Bush is the AntiChrist!!

Jeff wrote:

    > "Bush is the AntiChrist!! " <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>Roedy Green wrote:
    >>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:12:26 -0500, "Bush is the AntiChrist!! "
    >>><[email protected]> wrote or quoted :
    >>>>Rather it is so that public opinion is not affected. Ah got love that
    >>>>free media, which means they won't always show us what we have a right
    >>>>to see.
    >>>Notice how you never see a dead or maimed body on TV. Just pretty
    >>>explosions from a distance as if it were a fourth of July show.
    >>Exactly, ignorance allows neo-cons to sleep confortably at night.
    >
    >
    > If that is correct then commie-dems

Commie? The conservatives have more in common with the communist party
than the Democrats. Both Conservatives and Commies believe in a one
party gov't, security over civil liberites, spying on their neighbors on
behalf of the government etc.

The only thing that Communist and Dems loosely agree on is that the rich
shouldn't benefit off the backs of the poor.


--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
-----------------
Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mxsmanic

Roedy Green writes:

    > Notice how you never see a dead or maimed body on TV. Just pretty
    > explosions from a distance as if it were a fourth of July show.

Notice how you don't even see fictionalized representations of dead
bodies, now that _Saving Private Ryan_ has been banned from television
for its too-realistic depiction of the reality of war.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

John Wayne writes:

    > Yes, Ted Kennedy killed her because she was carrying his child. Ted
    > Kennedy killed his own child and girlfriend. I don't think Ted Kennedy
    > was in the car when it went into the water. I think he drugged her and
    > then let the car go into the water. He waited 18 hours before he
    > reported it. He wanted to make sure she was good and dead. They didn't
    > do DNA tests back in those days. Since there is no statute of
    > limitations on murder, I think there should be test done on her body and
    > the baby and Ted Kennedy. I then think he should be tried for both of
    > their murders. This should have been done years ago.

Kennedys are not subject to these laws.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Frank F. Matthews

EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

    > Frank F. Matthews wrote:
    >> Given the usual state of anyone in intensive care I am neither
    >> surprised nor bothered by their taste. I would be amazed that they
    >> would be permitted to bring camera equipment into an intensive care area.

    > Agreed - for reasons purely medical. (Hardly beneficial to the patient
    > fighting for his/her life!) On the other hand, photographs of the
    > flag-draped coffins of our honored dead.... (But that wasn't a NETWORK
    > decision, was it?)

I would count coffins not connected to identifiable individuals as a
somewhat different thing. And, yes, it was a government decision.
Actually the photos that exist were taken by government folks.

torresD

Download BBC TV.

On the internet the world is your oyster.

CNN is old hat.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Norma
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Bush is the AntiChrist!! " <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "For reasons of good taste..." (source CNN news cable TV)
    > >
    > > Rather it is so that public opinion is not affected. Ah got love that
    > > free media, which means they won't always show us what we have a right to
    > > see.
    >
    > As an Intensive Care Nurse, I'm not sure that everyone would want to see it
    > or has the "right" to see--as it could reveal a lot of things about the
    > condition of the patient. There are very strict statues about privacy of
    > patients. Norma

and that is, in part, why President Clinton, in early 90s, instigated
the policy of not showing service personnel that are being carried off
planes, either wounded or pasted away.

jay
Sun Nov 14, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    > >
    > > --
    > > The Best in Message Board Discussions
    > > http://www.comicboards.org/religion
    > > -----------------
    > > Bush is re-elected, fly the flag upside down!
    > >
    > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > *********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > *********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > *********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > > *********xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    > >
    > >
    >

Dgs

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Roedy Green writes:
    >
    >>Notice how you never see a dead or maimed body on TV. Just pretty
    >>explosions from a distance as if it were a fourth of July show.
    >
    > Notice how you don't even see fictionalized representations of dead
    > bodies, now that _Saving Private Ryan_ has been banned from television
    > for its too-realistic depiction of the reality of war.

It has? News to me. It was shown on November 11th where I live.
Was it banned where you live?
--
dgs

Anon

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Roedy Green writes:
    >
    >
    >>Notice how you never see a dead or maimed body on TV. Just pretty
    >>explosions from a distance as if it were a fourth of July show.
    >
    >
    > Notice how you don't even see fictionalized representations of dead
    > bodies, now that _Saving Private Ryan_ has been banned from television
    > for its too-realistic depiction of the reality of war.
    >

The network affiliate here showed it. It wasn't "banned"
I believe that some stations refused to show it because it was an uncut
R movie being shown on a major network during prime time. They were
afraid of being fined by the FCC.

Mxsmanic

dgs writes:

    > It has? News to me. It was shown on November 11th where I live.
    > Was it banned where you live?

I don't live in the U.S.

See

http://us.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/11....ap/index.html

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

anon writes:

    > The network affiliate here showed it. It wasn't "banned"
    > I believe that some stations refused to show it because it was an uncut
    > R movie being shown on a major network during prime time. They were
    > afraid of being fined by the FCC.

So much for freedom of speech.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Anon

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > dgs writes:
    >
    >
    >>It has? News to me. It was shown on November 11th where I live.
    >>Was it banned where you live?
    >
    >
    > I don't live in the U.S.
    >
    > See
    >
    > http://us.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/11....ap/index.html
    >

It says that 20 stations decided not to show it.
How is a station deciding not to air something considered a "ban"?
According to the report, ABC has 225 affiliates. So, apparently, it
wasn't "banned" for the other 205. It should be noted that uncut "R"
rated movies are not something normally shown on a major network during
prime time. (Note, on tv, this was a tv MA rating)

Anon

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > anon writes:
    >
    >
    >>The network affiliate here showed it. It wasn't "banned"
    >>I believe that some stations refused to show it because it was an uncut
    >>R movie being shown on a major network during prime time. They were
    >>afraid of being fined by the FCC.
    >
    >
    > So much for freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't give people the ability to do anything at
anytime. Broadcast licenses do not provide unlimited freedom, and are
subject to regulation. Of course, if everyone had a tv with a v-chip,
this wouldn't be such an issue.

Mxsmanic

anon writes:

    > How is a station deciding not to air something considered a "ban"?

It's not a ban, but it's censorship.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

anon writes:

    > Freedom of speech doesn't give people the ability to do anything at
    > anytime.

It gives them the ability to express themselves, even when their
opinions are unpopular.

It's ironic that American television is so reluctant to show the horrors
of war in a fictional motion picture when real people are dying real
deaths under very similar circumstances.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Anon

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > anon writes:
    >
    >
    >>Freedom of speech doesn't give people the ability to do anything at
    >>anytime.
    >
    >
    > It gives them the ability to express themselves, even when their
    > opinions are unpopular.

But doesn't not give them the ability to do it whenever they want
through government regulated airwaves. Since there are a limited number
of channels available, stations are allocated with restrictions. One of
these relates to what kinds of programming that can be shown on the
broadcast networks during "prime time". Prime time varies by location.
It is generally 8-11pm or 7-10 pm Mon-Sat, with an extra hour, in the
beginning, on Sundays. People are free to distribute the movie in a
more unlimited market.

    > It's ironic that American television is so reluctant to show the horrors
    > of war in a fictional motion picture when real people are dying real
    > deaths under very similar circumstances.

20 of the 225 ABC Affiliates didn't show it.
The article you quoted indicated that the FCC could not block the
program before its broadcast, as that would be censorship. Instead the
FCC acts on complaints. This is how it has worked for many years.

Do you not understand the issues, for instance, if a child goes surfing
through the tv channels and views a program with extreme sex or violent
content? Forget about TV. Would intense violence or sexual content if
seen on the street. Freedom of speech doesn't give you permission to
commit sexual acts on the street, does it?