yah, yeshua, or however its supposed to be pronounced. when i was first in taiwan i was all like wtf, who translated "jesus" into chinese as something that sounds like yeh-soo.

then i realized oh wait, in spanish, it sounds like hey-zeus. then i realized that actually whoever translated it as "jesus" into english is the one who fucked it up. the greek sounds nothing like gee-zus.

Boner:

If what you mean by the equal time rule is the restrictions the candidates face if they accept federal campaign money--correct me if I am wrong--did not Obama not accept the federal money so he would not be bound by the restrictions.

I am comfortable with the current setup because the internet seems to satisfy all my needs in regard to what any candidate says on any issue. I don't watch TV and don't hear much radio news. But there are forces afoot that would want to place restrictions on internet activity. Then I would get considerably less comfortable.

@montecarlo:

while the budget was balanced under Slick Willie's administration, it was not his cabinet that did it. newt gingrich and the GOP did. for your reading pleasure, check out this commentary. it pretty much sums up everything i was going to write in my essay response to you

groundbreaking, gb. truly groundbreaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

It has nothing to do with federal grants, what are you talking about?

Also in case you forgot, let me reiterate my questions for you:

What's your opinion on the equal-time rule? Do you think this kind of regulation is okay or do you think broadcasters should be able to afford time to candidates and election issues as they see fit? Should TV be regulated at all, apart from ratings? If you are okay with the equal-time rule then why aren't you okay with the Fairness Doctrine (it requires broadcasters to be even handed and honest in their presentation of issues)? I am eager to hear your position of these media safeguards.


If you're against this sort of broadcaster regulation (equal-time rule and fairness doctrine), I'd first remind you that you're disagreeing with the vast majority of Americans through out history, and secondly I would liken it to something more tangible. If you consider these regulations impediments (they are regulations after all) I would like to draw a parallel between these regulations on promoting media agenda and the regulations on PED (performance enhancing drugs) in professional sports. In this metaphor players of their respective sports would be competing broadcasters of the news. Since there are regulations on the types of drugs athletes can use it stands to reason these regulations impede athletes from using PEDs to their advantage. In the same way the Fairness Doctrine impeded some broadcasters from furthering their agendas. If we remove these regulations in both cases it also stands to reason the athletes/broadcasters who do not take advantage of their new freedoms (to use PEDs or to sway opinion) will be at a disadvantage to those that do. The likely result of this is that most athletes will be using PEDs to be on a level playing field with their competition, in the same way most broadcasters will also use their new found ability to lie/spin to their advantage. Ultimately PEDs and lying/spinning are not beneficial to the society as a whole. The most successful athletes will be those that use the most PEDs (at the expense of their health) and the most successful broadcasters will be those that lie and spin the most (at the expense of their viewers).

I hope that made some sense and I hope I have in the least bit caused you to reevaluate your complacency with the current regulation of news broadcasters.

Also GB, it wasn't Newt's idea to raise taxes. That was critical to balancing the budget, Clinton also refused to be a corporate lackey, doling out subsidies as much as his predecessors. Ultimately the GOP realized they couldn't pull their usual shit under Bill so they played ball, I guess that's what you're talking about?


Let me say this: if you're living on a stipend in college and you're barely making it by on just beer and ramen, do you stop buying beer and ramen or do you move your ass and go make some money (selling plasma or actually working a job)? I really hope you answered the latter otherwise I have to reevaluate how cool you are.

I'd say, arguably, most Americans don't think they have it awesome. Certainly some do, and I'd say a lot of us are fortunate to be here, but at the same time do you think you have a few thousand dollars to spare? Hopefully not, otherwise I know a paypal you can send it to, my point is though if the government isn't providing us with awesome services and we're running on borrowed money then what do you think we should do? Stop buying ramen? We need that to eat. Stop buying beer? We need that to party. No, you get off your ass and trying and bring in some more money, or in the government's case you start taxing the billionaires and stop giving away money to corporations. And you figure out why your 10 cent ramen costs $5.00 when you buy it from your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

Why does th GOP always wait until a Democrat is in office to fix the deficit? Oh wait..

Boner:

Thanks for the cite for the equal-time rule. I had it and the fairness doctrine and the election fund checkoff confused. The last of these is the one that puts limit on total spending if accepted.

As you can tell, I am not a student of public media but I see no reason for either the equal time rule or the fairness doctrine. Query: how much free time do stations give out? Any ad I have ever see has said "this was a paid policital announcement" or "I am Joe Blow and I approved this ad."

In regard to performance enhancing drugs, a poll of atheletes has indicated that some would be willing to take such a drug if it was undetectable and would help them win even if it made them die soon after. In the face of such mania, who am I, an outsider, to judge?

It's okay Skrum I just owed you a jab for the keynes thing.

"As you can tell, I am not a student of public media but I see no reason for either the equal time rule or the fairness doctrine."

Thank you for your answer, I was hoping for a little more elaboration but okay. Do you not reject what I said about PEDs and lying/spinning? That is to say you don't think we the people should be protected from lying and spinning like athletes should be protected through the regulation of PEDs? If you don't think PEDs should be regulated, why do you feel the way you do, that is to say how would you justify your position to supports of the regulation of PEDs. Keep in mind these drugs are harmful to their users in the long run. I'll be frank with you, I am playing devil's advocate, I don't think PEDs should be regulated but I just want to hear your justification as it applies to both of these parallel issues.

By the way I don't think the equal-time rule refers to advertisements. It refers to time given on the actual program, like McCain giving a speech on Fox News or something. According to the equal-time rule Obama would be allowed an equal amount of time. It's the reason the presidential debates are also strictly regulated as far as time is concerned. However I do believe broadcasters are required by law to provide equal advertising rates to opposing candidates.

Lastly, I'd like to understand you position. I am familiar with the study you're referring to, it deals with the effect of concussions on athlete health in the long term. Basically the question "would you be willing to seriously risk your long term health for short term athletic success (paraphrase)," all the adults answered no and all the high school kids answered yes... kids being short sighted, go figure.

Anyway I want to try to understand your position here since it's not very concise (do you like being vague or are you just not a opinionated person?). You're saying: people should be allowed to do whatever they want even if it is not necessarily in their best interest. That is a defensible position, but let me ask you: do you still feel this way given the fact that athletes/broadcasters that wish to be competitive are essentially forced to compromise their health/integrity in order to compete? That is to say, by not regulating PEDs/lying we are forcing competitive individuals/organizations to compromise generally recognized values. Imagine for a moment if counterfeiting money was legal. Counterfeiters are not directly hurting anyone by printing their own money, but ultimately all of your money is going to be worthless unless you start printing money too. Do smell what I'm cooking?

Please tell me what you think.

I think it's funny that you post tl; on a thread about kdice, and the post essays on US politics... on a kdice forum where half of the players aren't even American.

Why not find a politics forum to post this shit on?