Politics: Onward from New Hampshire - Page 223

bilmore · 03-12-2004, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put aside the question of the power to revoke licenses for "indencency" (whatever that means). Do you now see the difference between a $25,000 fine and a $500,000 fine? Do you not see the difference between fining the individual performer $11,000 after the second offense, versus $500,000 after the first offense?

I think the difference lies in the reluctance to pursue the doomsday option of license revocation. This gives them a new semi-doomsday option that might actually be used.

Hank Chinaski · 03-12-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Fillmore's role in all of this is escaping me at the moment.

B. Back in the day, did the opposition say mean shit about Milfred also?*

*I have resisted avatar reference (oh, a lizard this or that) and bilmore is old posts, but I felt strangely compelled to do this one.

Hank Chinaski '12 Law '15

Hank Chinaski · 03-12-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's about time you got over this fetish with Grover Cleveland.

Wait. I may call bullshit. First term, or second?

The Larry Davis Experience · 03-12-2004, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the difference lies in the reluctance to pursue the doomsday option of license revocation. This gives them a new semi-doomsday option that might actually be used.

I can buy this. But again, the indecency rules were on the books already, so I just can't get exercised about the fines until they're applied in some heavyhanded manner (which, assuredly, they will be).

Broadcast tv is dead anyway. Long live netflix.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-12-2004, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

Broadcast tv is dead anyway. Long live netflix.

That's the unacknowledged kicker in all of this: they can slap as many fines as they want on CBS, but it will just drive all possibly controversial content on to cable, where it won't be regulated and where, probably, most of the constituent complaints have been stemming from anyway. (Janet Jackson's tit was simply a handy symbol for MTV, which can't be regulated).

sgtclub · 03-12-2004, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Broadcast tv is dead anyway. Long live netflix.

And cable and satellite are next. Congress is currently contemplating new legislation.

bilmore · 03-12-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
And cable and satellite are next. Congress is currently contemplating new legislation.

Based on the limited supply, and public ownership, of wire?

sgtclub · 03-12-2004, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Based on the limited supply, and public ownership, of wire?

Not sure what the basis is, but that typically doesn't stop Congress.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...%5Frecap%2Ehtm

Quote:

His [Powell's] comments came a day after the Senate Commerce Committee completed work on a bill sharply increasing the fines the FCC can impose for broadcast indecency. But the bill also included a controversial provision to roll back the FCC's June 2003 media-ownership deregulation rules and would regulate violence on cable and satellite television if a study showed that so-called v-chips in televisions aren't effective in screening out violence.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-12-2004, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure what the basis is, but that typically doesn't stop Congress.

no kidding, but the article makes it sound like "legislative authority" is at issue. Uh, no, it's the constitution. Not that that matters or anything.

Atticus Grinch · 03-12-2004, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not sure what the basis is, but that typically doesn't stop Congress.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...%5Frecap%2Ehtm

Barring images of violence and its aftermath from television will seriously undercut B/C 2004's campaign, so I think there's no danger in the short term.

bilmore · 03-12-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Barring images of violence and its aftermath from television will seriously undercut B/C 2004's campaign, so I think there's no danger in the short term.

It would have kept Dean from imploding.

The Larry Davis Experience · 03-12-2004, 02:29 PM

So after seeing the actual clip of Kerry calling the admin names I thought it was pretty outlandish to think it was actually deliberate, but now I've got to admit I'm curious:

Quote:

Two readers have now come forward to identify an episode of The West Wing in which "President" Bartlet deliberately pulls a stunt very similar to John Kerry's on-mike "crooked liars" quip.

http://billmon.org/archives/001213.html

Hank Chinaski · 03-12-2004, 02:36 PM

look. I glad this forum exists so all the lefties can explain how the whole Iraq thing was just to pay back Cheney's chits to Haliburton. At first I had reservations, I admit.
"Why would a guy who had both houses of congress fake a need for a war. Where's the percentage in running the risk?"
But then Ty and them explained it all, and so I understood why it made sense to move 300K men so to increase some companies profits.

but then I see shit like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/12/hal....ap/index.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon auditors found a Halliburton Co. subsidiary gave faulty cost estimates on a $2.7 billion contract to serve American troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and company officials acknowledged making mistakes, Defense Department documents show.

The estimate problems included a failure to tell contract managers that Halliburton had terminated two subcontracts for feeding troops, which affected costs on $1 billion worth of that work, the Defense Contract Audit Agency found.

and check this:

Quote:

The pricing issue is just one of several problems with Halliburton contracts in Iraq. Both the Pentagon and Justice Department have launched criminal investigations of the company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Now if I was a company prez and I knew the US had started awhole war just to make my company some money, I have to admit, I wouldn't warn my accountants to sharpen their pencils.

WTF? Are we fighting over there for Halliburton or not? Or is this part of a fake reprimand, sort of a way to be able to deny we gave it the keys to the budget? Ty?

Hank Chinaski · 03-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
So after seeing the actual clip of Kerry calling the admin names I thought it was pretty outlandish to think it was actually deliberate, but now I've got to admit I'm curious:

http://billmon.org/archives/001213.html

Well if West wing episode presidential behavior gives a pass, remember Bartlett started the new doctrine of intervening militarially into a foreign country for humanitarians reasons, sometime in 2000 season.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-12-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
WTF? Are we fighting over there for Halliburton or not? Or is this part of a fake reprimand, sort of a way to be able to deny we gave it the keys to the budget? Ty?

Who is this Halliburton guy? Some pal of Grover Cleveland? Why do you keep talking about this stuff when no one else cares?