some balance... if it does not get worse before it gets better.

I gotta go and do some work and maintain my economy! :thumbsup