iN Demand Breaks Moore PPV Deal Hours After FCC Okays Sinclair Free Broadcast

Originally posted by RANT
Communist dictatorship? You men the SOUTH Korean US allies they just interviewed last night that debunked "Stolen Hour" already?

are you confused rant, i thought they interviewed vietnamese....although it wouldn't surprise me if the news orgs interviewed a SK about an incident in SV to disprove what a slug jfk is. the only thing funnier would have been if the person they interviewed was only 30.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by RANT
Communist dictatorship? You men the SOUTH Korean US allies they just interviewed last night that debunked "Stolen Hour" already?

are you confused rant, i thought they interviewed vietnamese....although it wouldn't surprise me if the news orgs interviewed a SK about an incident in SV to disprove what a slug jfk is.

the only thing funnier would have been if the person they interviewed was only 30.

Yes very befuddled at the moment. You might say I've got Korea on the brain what with revelations of late from Rumsfeld and Bush 41 and Rev. Moon and Shrubs uncanny refusal to confront Kim Jong directly. Hmmm.

But I did mean South Vietnam. Anyhoo. It was quite an interesting piece.

Originally posted by RANT
���������.. You might say I've got Korea on the brain what with revelations of late from Rumsfeld and Bush 41 and Rev. Moon and Shrubs uncanny refusal to confront Kim Jong directly. �����

revelations are you talking about the reactors and material that Clinton gave to NK�yea I know scary especially since your boy suggested we should give one to Iran.

Originally posted by jsobecky

You are way out of line with a statement like that. You child.

It is the end of the debate when you resort to name calling. Obviously in your frothing rage you didn't even read my response to your post. Don't you think that you might be making a fool of yourself by defending a film that you didn't actually see? Go watch Stolen Honor and then tell me if you still feel so confident defending this piece of garbage.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
������. Go watch Stolen Honor and then tell me if you still feel so confident defending this piece of garbage.

I think he is fairly confident in defending it without having seen it yet due to the fact that your attacks are rather childlike and silly��Hanoi Jane goes over and records the trip with Video footage from several angles�.hundreds of reporters in Hanoi with all sorts of taping equipment�.yet they would be unable to know anything that is going on outside the �jungle� what kind of silliness is that.

Originally posted by keholmes

I think he is fairly confident in defending it without having seen it yet due to the fact that your attacks are rather childlike and silly��Hanoi Jane goes over and records the trip with Video footage from several angles�.hundreds of reporters in Hanoi with all sorts of taping equipment�.yet they would be unable to know anything that is going on outside the �jungle� what kind of silliness is that.

I didn't dispute the existence of recording devices--that wasn't the argument. I disputed the difficulty--the impossibility even--of the Vietcong to obtain recordings of Kerry's exact testimony, as some of the interviewees have claimed, especially as some of the interviewees were released only months after he gave his testimony. It is not like they were held in modern facilities and the Vietcong had regular access to American broadcast archives, back issues of newspapers, or a direct line to the American media. It doesn't make sense.

What makes more sense is that these guys are pissed off that someone who protested the war is running for president. This makes even more sense given the fact that some of them are Republican operatives that were already active in the Republican committee before Kerry was in the picture as part of a POW dog & pony show. Every time a GOP candidate was running, these guys (Day, Cordier, Galanti & others) would show up to show that they had the support of veterans--campaining for Jeb Bush as governor in 1998 & George Bush, Sr in '92. They have also done this for McCain & Bush Jr.

Because most of the POWs interviewed spent more time discussing how they wanted to physically assault John Kerry for throwing away his medals and going into heartwrenching details of how they were captured, rather than presenting the actual evidence proving that he was responsible for prolonging their capture and increasing the severity of their torture, it is evident that they hoping that emotions will obscure the fact that there is no basis for their claims.

Several people are commenting on this Sinclair anti-Kerry movie as if they have already seen it. Is it available to download off the Internet or something? Or are lots of people making assumptions about the content of the movie?

lmgnyc

Let�s see testimony 71 release 73�.I�m not sure were you get months from that like it was a small time frame. If you�d like I�m sure ATS can arrange for you to be beat on for a year and at the end of it we can all ask you how short that year was�.assuming you survive a year long jollystomping, let alone two years. It�s nice that you can so flippantly stand in judgment of these men who were without a doubt tortured, also without a doubt tortured while listening to Hanoi Jane�.as they traveled in the same circles I can�t fathom how you think they get video and audio of one and it would be impossible to get video from the other. And from the way you discuss this you seem to think that Hanoi was some village of huts�.haven�t you ever seen footage from some of Hanoi Jane�s trip. Did you think that the AP and the US had some kind of strangle hold on video and recording technology�try a Google for PAL (hint: adopted 1967). And just because the prisoners were held in less than modern facilities doesn�t mean a thing�I remember taking my smaller than a shoe box cassette recorder (battery powered) apart during that time so that I could jury rig my home speakers into it. To think that kids in the US had better audio-visual capabilities than a national government at that time or any, is more than a little silly. And why wouldn�t they have access to the American media etc�do you think that gulf1 was the first conflict were American media were on the other side during the conflict�.your whole line of logic is just rather simplistic and silly�..to say that a whole nation didn�t even have access to facilities that many American school districts had at that time is just more than a little self serving.

I will now list some interesting advances.
1960 � 6000 computers in US, 3300 outside
1964 � saber database�. Used by America airlines for reservations
1964 � Philips releases first CD, followed closely by VIDEO DISCS
1965 � Transatlantic telephone cable released to normal operations
1966 � Xerox starts selling a 46-pound predecessor to the fax machine
1968 � first photograph of world taken from space
1969 � birth of ARPANET�wow that must mean that Gore is in congress


by 1973 there are over 30,000 fax machines in the US alone, couldn�t find the numbers world wide. First VCR is introduced.

All of these devices simply made what was already available, simpler, they didn�t start�they were not the lead devices simply those that made it simple for video to now circle the world in seconds not days�..however with over two years available to get and use what is being mentioned your argument that it was technologically non-feasible is just more than a little agenda serving. Especially since JFK met with NV representatives in 1971 a full 2 years prior to the release of the POWs, and well after his congressional testimony. So your position is that JFSKerry could get to the European continent inside a day�yet it would take video, an electronic media over two years to make the same trip�silly.

also wasn't vietnam the war were the US had news footage in the news same day......yet it was impossible for the other side to get video footage...inside two years?


[edit on 17-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
Several people are commenting on this Sinclair anti-Kerry movie as if they have already seen it. Is it available to download off the Internet or something? Or are lots of people making assumptions about the content of the movie?

Yeah, it's been out a while, but pundits still pretend like "nobody has seen it" and "these men never got to tell their story."

I posted somewhere on here how to get it, but it's at www.stolenhonor.com or .org or something. Free clips, audio and $4.99 for the whole thing. It's just a big long 527. Nothing new or shocking.

Kerry camp was all over it the minute it was available. The story will be the Bush campaign behind the negative film about 5 minutes after it's shown on TV.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
It is the end of the debate when you resort to name calling. Obviously in your frothing rage you didn't even read my response to your post. Don't you think that you might be making a fool of yourself by defending a film that you didn't actually see? Go watch Stolen Honor and then tell me if you still feel so confident defending this piece of garbage.

Stolen Honor has nothing to do with my opinion of you. I called you a child because of immature statements like this:

Unfortunately, due to the mindset held by these former soldiers and the military, nothing was done. They would rather keep their mouths shut and let women and children be raped and decapitated rather than acknowledge that some U.S. soldiers--including officers-- were homicidal psychopaths. Thinking like this was the precursor to Abu Ghraib--perhaps if they listened to Kerry instead of calling him a traitor and changed the culture of the military, Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened.

Did you actually think you would get away with disrespecting our entire military?

Unfortunately, due to the mindset held by these former soldiers and the military, nothing was done. They would rather keep their mouths shut and let women and children be raped and decapitated rather than acknowledge that some U.S. soldiers--including officers-- were homicidal psychopaths. Thinking like this was the precursor to Abu Ghraib--perhaps if they listened to Kerry instead of calling him a traitor and changed the culture of the military, Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened.

Even funnier was that we should put a man in charge who admitted to being one of those homicidal psychopaths, in order to prevent future instances.