Quote:
Originally posted by John D Harris:
That's just it Groj, in the opening post from an news article where is the arguement of the validity about the statements? I see alot of messenger shoot'n about how Sinclair is bad, not that the things Sinclair is going to say are wrong and how the facts are off the mark, but that since they are saying them the facts must be wrong. And they are wrong for doing this and should not do it. Where as evidenced by the earlier threads about MM's stuff the majority of us "Bush supporters" said we don't beleive MM, but if he wants to say it go ahead. Very few have said MM should not say anything, we said we won't beleive him.
|
Well, a documentary that's basically putting John Kerry on par with the anti-Christ who directly worsened the war in Vietnam because of his actions (funny how no one brought this up 30 years ago) seems like a no-brainer to me when we're discussing the validity of this thing. It pre-emptively seems like a huge stretching of the truth (I'd still watch it for sheer comedy value, though
), but that's not the issue at stake here - while Sinclair has the right to say whatever he wants to say, and while he's technically not violating any rules with his orders to his networks, I do believe this doesn't deserve any airtime on publically accessible airwaves - morals, ethics, integrity, bad judgement, bad taste, whatever - and in the light of the elections not exactly an improvement on the quality of the debate overall. We've seen more than enough cheap and unconvincing smearing already with Awolgate, "flip-flop", F9/11 and the Swiftboat Veterans, now could we please let it rest already?
[ 10-15-2004, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]