Bush Violates Act of Congress in campaign - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 08-26-2004, 05:53 AM

Highlighted in the article is the point where Bush has violated an act of Congress (which is illegal) by politicizing the Olympics.

This man will do ANYTHING to get re-elected. I can't wait to hear his bullshit reasoning for this illegal act. Especially when the Iraqi team had asked him not to use them.

Wonder what kind of spin the talking heads and Faux News uses to get out of this. I can hear Limbaugh (errr Roger Hedgecock this week, who already has made an ass of himself this week), "Well, you know people the USOC and the whole Olympic world are controlled by lefty Socialistic Whackjobs who are complaining only because they want Kerry elected."

========

USOC asks Bush campaign to pull television ad

August 26, 2004

ATHENS, Greece (AP) -- The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Bush's re-election campaign to pull a television ad that mentions the Olympics.

The USOC is awaiting a response from the re-election campaign, committee spokesman Darryl Seibel said Thursday.

The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan.

``In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120,'' an announcer says. ``Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes.''

Some of the players on the Iraqi Olympic soccer team have complained about the ad appearing as part of a political campaign.

Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said last week there were no plans to pull the ad.

``We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement,'' Stanzel said.

The International Olympic Committee and the USOC have the authority to regulate the use of anything involving the Olympics.

"An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as ``Olympic,'' derivatives such as ``Olympiad'' and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization ``shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.''

======

LINK: http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/news?slu...=ap&type=lgns/

======

Redlemon · 08-26-2004, 06:41 AM

For those of you who like to read the actual regulations, TITLE 36 , Subtitle II , Part B , CHAPTER 2205 , SUBCHAPTER I. See especially Sec. 220507. - Restrictions. I was looking for penalties, and found

Quote:

...the corporation may file a civil action against a person for the remedies provided in the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (popularly known as the Trademark Act of 1946) if the person, without the consent of the corporation, uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition...

It isn't clear how a political violation would be handled.

rukkyg · 08-26-2004, 07:00 AM

Well if recent developments with Swift Boat are any indication, the punishment is an expendable on the white house staff says, "I did it!" and then quits/resigns.

pan6467 · 08-26-2004, 09:45 AM

FOR THOSE Righties who complain that the left are biased and will look the other way if Kerry does something.

I want to hear you bitch about Bush totally ignoring an act of Congress, especially if you bitched about Clinton and thought he deserved impeached because he lied about an extramarital affair.

Show us lefties how unbiased you are. Tell us how Bush should be impeached for his illegal act.....

I won't hold my breath, because I'm sure you have a great excuse why Bush is allowed to break an act of Congress, but Clinton deserved prison for lying.

Watergate truly was nothing compared to what is going on today.

Lebell · 08-26-2004, 10:25 AM

I don't know if I'm a "rightie" or not, but the Bush campaign is saying they are using simple facts as opposed to politicizing.

Perhaps it may seem like splitting hairs, but it seems reasonable to me.

I guess I don't see what the big deal is, unless you already hate Bush.

SLM3 · 08-26-2004, 12:31 PM

What free elections have been held in Iraq? Are you telling me it's a democracy? What facts on the ground are there to support the notion that Iraq is a free nation?

What's funny is the comments from the Iraqi athletes. Many of the soccer players are from Najaf and said if they weren't representing their country at the Olympics, they'd be home fighting the Americans.

SLM3

Bill O'Rights · 08-26-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLM3

What's funny is the comments from the Iraqi athletes. Many of the soccer players are from Najaf and said if they weren't representing their country at the Olympics, they'd be home fighting the Americans.

Is that for real? I'm not doubting you, or anything, but I would like to see the source for that.

roachboy · 08-26-2004, 12:47 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3584242.stm

this is a start, bill....

bouray · 08-26-2004, 06:30 PM

i saw this ad this morning and it made me sick just watching how our president is politicizing everything. the olympics are supposed to be non-political and a joining of all nations in competitive spirit. all this bush add is doing is showing how desperate this administration is...claiming credit for what these afghan and iraqi athletes (the ad doesn't come out and say this, but the insinuation is there).

--just my 2 cents

pan6467 · 08-26-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I don't know if I'm a "rightie" or not, but the Bush campaign is saying they are using simple facts as opposed to politicizing.

Perhaps it may seem like splitting hairs, but it seems reasonable to me.

I guess I don't see what the big deal is, unless you already hate Bush.

The Act of Congress stated that the USOC "owns" the rights to any commercial use of anything regarding the Olympics and it is not to be politicized.

That means Bush can't do what he's doing, especially if the USOC is asking him not to. Also, by using the Iraqi team against their wishes, isn't very "democratic" to me.

Regardless of what the Iraqis say as to whether they'd be fighting us, or scared, this is another backfire in Bush's campaign, just by using them and them wanting not to be used.

Just wish the voters would wake up and see what is going on.

Again, I ask if the man is so noble, honest and yada yada yada, why does he have to go to such tricks. If he has the better issues and is, as the right says, a man of character, why doesn't he pull the ads and respect others wishes?

Why does he have to violate an act of Congress to win, and what does that say about his character?

As far as the iraqis saying they'd be fighting the US, I never heard that, but I did hear they were scared to go home for fear of retribution by fellow Iraqis.

smooth · 08-26-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

]

As far as the iraqis saying they'd be fighting the US, I never heard that, but I did hear they were scared to go home for fear of retribution by fellow Iraqis.

I read it earlier this week in the Times, too.

Quote:

Iraqi Olympic Soccer Players Kick the Stuffing Out of Bush's Fantasy

With just 70 days until election day, the race for the presidency has gone from bitter to outright poisonous: John Kerry is faulted in television ads by President Bush's moneyed allies for winning combat medals in a war that Bush avoided, then slammed by the same hypocrites for having the courage to criticize that war after his return as a wounded vet.

Meanwhile, Bush pretends to be above the fray, all the while parading as a war commander and boasting, bizarrely, about his mythical achievements in the invasion of Iraq. That war, like Vietnam, has been a costly disaster since its inception. In an eerie echo of previous presidents who knowingly lied us into the Vietnam horror, always affirming that victory was "just around the corner," Bush's latest campaign ads prematurely declare Afghanistan and Iraq as the world's newest democracies. According to the implicit logic of one ad, the proof can be found in the fact that they both sent teams to the Olympics.

Never mind that both countries are racked by insurgencies and warlordism and dependent on U.S. troops for what passes for security. Forget that both countries are under martial law and their leaders are unelected U.S. appointees. Cover your eyes to the fact that both countries are squalid economic basket cases, with the vast majority of the populace unemployed — or, in the case of Afghanistan, cultivating opium poppies. Ignore the facts. They're democracies because George W. Bush says so.

But members of the very successful Iraqi Olympic soccer team beg to differ, blasting Bush's attempt to use their participation in the Games as justification for the U.S. occupation of their country. "My problems are not with the American people," Iraq's soccer coach, Adnan Hamad Majeed, told the Associated Press. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American Army has killed so many people in Iraq." His star midfielder, Salih Sadir, agreed: "Iraq as a team doesn't want Mr. Bush to use us [in an ad] for the presidential campaign…. We don't wish for the presence of the Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

These are not anonymous bomb throwers sending notes to the media. These are Iraq's favorite sons, stars of the national sport. Yet they all seem to be saying the same thing: America's military is not wanted on our land. Another team member, Ahmed Manajid, demanded to know: "How will [Bush] meet his God having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes." The athlete added that were he not playing for his country he would "for sure" be fighting in the Iraqi resistance. "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" Manajid asked.

That is a legitimate question that no one in the Bush administration and few in Congress want to grapple with. And yet we wonder why, 15 months after the United States "liberated" Iraq, are there so many people there who hate us?

The honest answer would be similar to the one once offered by Vietnam vet and now-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to explain the failure of the U.S. occupation of South Vietnam: "We had been sent to pursue a policy that had become bankrupt," Powell wrote in his autobiography. "Our political leaders had led us into a war for the one-size-fits-all rationale of anti-communism, which was only a partial fit in Vietnam, where the war had its own historical roots in nationalism, anti-colonialism and civil strife beyond the East-West conflict."

The only essential difference between Powell's remarks and the 1971 remarks by Kerry that Bush supporters cite in their ugly smear campaign is that Powell's dissent came 20 years too late to stop the carnage. Those who attack Kerry for speaking out in 1971 against the Vietnam War don't understand that it was an enormous public service for returning American veterans to expose the cynicism of their leaders, as Kerry did in testifying before the U.S. Senate.

The young Kerry was speaking truth to power, facing a reality that presidents Richard Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson had admitted in private, as records made public later revealed. In private White House tapes, Johnson made it clear he could never justify the death of a single U.S. soldier in Vietnam.

His successor, knowing the war was unwinnable, nevertheless carpet-bombed the region in order to fend off an inevitable defeat until after his reelection campaign.

In the end, who better than veterans to speak out when our commander in chief has betrayed the trust of U.S. troops, sending them to kill and be killed in an unnecessary war?

--http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqiteam24aug24,1,218782.story

smooth · 08-26-2004, 09:49 PM

Actually, that might have been an editorial. Here's a slice from the original piece:

Quote:

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," soccer player Salih Sadir told the website of Sports Illustrated magazine over the weekend, after demanding that U.S. troops get out of Iraq. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

His teammate Ahmed Manajid was equally forceful: "How will [Bush] face his god after having slaughtered so many men and women?" he asked. "He has committed so many crimes."

And after Iraq's defeat of Australia on Saturday, coach Adnan Hamad Majeed criticized Bush for "helping to destroy our country." He said that "we will never believe that Bush is with us."

Iraqi fans, too, are angry.

"A lot of people are very upset," Iraqi businessman Samir Ganni, who has been organizing caravans of fans to Iraq's games, said Monday. "These victories are not because of Bush but because of our efforts and hard work. Some of the players are very unhappy with this and said if they weren't in sports they would be fighting the Americans, like their relatives."

--http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ad21aug21,1,5553572.story

hammer4all · 08-26-2004, 11:48 PM

Quote:

"I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," says Sadir, 21. "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

Manajid, 22, who nearly scored his own goal with a driven header on Wednesday, hails from the city of Fallujah. He says coalition forces killed Manajid's cousin, Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was fighting as an insurgent, and several of his friends. In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.

"I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" Manajid says. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

seretogis · 08-27-2004, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

"An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as ``Olympic,'' derivatives such as ``Olympiad'' and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization ``shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.''

I interpret this as meaning that the organization itself shall not, themselves, "promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office" -- not that the very word "Olympics" is barred from any political advertisement. I seriously doubt that anything will come of this, as it is an overblown exagerration based upon complete misinterpretation of the text.

tecoyah · 08-27-2004, 02:15 AM

I honestly don't see the issue here, and I am no supporter of Mr. Bush. Of the myriad borderline unlawful things this administration has done, this would be page four hundred sixteen, paragraph 8. I am getting somewhat bored with the endless attacks on Bush for piddley reasons, when there are so very many Major "indescretions" to work with.

Likely the big stuff will continue to set on the back burner.....in the eyes of media.

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 04:49 AM

Another case of political campaigns pushing the limits of the rules. I don't believe the ad portrays an endorsement of the Bush administration by the USOC and I personally am not offended by this ad. It will be up to some judicial body to determine if the ad violated the rules. I don't believe anyone here is in a position to say for certain that there was a definite violation, it's just opinion at this point.

In terms of opinion on the subject, my feelings would be the same if there was an example of Kerry using the Olympics in an ad. Had there been a terrorist attack at the Olympics and Kerry used that in an ad as an example that the world is not safer from terrorism, I would have no problem with it.

In another corollary, IMO, it's not too unlike Kerry using McCain's words against Bush in his ad. He didn't get McCain's endorsement of it but did it anyway. He went on to pull the ad when McCain came out against it but if he hadn't I would have no problem with him continuing to run it. Of course there is nothing illegal about that ad and no specific rules that it comes close to violating but the principles are about the same.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Another case of political campaigns pushing the limits of the rules. I don't believe the ad portrays an endorsement of the Bush administration by the USOC and I personally am not offended by this ad. It will be up to some judicial body to determine if the ad violated the rules. I don't believe anyone here is in a position to say for certain that there was a definite violation, it's just opinion at this point.

In terms of opinion on the subject, my feelings would be the same if there was an example of Kerry using the Olympics in an ad. Had there been a terrorist attack at the Olympics and Kerry used that in an ad as an example that the world is not safer from terrorism, I would have no problem with it.

In another corollary, IMO, it's not too unlike Kerry using McCain's words against Bush in his ad. He didn't get McCain's endorsement of it but did it anyway. He went on to pull the ad when McCain came out against it but if he hadn't I would have no problem with him continuing to run it. Of course there is nothing illegal about that ad and no specific rules that it comes close to violating but the principles are about the same.

you aren't personally offended, but the people who were used in the ads were. That was my point, not that he violated some obscure congressional rule.

then you went on to point out that when McCain expressed distaste over the use of his words against his will, Kerry pulled ad. Bush, however, refused to pull the add even when the people portrayed in it expressed their distaste (to put it mildly, they actually said they didn't support his position and would be fighting against him if they were back home, which is a hell of a lot stronger than McCain saying don 't use my words) over the ads.

That's a big difference in character, to my mind. Kerry didn't roll back on his heels and proclaim that he was just using facts and has a right to do whatever he wants to McCain--he respected the man's wishes. Why won't Bush do the same for the olympic athletes?

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 11:29 AM

I wouldn't call using the Olympics in any capacity for political purposes and breaking an act of Congress some "obscure" law (sorry no act of Congress made 6 years ago should be considered an obscure law. Try going to court and saying "I was arrested for some obscure law made 6 years ago.). The law says very clearly, the USOC CONTROLS for commercial purposes any reference to the olympics, and that it should not be used for ANY political purpose.. Sorry, to offend anyone, but a political commercial IS still a commercial and therefore use of the Olympics should not be used in any form.

(Do you think John Smith using a commercial of some olympic kid from his city
in a commercial for his mayorial campaign would not get into any form of trouble? If Kerry had used the Olympics, do you not think Bush would use the same law as this and condemn Kerry?)
My point is twofold, 1) if ethically, morally, or legally questionable why even do it especially if asked not to. And 2) we had a sitting president that was tried and almost impeached for far less.

I guess everyone here is right, we should let Bush get away with breaking an act of Congress, and say... "ooo that, it's nothing, just if you hate Bush it is something." What will we let him get away with next and make excuses for allowing him to do it?

Yet, the next time a Dem. president gets a bj in the Oval office and lies about it (as if NOT 1 man would lie about having an affair) it's ok to spend billions upon billions of tax dollars to try to boot him from office not because he lied, but because he represents something the GOP is scared of, a Democrat President.

Using the Iraqi and Afghanistan teams against their wishes to promote YOUR agenda is immoral and should not be done or approved of in any way. Then for one of those players to come forward and be quoted as saying he would be fighting (killing) us in Iraq, AND you still choose to use that? Are you so inconsiderate and fucking nuts?

Gee, let's think here... Bush wants to make heroes of the Iraqi team by saying "Look what I did." Then this hero, HE MADE, says, basically, "Yeah, I'd be over there killing your people if I were home." Does anyone not believe that sends a message to the Iraqi people?

Makes no sense to me how anyone can say this is ok.

pan6467 · 08-27-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I honestly don't see the issue here, and I am no supporter of Mr. Bush. Of the myriad borderline unlawful things this administration has done, this would be page four hundred sixteen, paragraph 8. I am getting somewhat bored with the endless attacks on Bush for piddley reasons, when there are so very many Major "indescretions" to work with.

Likely the big stuff will continue to set on the back burner.....in the eyes of media.

Sometimes it's the minor indescretions that turn out to be the ones to convict.

LOok at Capone,everyone knew he was a killer, extortionist, bootlegger and all round evil man. BUT the ONLY thing the government could get him on was, and at the time it was a very rare conviction, tax evasion.

So the littlest of crimes can eventually convict even the evilest of men. Mainly because they cover their asses over the bigger stuff but let the little stuff slide because they don't believe anyone will care about that.

smooth · 08-27-2004, 02:00 PM

I agree with onetime on this. feelings aside, whether a law is broken is up to a judge. whether a law should be considered obscure or not is immaterial to whether it is a well known/understood law. You certainly could go into a courtroom and claim that you were arrested for an obscure regulation. The merits of your case would dictate whether you were convicted as well as previous decisions that comprise the corpus of case law. That is, a law's relative obscurity is not grounds alone for excusion--but it is relevant and the reading of any law is always argued by both parties.

So rather than dwell on interpretation of a given law until a judge or jury renders a decision, the stronger case, in my opinion, is the moral insanity of Bush to use people in his ads that don't want to be used in that way, and would even rather be violenting resisting his interests if given the chance.

I suspect you know that the Capone scenario was a lot more complex than you sketched and not really apples to apples. So I get your overall point (hope?) that one can shafted on the small stuff due to lack of oversight. I don't agree with that assessment and I share tecoyah's concern that such things begin to appear like nitpicking and discredit more "important" factors.

So I envision something like:

One person believes that the law was violated, but another interprets the regulation as being more fluid and not explicilty outlawing behavior.

Rather than get caught up on those two non-reconcilable differences of opinion (until the fact-finder [judge or jury] decides the "truth") the two viewpoints can be shelved while consensus can be reached that it is morally reprehensible to use people in political ads for a platform they don't support. I mean, who owns the commodity? Is it the pres, the congress, or the people who have been transformed into a thing to be bought, sold, or traded on the market?

If we wanted to bounce this over to philosophy one could make an argument that Congress doesn't have the moral right to dictate anything about the athletes as much as any other commercial interest. In that sense, the only morally correct argument, adhering to a stable moral compass, would be to abide by the wishes of the people portrayed in the media form.

fuzyfuzer · 08-28-2004, 06:56 PM

this is a technicality that is being blown way out of proportion. also you can't point that fing magiacaly......... at Bush. he didn't create this add he probably didn't aprove it but all of a suddon its his fault and thats why he should never be elected, ive heard it so many times on this board.

also i agree with seretogis on this that this isn't braking any law. this has no bearing on the election and should not have even been disgused.

one more thing, just because it is an act of congress doesn't mean it can't be a silly law. states make silly laws all the time. like for example it is illeagal to take a skunk accross the tennesse state line after midnight. can you tell me that, that law had a purpose, i don't think so.

P.S. thought i would add another one, it is illeagal to be in a movie theater in indiana after having eaten a dish including unsavery items i.e. onions or garlic. i always wanted to see a ticket for that one.

Rekna · 08-28-2004, 09:15 PM

Bush did approve it and when asked to remove it he said no. He shouldn't be able to dodge the repercussions easily unfortunatly everything this guy does wrong people are like while you can't blame him. It is like were talking about some retarted kid who doesn't know any better.... except he is our president, how about we treat him like it.

Also you shouldn't compare ludicris laws to laws that have a purpose. The olympic games are supposed to be about the world uniting behind a friendly compitition and nothing else. It is supposed to be a time where people can forget their differences. Bush however can't understand that since the only thing he understands is how to make his cronies money.

balderdash111 · 08-30-2004, 11:44 AM

FYI, I'm not a Bush supporter (vote Kerry!), but I do not believe he has broken any laws.

The act of Congress basically awards the USOC a trademark on the word "Olympics" and the logo. That's why it talks about use "for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition." It basically short-circuited the normal process for obtaining a trademark and the normal boundaries for trademark laws in order to protect this particular word and symbol.

But owning a trademark (or being officially decreed the owner of the OLYMPICS mark) does not mean nobody else can say it without your authorization. You are free to use any trademark you want in a purely factual context (e.g., Toyota can say "our cars get better gas mileage than Nissan cars" and Range Rover can say "in 2003 there were 12,345 Jeeps sold in the United States" (though I don't know why they would)). The only rules in the traditional advertising context are (a) the statement must be accurate (or at least you must be able to say you have evidence to back it up), and (b) you can't imply an endorsement when none exists.

The first rule does not necessarily apply in political ads. I'm not just being cynical - rule (a) applies b/c if the statement isn't true, the FTC can sue the company for false advertising, or the competitor can sue for libel, etc. Those rules of commerce don't apply to political ads.

I don't think that the Bushies' use of the word "Olympics" as described above crosses the line. They are making factual statements about who is in the Olympics.

This analysis is separate, of course from my personal feelings about tact and class. I happen to think it a little tasteless -- but not egregiously so -- to use the olympics in a political add, and I think it rather tasteless to not pull the ad when the people depicted protest.

smooth · 08-30-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balderdash111

FYI, I'm not a Bush supporter (vote Kerry!), but I do not believe he has broken any laws.

The act of Congress basically awards the USOC a trademark on the word "Olympics" and the logo. That's why it talks about use "for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition." It basically short-circuited the normal process for obtaining a trademark and the normal boundaries for trademark laws in order to protect this particular word and symbol.

But owning a trademark (or being officially decreed the owner of the OLYMPICS mark) does not mean nobody else can say it without your authorization. You are free to use any trademark you want in a purely factual context (e.g., Toyota can say "our cars get better gas mileage than Nissan cars" and Range Rover can say "in 2003 there were 12,345 Jeeps sold in the United States" (though I don't know why they would)). The only rules in the traditional advertising context are (a) the statement must be accurate (or at least you must be able to say you have evidence to back it up), and (b) you can't imply an endorsement when none exists.

The first rule does not necessarily apply in political ads. I'm not just being cynical - rule (a) applies b/c if the statement isn't true, the FTC can sue the company for false advertising, or the competitor can sue for libel, etc. Those rules of commerce don't apply to political ads.

I don't think that the Bushies' use of the word "Olympics" as described above crosses the line. They are making factual statements about who is in the Olympics.

This analysis is separate, of course from my personal feelings about tact and class. I happen to think it a little tasteless -- but not egregiously so -- to use the olympics in a political add, and I think it rather tasteless to not pull the ad when the people depicted protest.

I just want to mention that this is more severe than just mentioning 'olympic' or the players, teams, etc. The Bush add actually uses pictures of the teams and players. If anything, the issue would be those images, which are surely protected by this legislation. In fact, other networks besides NBC can't even use images of the activities right now.

balderdash111 · 08-30-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I just want to mention that this is more severe than just mentioning 'olympic' or the players, teams, etc. The Bush add actually uses pictures of the teams and players. If anything, the issue would be those images, which are surely protected by this legislation. In fact, other networks besides NBC can't even use images of the activities right now.

Good point, but not for the reasons cited. I don't think the "OLYMPICS" legislation has anything to do with the right to use images from the Olympics.

However, using the images suggests two additional possibilities: (1) violation of NBC's copyright in the broadcast (anyone know where they got the footage), and (2) violations of the individuals' rights of privacy and publicity.

The latter point is an interesting one - you might argue that these people are public figures so they get less protection. On the other hand, courts have been pretty strict in retaining for celebrities their right to control the use of their likeness, and if the swimmer they use is someone famous and recognizable (e.g., Phelps, Thorpe, etc), they might have a problem.

smooth · 08-30-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balderdash111

Good point, but not for the reasons cited. I don't think the "OLYMPICS" legislation has anything to do with the right to use images from the Olympics.

However, using the images suggests two additional possibilities: (1) violation of NBC's copyright in the broadcast (anyone know where they got the footage), and (2) violations of the individuals' rights of privacy and publicity.

The latter point is an interesting one - you might argue that these people are public figures so they get less protection. On the other hand, courts have been pretty strict in retaining for celebrities their right to control the use of their likeness, and if the swimmer they use is someone famous and recognizable (e.g., Phelps, Thorpe, etc), they might have a problem.

hmm, all right. I agree with seratogis' reading that the organization can not be political. Then that leaves the violation would have to be infringing upon using images without express permission. I just assumed that NBC would have received its permission from the organization. That's the line of logic I was employing, I don't know its accuracy to be honest.

Locobot · 08-31-2004, 08:14 PM

What no fellatio involved?

Bodyhammer86 · 09-01-2004, 08:41 AM

Speaking of Iraq's soccer team, they should be grateful that we liberated their shithole of a country. Because if Saddam was still in power, they'd be back in iraq getting tortured by Uday, Qusay, or whoever for not winning any medals

pan6467 · 09-01-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

Speaking of Iraq's soccer team, they should be grateful that we liberated their shithole of a country. Because if Saddam was still in power, they'd be back in iraq getting tortured by Uday, Qusay, or whoever for not winning any medals

That's great thinking. With a very small but vocal minority airing that opinion, no wonder the world can't stand us.

It would appear by the statements of some of the Iraqi soccer players, that there are many in Iraq that aren't "grateful that we liberated their (not worth mentioning) country".

If we were there for the sole reason of liberation, we would have put into place a full Iraqi elected government and be there as advisors only, we would have no military nor have reason to have military there.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-01-2004, 06:31 PM

oh, well i apologize for my rudeness. i still stand by my opinion, if saddam was still in power, they would probably end up being tortured for not winning the gold.

Quote:

If we were there for the sole reason of liberation, we would have put into place a full Iraqi elected government and be there as advisors only, we would have no military nor have reason to have military there

sorry but it takes time to set up a government and to hold elections, and furthermore, some sort of stability has to achieved in the region before elections can be held. yeah, it sucks, i'd really like to have our troops home too, but apparently, that isn't going to happen until the government is completely set up and when the elections are done and over with.

Halx · 09-02-2004, 01:35 AM

To Bush supporters:

The Big Brother propaganda overtones of the words transcribed from that ad are CREEPY AS HELL. It pains me to see people who support this campaign because they do not realize this brand of advertising. It's like standing behind good ol' uncle Lester (you know.. *that* kinda uncle) because he bought you alcohol when you were underaged.

The voice is saying: There is no reason to panic. Everything is just fine. Stay calm and everything will be all right.

Pure oxygen is flowing into the cabin and you're taking in big deep breaths.

Please, people! Wake up. ARRGH! Why can't you see that it's NOT alright?

tecoyah · 09-02-2004, 04:06 AM

No....they cannot. After spending far too much time in the politics forum, I have concluded that there is a blind spot in this reguard. The problem is, I have no right to "Tell" people they are incorrect in this. I can only hope the eventual "Wake up call", is loud enough to be heard.

pan6467 · 09-02-2004, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

oh, well i apologize for my rudeness. i still stand by my opinion, if saddam was still in power, they would probably end up being tortured for not winning the gold.
sorry but it takes time to set up a government and to hold elections, and furthermore, some sort of stability has to achieved in the region before elections can be held. yeah, it sucks, i'd really like to have our troops home too, but apparently, that isn't going to happen until the government is completely set up and when the elections are done and over with.

Who helped us with developing our country?????? Did we have the French or Brits here dictating to us how our freedoms should be defined?

What fucking right do we have to do that to others? If our country is so perfect they will strive to be like us by sheer nature and not because we forced them to.

Bill O'Rights · 09-02-2004, 07:52 AM

Well, legal or not, (and there are some damn good arguments here either way) I don't think that there are going to be too many that would not agree that at bear minimum...it's tacky as hell, and cheapens the candidate.

Regardless of the legality of the ads, the Bush Campaign, in my opinion, needs to seriously reconsider their stance on pulling them. They're only going to do more harm, in the long run. But, what do I know? I lost my bid for Omaha City Council.

Oh, and by the way, I am in no way to be considered a supporter or of George W. Bush.

Bodyhammer86 · 09-02-2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Who helped us with developing our country?????? Did we have the French or Brits here dictating to us how our freedoms should be defined?

we didn't have a bunch of islamofascists and foreign terrorists running around our streets carbombing innocent people and trying to set up a fundamentalist regime when we gained our independence, nice try anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

To Bush supporters:

The Big Brother propaganda overtones of the words transcribed from that ad are CREEPY AS HELL. It pains me to see people who support this campaign because they do not realize this brand of advertising. It's like standing behind good ol' uncle Lester (you know.. *that* kinda uncle) because he bought you alcohol when you were underaged.

The voice is saying: There is no reason to panic. Everything is just fine. Stay calm and everything will be all right.

Pure oxygen is flowing into the cabin and you're taking in big deep breaths.

Please, people! Wake up. ARRGH! Why can't you see that it's NOT alright?

BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!!BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!PUT ON YOUR TINFOIL HATS PEOPLE, THAT WAY BIG BROTHER CAN'T MONITOR YOU FROM THEIR "SPY SATELLITES!" *sarcasm detector explodes*

08-26-2004, 05:53 AM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Bush Violates Act of Congress in campaign Highlighted in the article is the point where Bush has violated an act of Congress (which is illegal) by politicizing the Olympics. This man will do ANYTHING to get re-elected. I can't wait to hear his bullshit reasoning for this illegal act. Especially when the Iraqi team had asked him not to use them. Wonder what kind of spin the talking heads and Faux News uses to get out of this. I can hear Limbaugh (errr Roger Hedgecock this week, who already has made an ass of himself this week), "Well, you know people the USOC and the whole Olympic world are controlled by lefty Socialistic Whackjobs who are complaining only because they want Kerry elected." ======== USOC asks Bush campaign to pull television ad August 26, 2004 ATHENS, Greece (AP) -- The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Bush's re-election campaign to pull a television ad that mentions the Olympics. The USOC is awaiting a response from the re-election campaign, committee spokesman Darryl Seibel said Thursday. The ad shows a swimmer and the flags of Iraq and Afghanistan. ``In 1972, there were 40 democracies in the world. Today, 120,'' an announcer says. ``Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes.'' Some of the players on the Iraqi Olympic soccer team have complained about the ad appearing as part of a political campaign. Campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said last week there were no plans to pull the ad. ``We are on firm legal ground to mention the Olympics and make a factual point in a political advertisement,'' Stanzel said. The International Olympic Committee and the USOC have the authority to regulate the use of anything involving the Olympics. "An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as ``Olympic,'' derivatives such as ``Olympiad'' and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization ``shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.'' ====== LINK: http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/news?slu...=ap&type=lgns/ ====== __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-26-2004, 09:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	FOR THOSE Righties who complain that the left are biased and will look the other way if Kerry does something. I want to hear you bitch about Bush totally ignoring an act of Congress, especially if you bitched about Clinton and thought he deserved impeached because he lied about an extramarital affair. Show us lefties how unbiased you are. Tell us how Bush should be impeached for his illegal act..... I won't hold my breath, because I'm sure you have a great excuse why Bush is allowed to break an act of Congress, but Clinton deserved prison for lying. Watergate truly was nothing compared to what is going on today. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 08-26-2004 at 09:48 AM..

08-26-2004, 10:25 AM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I don't know if I'm a "rightie" or not, but the Bush campaign is saying they are using simple facts as opposed to politicizing. Perhaps it may seem like splitting hairs, but it seems reasonable to me. I guess I don't see what the big deal is, unless you already hate Bush. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-26-2004, 12:47 PM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3584242.stm this is a start, bill.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-27-2004, 02:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I honestly don't see the issue here, and I am no supporter of Mr. Bush. Of the myriad borderline unlawful things this administration has done, this would be page four hundred sixteen, paragraph 8. I am getting somewhat bored with the endless attacks on Bush for piddley reasons, when there are so very many Major "indescretions" to work with. Likely the big stuff will continue to set on the back burner.....in the eyes of media. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-26-2004, 07:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	Well if recent developments with Swift Boat are any indication, the punishment is an expendable on the white house staff says, "I did it!" and then quits/resigns.

08-26-2004, 12:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	What free elections have been held in Iraq? Are you telling me it's a democracy? What facts on the ground are there to support the notion that Iraq is a free nation? What's funny is the comments from the Iraqi athletes. Many of the soccer players are from Najaf and said if they weren't representing their country at the Olympics, they'd be home fighting the Americans. SLM3

08-26-2004, 06:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
bouray Insane Location: Bayou Country	i saw this ad this morning and it made me sick just watching how our president is politicizing everything. the olympics are supposed to be non-political and a joining of all nations in competitive spirit. all this bush add is doing is showing how desperate this administration is...claiming credit for what these afghan and iraqi athletes (the ad doesn't come out and say this, but the insinuation is there). --just my 2 cents

08-27-2004, 04:49 AM	#16 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Another case of political campaigns pushing the limits of the rules. I don't believe the ad portrays an endorsement of the Bush administration by the USOC and I personally am not offended by this ad. It will be up to some judicial body to determine if the ad violated the rules. I don't believe anyone here is in a position to say for certain that there was a definite violation, it's just opinion at this point. In terms of opinion on the subject, my feelings would be the same if there was an example of Kerry using the Olympics in an ad. Had there been a terrorist attack at the Olympics and Kerry used that in an ad as an example that the world is not safer from terrorism, I would have no problem with it. In another corollary, IMO, it's not too unlike Kerry using McCain's words against Bush in his ad. He didn't get McCain's endorsement of it but did it anyway. He went on to pull the ad when McCain came out against it but if he hadn't I would have no problem with him continuing to run it. Of course there is nothing illegal about that ad and no specific rules that it comes close to violating but the principles are about the same. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-27-2004, 11:29 AM	#18 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I wouldn't call using the Olympics in any capacity for political purposes and breaking an act of Congress some "obscure" law (sorry no act of Congress made 6 years ago should be considered an obscure law. Try going to court and saying "I was arrested for some obscure law made 6 years ago.). The law says very clearly, the USOC CONTROLS for commercial purposes any reference to the olympics, and that it should not be used for ANY political purpose.. Sorry, to offend anyone, but a political commercial IS still a commercial and therefore use of the Olympics should not be used in any form. (Do you think John Smith using a commercial of some olympic kid from his city in a commercial for his mayorial campaign would not get into any form of trouble? If Kerry had used the Olympics, do you not think Bush would use the same law as this and condemn Kerry?) My point is twofold, 1) if ethically, morally, or legally questionable why even do it especially if asked not to. And 2) we had a sitting president that was tried and almost impeached for far less. I guess everyone here is right, we should let Bush get away with breaking an act of Congress, and say... "ooo that, it's nothing, just if you hate Bush it is something." What will we let him get away with next and make excuses for allowing him to do it? Yet, the next time a Dem. president gets a bj in the Oval office and lies about it (as if NOT 1 man would lie about having an affair) it's ok to spend billions upon billions of tax dollars to try to boot him from office not because he lied, but because he represents something the GOP is scared of, a Democrat President. Using the Iraqi and Afghanistan teams against their wishes to promote YOUR agenda is immoral and should not be done or approved of in any way. Then for one of those players to come forward and be quoted as saying he would be fighting (killing) us in Iraq, AND you still choose to use that? Are you so inconsiderate and fucking nuts? Gee, let's think here... Bush wants to make heroes of the Iraqi team by saying "Look what I did." Then this hero, HE MADE, says, basically, "Yeah, I'd be over there killing your people if I were home." Does anyone not believe that sends a message to the Iraqi people? Makes no sense to me how anyone can say this is ok. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 08-27-2004 at 11:41 AM..

08-27-2004, 02:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I agree with onetime on this. feelings aside, whether a law is broken is up to a judge. whether a law should be considered obscure or not is immaterial to whether it is a well known/understood law. You certainly could go into a courtroom and claim that you were arrested for an obscure regulation. The merits of your case would dictate whether you were convicted as well as previous decisions that comprise the corpus of case law. That is, a law's relative obscurity is not grounds alone for excusion--but it is relevant and the reading of any law is always argued by both parties. So rather than dwell on interpretation of a given law until a judge or jury renders a decision, the stronger case, in my opinion, is the moral insanity of Bush to use people in his ads that don't want to be used in that way, and would even rather be violenting resisting his interests if given the chance. I suspect you know that the Capone scenario was a lot more complex than you sketched and not really apples to apples. So I get your overall point (hope?) that one can shafted on the small stuff due to lack of oversight. I don't agree with that assessment and I share tecoyah's concern that such things begin to appear like nitpicking and discredit more "important" factors. So I envision something like: One person believes that the law was violated, but another interprets the regulation as being more fluid and not explicilty outlawing behavior. Rather than get caught up on those two non-reconcilable differences of opinion (until the fact-finder [judge or jury] decides the "truth") the two viewpoints can be shelved while consensus can be reached that it is morally reprehensible to use people in political ads for a platform they don't support. I mean, who owns the commodity? Is it the pres, the congress, or the people who have been transformed into a thing to be bought, sold, or traded on the market? If we wanted to bounce this over to philosophy one could make an argument that Congress doesn't have the moral right to dictate anything about the athletes as much as any other commercial interest. In that sense, the only morally correct argument, adhering to a stable moral compass, would be to abide by the wishes of the people portrayed in the media form. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-28-2004, 06:56 PM	#21 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	this is a technicality that is being blown way out of proportion. also you can't point that fing magiacaly......... at Bush. he didn't create this add he probably didn't aprove it but all of a suddon its his fault and thats why he should never be elected, ive heard it so many times on this board. also i agree with seretogis on this that this isn't braking any law. this has no bearing on the election and should not have even been disgused. one more thing, just because it is an act of congress doesn't mean it can't be a silly law. states make silly laws all the time. like for example it is illeagal to take a skunk accross the tennesse state line after midnight. can you tell me that, that law had a purpose, i don't think so. P.S. thought i would add another one, it is illeagal to be in a movie theater in indiana after having eaten a dish including unsavery items i.e. onions or garlic. i always wanted to see a ticket for that one. __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

08-28-2004, 09:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Bush did approve it and when asked to remove it he said no. He shouldn't be able to dodge the repercussions easily unfortunatly everything this guy does wrong people are like while you can't blame him. It is like were talking about some retarted kid who doesn't know any better.... except he is our president, how about we treat him like it. Also you shouldn't compare ludicris laws to laws that have a purpose. The olympic games are supposed to be about the world uniting behind a friendly compitition and nothing else. It is supposed to be a time where people can forget their differences. Bush however can't understand that since the only thing he understands is how to make his cronies money.

08-30-2004, 11:44 AM	#23 (permalink)
balderdash111 Psycho	FYI, I'm not a Bush supporter (vote Kerry!), but I do not believe he has broken any laws. The act of Congress basically awards the USOC a trademark on the word "Olympics" and the logo. That's why it talks about use "for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition." It basically short-circuited the normal process for obtaining a trademark and the normal boundaries for trademark laws in order to protect this particular word and symbol. But owning a trademark (or being officially decreed the owner of the OLYMPICS mark) does not mean nobody else can say it without your authorization. You are free to use any trademark you want in a purely factual context (e.g., Toyota can say "our cars get better gas mileage than Nissan cars" and Range Rover can say "in 2003 there were 12,345 Jeeps sold in the United States" (though I don't know why they would)). The only rules in the traditional advertising context are (a) the statement must be accurate (or at least you must be able to say you have evidence to back it up), and (b) you can't imply an endorsement when none exists. The first rule does not necessarily apply in political ads. I'm not just being cynical - rule (a) applies b/c if the statement isn't true, the FTC can sue the company for false advertising, or the competitor can sue for libel, etc. Those rules of commerce don't apply to political ads. I don't think that the Bushies' use of the word "Olympics" as described above crosses the line. They are making factual statements about who is in the Olympics. This analysis is separate, of course from my personal feelings about tact and class. I happen to think it a little tasteless -- but not egregiously so -- to use the olympics in a political add, and I think it rather tasteless to not pull the ad when the people depicted protest.

08-31-2004, 08:14 PM	#27 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	What no fellatio involved?

09-01-2004, 08:41 AM	#28 (permalink)
Bodyhammer86 Insane Location: Mattoon, Il	Speaking of Iraq's soccer team, they should be grateful that we liberated their shithole of a country. Because if Saddam was still in power, they'd be back in iraq getting tortured by Uday, Qusay, or whoever for not winning any medals __________________ Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

09-02-2004, 01:35 AM	#31 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	To Bush supporters: The Big Brother propaganda overtones of the words transcribed from that ad are CREEPY AS HELL. It pains me to see people who support this campaign because they do not realize this brand of advertising. It's like standing behind good ol' uncle Lester (you know.. that kinda uncle) because he bought you alcohol when you were underaged. The voice is saying: There is no reason to panic. Everything is just fine. Stay calm and everything will be all right. Pure oxygen is flowing into the cabin and you're taking in big deep breaths. Please, people! Wake up. ARRGH! Why can't you see that it's NOT alright? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-02-2004, 04:06 AM	#32 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	No....they cannot. After spending far too much time in the politics forum, I have concluded that there is a blind spot in this reguard. The problem is, I have no right to "Tell" people they are incorrect in this. I can only hope the eventual "Wake up call", is loud enough to be heard. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-02-2004, 07:52 AM	#34 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Well, legal or not, (and there are some damn good arguments here either way) I don't think that there are going to be too many that would not agree that at bear minimum...it's tacky as hell, and cheapens the candidate. Regardless of the legality of the ads, the Bush Campaign, in my opinion, needs to seriously reconsider their stance on pulling them. They're only going to do more harm, in the long run. But, what do I know? I lost my bid for Omaha City Council. Oh, and by the way, I am in no way to be considered a supporter or of George W. Bush. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.