|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
WBAM's "Take that CBS"
Rather interesting how folks posted on that thread 
You mean like this:
Quote:
the G-man said:
Liberals love to cry "censorship" about what happened and complain that CBS "gave in" to "eeevile intolerant" Republicans.
However, according to what CBS itself is saying, its President, Les Moonves, a known liberal, took a look at the movie and even HE--a known liberal-- thought it was unfair and/or inaccurate. He--a known liberal--ordered cuts made and STILL thought it was unfair and inaccurate.
I think Moonves deserves some credit for that.
And if I was a liberal I'd be pointing that out. I'd be saying "look, we're so fair, so open minded, that we even give RONALD REAGAN a fair shake."
Instead they whine, cry 'censorship' and generally act like spoiled kids who didn't get to watch their favorite cartoon after all.
As such, is it any wonder that they get called "the angry left"?
So, let's compare and contrast what happened with the Reagan movie and what's happening with the Clinton movie.
In the case of the Reagan movie:
This film was to air shortly after the president passed away, not five to ten years after the fact.
Much of the outcry came from the fact that it was one-sided against Reagan.
Much of the outcry came from rank and file citizens. None of whom have the power to censor the network.
The president of CBS, a known liberal, viewed the film itself and found it took too many liberties.
The movie still wasn't canceled, just moved to another outlet (cable)
In the case of the 9/11 movie:
The film is to air five to ten years (or more) after the events therein.
The movie is not one-sided. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations are criticized. But only the Clinton supporters are attacking it. Many republicans are praising the movie, even though it portrays prominent republicans, including Condeleeza Rice, negatively.
The main outcry is from a former President who has actually gone so far as to have his lawyer send a letter demanding it be pulled from the air completely and/or that he (the former president with massive government connections, including a Senator spouse) be allowed to have prior approval of the film.
The heads of ABC are democrat supporters and yet they still don't feel the film is so one sided against their friend Clinton as to pull it. Yet.
Unlike the Reagans, no one is arguing that it should be moved to cable, the Clintonistas are arguing it be pulled completely if not edited to their liking
So, yes MEM, that other thread is interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
the papers today are repoting that ABC is editing all the Bill Clinton scenes to appease him and his lawyers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
PJP said:
the papers today are repoting that ABC is editing all the Bill Clinton scenes to appease him and his lawyers.
the papers everyday say some big corporation is backing down on something to not piss someone powerful off.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Bill Clinton isn't a corporation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
PJP said:
the papers today are repoting that ABC is editing all the Bill Clinton scenes to appease him and his lawyers.
The New York Post:
Facing heavy pressure from Bill Clinton and backlash from an educational publisher, ABC is revising its controversial miniseries, "The Path to 9/11" - including altering a key scene about the effort to kill Osama bin Laden.
The network has toned down - but not eliminated - a fictional scene involving Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, that the former president had protested in a letter to ABC, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Berger was portrayed in the original version as declining to give the order to kill bin Laden just before hanging up the phone on CIA operatives in the field.
An unidentified ABC executive told The Washington Post "adjustments and refinements" are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" of White House officials that left the country vulnerable.
The New York Post reported yesterday that Clinton had demanded that ABC "pull the drama" if revisions aren't made before its airing on Sunday and Monday to mark the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
In scathing letters to ABC chief Bob Iger, Clinton and other high-profile Democrats blasted the miniseries for using several fictionalized scenes to cast the ex-president's team as weak on bin Laden.
Disney-owned ABC's move to quell the criticism came as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Charles Schumer and other Democratic leaders sent a letter to Iger, accusing his network of spreading "deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a statement insisting her husband worked "tirelessly to fight terrorism and keep America safe, and that is the only truth that matters."
I'm sure ABC felt no coercion or censorship whatsover over all these high ranking federal officials attacking them and demanding the show not air and/or be edited to meet their approval.
After all, it isn't as if the federal government regulates the broadcast networks or anything...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I disagree with some of the statements that Olbermann made in that clip Ray posted. I bet numerous prominent Republicans do also.
Therefore, since Ray would never be a hypocrite, I can only assume he posted it to indicate his support if a former president, the Senate Majority leader and numerous other prominent Republican federal officials were to call for Olbermann to be censored.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I disagree with some of the statements that Olbermann made in that clip Ray posted. I bet numerous prominent Republicans do also.
Therefore, since Ray would never be a hypocrite, I can only assume he posted it to indicate his support if a former president, the Senate Majority leader and numerous other prominent Republican federal officials were to call for Olbermann to be censored.
Its not censorship from officials, its calling for accuracy in something being advertised as accurate. Its skewing events to revise history.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Its not censorship from officials, its calling for accuracy...
So, therefore, if numerous members of the federal government, who just happened to be Republicans, called upon MSNBC to either edit Olberman to make sure he was, in their minds, accurate, or cancel him altogether, you'd support that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Its not censorship from officials, its calling for accuracy...
So, therefore, if numerous members of the federal government, who just happened to be Republicans, called upon MSNBC to either edit Olberman to make sure he was, in their minds, accurate, or cancel him altogether, you'd support that.
if there was merit to their complaints and he was found to be inacurrate.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
I disagree with some of the statements that Olbermann made in that clip Ray posted. I bet numerous prominent Republicans do also.
Therefore, since Ray would never be a hypocrite, I can only assume he posted it to indicate his support if a former president, the Senate Majority leader and numerous other prominent Republican federal officials were to call for Olbermann to be censored.
Its not censorship from officials, its calling for accuracy in something being advertised as accurate. Its skewing events to revise history.
you seemed to have no problem with Farenheit 9/11.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
But the only reason that Clinton, et al, are able to complain is that ABC sent out advance copies, prior to the airdate.
So you (Ray) are advocating that Olberman, and others like him, shouldn't go out live, but should have to submit their shows to repubicans for review prior to broadcast so that a determination can be made whether he is accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&Quote:
We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
They forgot to add: "...Or else!"
Now, some folks here have proven themselves awfully good at figuring out what others were implying by their words. What are these "people of power" implying to ABC when they start quoting laws regarding their broadcast license in connection with this program, combined with their demands that it be canceled?
When Republicans say anything remotely resembling this type of 'implication', there are folks crying about their right to free speech being flushed down the toilet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112 |
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
So MEM, unless he is a hypocrite, is also advocating that, in the future, all TV shows be submitted to republican federal officials in advance so that they can veto assertions they (the Republicans) consider inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
do you disagree that Clinton could have assasinated bin laden multiple times but chose not to so he wouldn't suffer in his beloved polls.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I think there's a bigger issue, not tied to one party/president or another.
There is not a day that goes by that some TV show or movie does not present facts that one side or another finds, or can demonstrate, are inaccurate.
The evening news. The Reagans. Farenheit 9-11. The Passion of the Christ, even.
And, yet, until now, I have can't recall ever having seen federal officials actually threaten the makers of those works in advance if they didn't say exactly what those officials wanted said.
That, my friend, is a chill on free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I think there's a bigger issue, not tied to one party/president or another.
There is not a day that goes by that some TV show or movie does not present facts that one side or another finds, or can demonstrate, are inaccurate.
The evening news. The Reagans. Farenheit 9-11. The Passion of the Christ, even.
And, yet, until now, I have can't recall ever having seen federal officials actually threaten the makers of those works in advance if they didn't say exactly what those officials wanted said.
That, my friend, is a chill on free speech.
totally....it's very spooky.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I think there's a bigger issue, not tied to one party/president or another.
There is not a day that goes by that some TV show or movie does not present facts that one side or another finds, or can demonstrate, are inaccurate.
The evening news. The Reagans. Farenheit 9-11. The Passion of the Christ, even.
And, yet, until now, I have can't recall ever having seen federal officials actually threaten the makers of those works in advance if they didn't say exactly what those officials wanted said.
That, my friend, is a chill on free speech.
As a new member to the board, I hesitate to jump into such a heated conversation. But...life is too short to be timid.
I agree with G-Man. This is the biggest attack against the 1st ammendment since McCain/Finegold Campaign Finance Reform.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
Rook187 said:
I agree with G-Man.
This might be the worst first post ever.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
unrestrained id was g-mans worst alt-id.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
No rex is my worst alt-ID. Everyone knows that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Sounds like a movie of the week to me!
" MY WORST ALT - ID."
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Starring Billy Bob "Sling Blade" Thornton as rex, of course 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4 |
Now, now G. Until one posts images of themselves, one shouldn't throw stones, you know? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
I'm not sure, but I think Promod is....hitting on me?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4
Regenerated 15000+ posts
|
|
Regenerated 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 33,385 Likes: 4 |
...once again, you think I want you. When are you going to realize that I'm married. We're through, man. I'm sorry, but, you need to start looking at girls... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Prometheus said:
...once again, you think I want you. When are you going to realize that I'm married.
I'll let the formerly happily married Jim Jackson field that comment.
But anyway...
What - no liberal cries of "censorship"? Nothing about the sacred constitutional guarantee of free speech? No warnings about the "chilling effect" caused by ideological zealots intent on pursuing their partisan agenda?
Oh, well. Hypocrisy, it's been said, is the lubricant of political discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:...
Does it bother you that people can;t watch a movie on ABC without it first being screened by Democratic opperitives who then decide what' sok for us to see?
WBAM started a thread called "Take that CBS" concerning the Reagens that was pulled a couple of years ago.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
CBS has cancelled the upcoming TV movie "The Reagans" in which the took inflamitory liberties with the true history of one of this nations great leaders. Fortunately people got wind of what they were doing and made enough noise to get them to back off.
WBAM's "Take that CBS"
Rather interesting how folks posted on that thread
I'm not going to ask if you underdstand the difference between public pressure and political pressure, I'm just going to explain it to you. The Reagan movie was pulled because it was not only offensive but poorly timed in regards to the death of Reagan so the PUBLIC complained and raised hell and CBS pulled it because it wasn;t going to be proffitible for them at the time.
Fastforward to today where a movie takes what has been reported by those who have seen it to be harsh towards the Bush administration as well as the Clinton administration. The general public sentiment has been that people are interested in seeing it. However political opperitives have acctually treatened the broadcaster to revoke thier license if they run the mini-series and at the very least edit it to make the Democrat administration better.
George Soros may not have given you permission to agknoledge the difference, but I can tell you there is a FUNDIMENTAL difference between the PUBLIC telling broadcasters what they WANT to see and POLLITITIONS telling the public what they are ALOUD to see. I'm sure there are some interesting things said in that thread and I'll comment on any similatrities or contradictions I see in it.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
So MEM, unless he is a hypocrite, is also advocating that, in the future, all TV shows be submitted to republican federal officials in advance so that they can veto assertions they (the Republicans) consider inaccurate.
Or it was one of my infamous lunch posts where I didn't read all the posts. I'm for Clinton & anyone else fighting to get the facts straight. Now I reallize this next part might as well be in invisible ink because you & your monkey always play the "MEM just does Dem talking points" thing but I don't agree with Harry Reid & the gang making veiled threats. That is more wrong then a network putting out misinformation and label it as a docudrama.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I don't agree with Harry Reid & the gang making veiled threats. That is more wrong then a network putting out misinformation and label it as a docudrama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
do you disagree that Clinton could have assasinated bin laden multiple times but chose not to so he wouldn't suffer in his beloved polls.
Not sure how that would have hurt Clinton in the polls. I'm sure some people in the "I hate Clinton" club would have been demanding that Ken Starr get on that right away but the more average citizen would have cheered if Clinton had succeeded in assasinating Bin Laden.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,959 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
Quote:
PJP said:
do you disagree that Clinton could have assasinated bin laden multiple times but chose not to so he wouldn't suffer in his beloved polls.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
What we're finding out is President Clinton could have done more in the fight against terrorism...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,313 Likes: 112 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:...
Does it bother you that people can;t watch a movie on ABC without it first being screened by Democratic opperitives who then decide what' sok for us to see?
WBAM started a thread called "Take that CBS" concerning the Reagens that was pulled a couple of years ago.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
CBS has cancelled the upcoming TV movie "The Reagans" in which the took inflamitory liberties with the true history of one of this nations great leaders. Fortunately people got wind of what they were doing and made enough noise to get them to back off.
WBAM's "Take that CBS"
Rather interesting how folks posted on that thread
I'm not going to ask if you underdstand the difference between public pressure and political pressure, I'm just going to explain it to you. The Reagan movie was pulled because it was not only offensive but poorly timed in regards to the death of Reagan so the PUBLIC complained and raised hell and CBS pulled it because it wasn;t going to be proffitible for them at the time.
Fastforward to today where a movie takes what has been reported by those who have seen it to be harsh towards the Bush administration as well as the Clinton administration. The general public sentiment has been that people are interested in seeing it. However political opperitives have acctually treatened the broadcaster to revoke thier license if they run the mini-series and at the very least edit it to make the Democrat administration better.
George Soros may not have given you permission to agknoledge the difference, but I can tell you there is a FUNDIMENTAL difference between the PUBLIC telling broadcasters what they WANT to see and POLLITITIONS telling the public what they are ALOUD to see. I'm sure there are some interesting things said in that thread and I'll comment on any similatrities or contradictions I see in it.
Like with the Reagens, there is public pressure on ABC to correct reported errors in the movie. I find the fake stuff to be offensive. I'm sure you would too if it was about Bush. I've yet to hear of any fictionalized scenes that make Bush look bad. Are there any?
Unlike with the Reagens, this is being touted as a docudrama & was going to be part of a Scholastic program. The Reagens was a dramitization & wasn't being peddled as an ecucational experience for kids. I think it's fair to say that 9/11 like the Reagens is something the general public wants to see portrayed accurately.
As I've said I don't agree with Harry Reid & company making veiled threats. As my post fell I can understand where you would get a different impression though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Is it really unreasonable to want the made up stuff that contradicts the 9/11 commission report changed? Is it really more important to take swipes at Clinton no matter the facts?
do you disagree that Clinton could have assasinated bin laden multiple times but chose not to so he wouldn't suffer in his beloved polls.
Not sure how that would have hurt Clinton in the polls. I'm sure some people in the "I hate Clinton" club would have been demanding that Ken Starr get on that right away but the more average citizen would have cheered if Clinton had succeeded in assasinating Bin Laden.
80% of the country had no idea who he was. Clinton knew if he did nothing the polls would stay steady.
|
|
|
|
|
