Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (94900)	1/12/2005 12:54:06 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793781

Even my husband, who is probably the least PC person I know personally, thinks what Armstrong Williams did stinks. There is a name for it, payola, and it's illegal (at least with respect to radio - I can't seem to find parallel laws for TV). N.B., it's illegal for both Williams and whoever gave him the money. 47 U.S.C. § 317 - Announcement of payment for broadcast (a) Disclosure of person furnishing (1) All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is so broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person: Provided, That "service or other valuable consideration" shall not include any service or property furnished without charge or at a nominal charge for use on, or in connection with, a broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration for an identification in a broadcast of any person, product, service, trademark, or brand name beyond an identification which is reasonably related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast. U.S. Code 47 U.S.C. § 317

To: Lane3 who wrote (94900)	1/12/2005 1:00:04 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793781

washingtonpost.com > Politics > Bush Administration > White House Briefing Bush and the Lord Wednesday, Jan 12, 2005; 11:41 AM "I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," President Bush said in an interview with the Washington Times yesterday. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit. "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord." Bush has often said that he is a religious man who supports freedom of religion, but yesterday's statement may be the first time he has so clearly suggested in his use of words that he harbors the feeling that these two principles are to some degree in conflict. You don't use the "other hand" construction for two concepts that complement each other. And his suggestion that someone is not qualified to be president unless they are religious is sure to spark some further discussion. There's another enigmatic quote from the same interview: "I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is." James G. Lakely has those quotes and others about Bush and religion in his story in today's Washington Times, one of three articles arising from Bush's 40-minute Oval Office interview yesterday with reporters and editors from the conservative newspaper. <snip>