Duncan Hunter (R) CA wants to censor CNN - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

chassisman · #16 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samantha

Duncan Hunter wants to un-embed CNN from Iraq to punish them for showing the reality of war on TV. Hunter is a crook with ties to the Duke Cunningham scandal and will hopefully lose the election in two weeks to Iraq vet John Rinaldi (D).

You state he is a crook, has he been tried and convicted of a crime?

Ash · #17 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by chassisman

You state he is a crook, has he been tried and convicted of a crime?

Is this relevant to the thread?

Mrs. M · #18 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

Is this relevant to the thread?

Ask Sam. She's the one that called him a crook in the OP.

Speakeasy · #19 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Do you honestly think that people don't understand the horrors of war without visual aids? I think you underestimate our intelligence.

I would rather have the option of exposing myself to such horrors of war, than none at all. You and I may understand what war entails, but I can assure you there are many that do not. There is a huge difference in impact between reading that a US soldier was shot and killed in Iraq and actually seeing a US soldier being shot and killed in Iraq.

My younger sister was shocked by the video. And yes, she understands there is a war in Iraq and that US soldiers die in Iraq (she's 20, she better understand!). However, she now feels the gravity behind the phrase "US Soldier killed in Iraq", which she might not have fully grasped beforehand.

I didn't have a problem with the video. I think it did a great service in showing the dangers that our men and women face in Iraq. I think that trying to ignore or 'stick our head in the sand' such imagery greatly dishoners the troops that made their ultimate sacrifice (not accusing you of these things, btw

).

partofme · #20 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I would rather have the option of exposing myself to such horrors of war, than none at all. You and I may understand what war entails, but I can assure you there are many that do not. There is a huge difference in impact between reading that a US soldier was shot and killed in Iraq and actually seeing a US soldier being shot and killed in Iraq.

I didn't have a problem with the video. I think it did a great service in showing the dangers that our men and women face in Iraq. I think that trying to ignore or 'stick our head in the sand' such imagery greatly dishoners the troops that made their ultimate sacrifice.

I agree. Nobody really understands the gravity of something like war without any experience to really let it hit home.

ViolaLee · #21 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I'm against censorship but all for using good judgment. To show the actual deaths of humans in the 6:00 news isn't using good judgment, in my opinion. Do we have to see the violence to know it exists? Do we have to see someone getting shot to know they died? Is it fair to the family members to show the deaths?
Granted, most of the younger generation would be unphased by seeing the deaths because they've grown up with the desensitizing violent movies, "reality" cop shows, etc., but most of the older generation doesn't need visuals in order to grasp the situation.
It's a shame that CNN is falling into the trap of sensationalism.

The best advice I can give is to read the links before commenting on the issue at hand. CNN didn't show the actual deaths of humans.

Quote:

In one instance, the tape shows a uniformed member of the U.S. military milling in a public area with Iraqis. A shot rings out. CNN fades the screen to black before the result - described as a victim falling forward - is visible.

Quote:

"Our responsibility is to report the news," said Laurie Goldberg, a CNN spokeswoman. "As an organization we stand by our decision and respect the rights of others to disagree with it."

I hope the government does not force CNN to report the news the way they want it reported. I hope our press stays free. But with this White House, I don't trust that it will do so without a fight.

ViolaLee · #22 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by chassisman

You state he is a crook, has he been tried and convicted of a crime?

Not yet.

Quote:

Since 1994, Wilkes and ADCS gave $40,700 in campaign contributions to Rep. Duncan Hunter, a San Diego Republican who now chairs the House Armed Services Committee. Hunter has acknowledged that he joined with Cunningham in 1999 to contact Pentagon officials who reversed a decision and gave ADCS one of its first big contracts, for nearly $10 million. Hunter's spokesman, Joe Kasper, said the congressman was unavailable for comment Tuesday.

Another California Republican, Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, led panels that ordered the Pentagon to continue programs that aided ADCS when Pentagon officials wanted to cut them. Lewis got $71,253 from Wilkes and his employees in donations since 1993. Wilkes gave Lewis donations and met him at various events, Lewis spokesman Jim Specht said, but "he never talked with him about a defense project."

Before becoming the Appropriations chairman this year, Lewis led the subcommittee that oversees defense spending. In the late 1990s, that panel directed the Pentagon to continue converting paper documents to computer records, the work that ADCS does. Pentagon officials had tried to end the program's funding.

The 1999 defense budget, for example, directed $45 million be spent on document conversion. Wilkes and his employees gave Lewis $7,000 in campaign contributions the day after his subcommittee's first hearing on the bill.

After the Pentagon declined to give ADCS a contract, it awarded the company a $9.8 million deal in mid-1999 after "inquiries from two members of Congress," a Defense investigation found. Hunter and Cunningham have said they asked Pentagon officials about the program.

The money went to ADCS instead of projects for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, Air Force bases, and a parts center in Oklahoma, according to the report by the Pentagon inspector general, prompted by a request from a Defense official.

Valuable in-the-air time

Wilkes' ties to Hunter and Cunningham go beyond campaign contributions. In 2003, the businessman's foundation hosted a "Salute to Heroes" gala to give Hunter an award, just as it did for Cunningham a year earlier. The Wilkes Foundation gave $1,000 in 2003 to a charity run by two of Hunter's staffers, records show.

Wilkes also provided a jet that Cunningham and other Republicans used for more than a dozen flights to campaign fundraising events since 2001, records show.

Providing flights gives donors a chance for hours of one-on-one contact with the lawmaker they want to influence, said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"Most other lobbyists would give up their second lung to get that kind of access," Ashdown said. "It's not always illegal, but it's definitely a strategy of influence that's unparalleled."

Thematic-Device · #23 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by chassisman

You state he is a crook, has he been tried and convicted of a crime?

Nixon wasn't convicted either, since he was pardoned, for that matter, doesn't make him not a crook. In fact one can act legally and still be a crook (as it is possible to legally swindle people). It's a personal opinion not a legal definition. If he had been accused of being a convict it would be a different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Do you honestly think that people don't understand the horrors of war without visual aids? I think you underestimate our intelligence.

I honestly don't think many people do understand it. I think some people won't understand it until they are the ones in the conflict.

Donkey_Left · #24 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Do you honestly think that people don't understand the horrors of war without visual aids? I think you underestimate our intelligence.

Yes I do.

Imperator · #25 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Nixon was a pres. who with the help of Kissinger was a statesman that who we would be better with, right now, than without...was he flawed?….. you betcha…….his built in proclivities regards Jews etc was unforgivable, but could we use him now? I’d bet on it.….he would have carpet bombed Fallujaha at the first sign of insurrection, and sent a message, don’t fuc with us.

Clinton? , let me tell you, Clinton is a guy I would probably love to go out and have a few beers with...a charismatic, easy going person…life of the party……….BUT, he was his best in and around his own……he was worst around you know who…this is attested to by his own staff…....but in the end, he failed…… I think his failure to fold his public persona into his official one was his greatest flaw….and he was fundamentally flawed, he screwed up......I don’t hate the guy..I don't, BUT, I do despise him for being stupid...you see, starting from a point where in you consider all politicos glad handing office sellers,I say okay, we know that, but give me the smarter one, not the stupid one..IF Clinton had just fessed up from the git go, he would not have had to get Morris to advise him turn his back on his base..he and his “agenda (which I for not agree with )he would not have had to ruin an economical legacy, I blame the free markets not him ,(and in that sense he was stupid..he allowed his personal failings to destroy him) ,) but his misdirection and lying under oath and Hewitt’s ( 60 minutes re-takes and advice) an unforgivable breach of Journalistic ethics was, well, simply that unforgivable........but he took it and went with it..and he was born.

Rakkasan · #26 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

well for me the difference is i was there

have seen people die up close

and dont think doing the bidding of our enemy (PR FOR THEM)

is a thing that does their sacrifice good

yes we need not SHEILD the public from war

but showing coffins of dead soldiers without their families consent i am against (thus for the policy the pentagaon has imposed not to show them)

and i dont think anyone needs to see beheading, shootings or anything just my opinion. Think its about GOOD TASTE and respect for the dead and less about censorhship , and POLITICS as this thread is

SamInTheSouth · #27 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

The government taking action against CNN is not the answer. If people are upset with CNN and the content they show on their network, then the way you fix the problem is the good old American Capitalist way: don't watch CNN. When their viewership drops, perhaps they will reevaluate their style of reporting.

There are many on the right who scream for limited government until government can do something to advance their own personal cause and then they suddenly don't mind government intervention.

Rakkasan · #28 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheBurgh

The government taking action against CNN is not the answer. If people are upset with CNN and the content they show on their network, then the way you fix the problem is the good old American Capitalist way: don't watch CNN. When their viewership drops, perhaps they will reevaluate their style of reporting.

There are many on the right who scream for limited government until government can do something to advance their own personal cause and then they suddenly don't mind government intervention.

DEAD ON

we used to watch anderson cooper

now we dont

Ash · #29 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I'm against censorship but all for using good judgment. To show the actual deaths of humans in the 6:00 news isn't using good judgment, in my opinion. Do we have to see the violence to know it exists? Do we have to see someone getting shot to know they died? Is it fair to the family members to show the deaths?
Granted, most of the younger generation would be unphased by seeing the deaths because they've grown up with the desensitizing violent movies, "reality" cop shows, etc., but most of the older generation doesn't need visuals in order to grasp the situation.
It's a shame that CNN is falling into the trap of sensationalism.

Yeah, well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Ask Sam. She's the one that called him a crook in the OP.

Yeah, ok point made.

chassisman · #30 (**permalink**) 10-24-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

Is this relevant to the thread?

Yes it is. When someone starts a thread and makes clain that the person who is the subject of the thread is a crook, there should be facts behind the claim. If the OP wants to state their opinion is that the person is crooked, so be it, that is not the same.
Why do the people who cry the loudest about injustices adopt thinking that is direct opposition to their own agenda?
The OP has decided the subject is a "crook" and presented him as such. No trial, no jury, no conviction, just partisan opinion. So yes it is relevant.

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode