|
Home > Archive > Sony playstation2 > September 2006 > Left Wing Censorship?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Left Wing Censorship?
|
|
|
|
|
| On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
>911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
No one is asking for censorship. They are asking that the fabricated
scenes be changed to reflect what actually happened.
| |
| BaldinPramer@msn.com 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
Censor it? You mean ban it? No. Neither has any "liberal" authority
tried to ban or censor the 911 film. On the other hand, the Bush
administration did censor the official 911 report.
Happy?
BP
| |
| SyVyN11 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
"bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
news:pvd0g2dklt8q15r19mgd4g19c6cchgnoo8@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>
> No one is asking for censorship. They are asking that the fabricated
> scenes be changed to reflect what actually happened.
or censorship.
quote:
>
| |
| SyVyN11 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
<BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Censor it? You mean ban it? No. Neither has any "liberal" authority
> tried to ban or censor the 911 film. On the other hand, the Bush
> administration did censor the official 911 report.
>
> Happy?
>
> BP
Nice dodge, no wait, it wasn't!!
This is about Fahrenheit 9/11, not the 9/11 report.
This is about moore being a liar.
quote:
>
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
"bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
news:pvd0g2dklt8q15r19mgd4g19c6cchgnoo8@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>
> No one is asking for censorship. They are asking that the fabricated
> scenes be changed to reflect what actually happened.
Oh, like to examine and expurgate... what's the other word for that...... oh
yeah, censor.
So, did the Bush administration ask that the fabricated scenes be changed to
reflect what actually happened in Moore's Fahrenheit 911 during the US
Presidential elections?
Hhhhmmmmm??????
Thanks.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Censor it?
Yes.
quote:
> You mean ban it?
No. Thanks for playing, though.
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:52:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "SyVyN11"
<syvyn11@peoplepc.com> in <edpf8u$cup$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:
quote:
>
>"bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
>news:pvd0g2dklt8q15r19mgd4g19c6cchgnoo8@4ax.com...
>
>or censorship.
How is it censorship? Repeating it does not make it so. Is a bad
review of a movie censorship? Were reviews of _Da Vinci Code_ that
pointed out factual errors censorship?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Hotel Charlie One 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in
news:450035dc$1$470$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's
> Fahrenheit 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...006/09/06/AR200
> 6090601819_pf.html
>
>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102184,00.html
Fact or Fiction?
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
By Marla Lehner
NEW YORK — The imploding of the CBS miniseries "The Reagans" which was
pulled off the network Tuesday amid charges of inaccuracy, has raised
larger questions about creative ethics and artistic license.
Some are calling the network's decision to move the controversial two-
part series to Showtime a victory for decency, while others say it
smacks of censorship.
"It’s a great day for grassroots Americans who said 'CBS went too far.
We want none of this,'" Mike Paranzino, founder of boycottcbs.com, told
Fox News.
Meanwhile, Ellis Henican, also on Fox News, countered: "Let’s don’t be
in the censorship corner. We should tell CBS to toughen up."
When making a film based on a real person, it's impossible to use exact
dialogue or to accurately re-create a secret meeting, so the questions
are: How much artistic license should filmmakers employ; how clear
should they be about a film's fictional elements; and how sensitive do
they need to be to the legacy and feelings of their subject?
Neal Gabler, author of "Life the Movie," said quality is more important
than exact historical facts.
“The issue is, is it good, is it art, does it say anything about [the]
human condition?" he said. "Historical accuracy is very important for
news and for documentary, but is not important for these kind of
things.”
But others point out programs based on real figures may mislead the
public and may unfairly damage the subject's reputation.
“We live in a culture today of reality TV," Ed Gillespie, chairman of
the Republican National Committee, said in a conference call on Friday.
"Lines between fact and fiction get blurred. I am concerned that its
portrayal of our 40th president and his wife is not historically
accurate."
In fact, Gillespie said reviews for historical accuracy should be
routine when portraying a president's career or legacy.
"I would make the same case about a portrayal of the Kennedy
administration or the Carter administration," he said.
But Gabler said it's not filmmakers' responsibility to teach viewers.
"If we get our history from these things, it’s our problem, it’s a
problem of an incurious society that it gets its history from a TV
movie," he said. "If you are really interested in historical record of
the Reagans, there are plenty of places to get it."
Throughout the debate about "The Reagans," those who were in favor of
airing the show argued that many unflattering films and TV miniseries
have been made about John F. Kennedy without nearly so much protest.
"You didn’t hear anyone from Kennedy's family or the Democratic Party
railing against these profiles," said Matthew Felling of the Center for
Media and Public Affairs.
"It looks like the conservative movement wanted to spin one for the
Gipper, and they succeeded," he said.
But Jim Pinkerton, a Fox News contributor, said the show was pulled
because it was inaccurate.
"CBS tried to do a hit job on Reagan and they got caught," said
Pinkerton, who had predicted that the show would be pulled. "I don’t
think [this was] censorship. It’s protest. It’s boycotts ... The only
people who can really censor things are people who will put you in jail
if you do it anyway."
In its statement announcing the removal of "The Reagans" from the
schedule, CBS seemed to admit some inaccuracies.
"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and
acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify
each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced
portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in
a statement.
According to reports, among the parts that were offensive was the line
"They that live in sin shall die in sin" -- Reagan's reply to Nancy
when she asks him to do more for AIDS victims in the miniseries.
Among watchdogs who observe the melding of media and politics, there is
some shock over CBS' decision to cave to pressure to have the movie
yanked.
"Firstly, I don’t think his legacy was going to get dinged at all by
four hours of made-for-TV programming," said Felling. "It sets a
dangerous precedent that you have to have complete approval by all
parties before you can go forward [with a biopic]. ... There’s a scene
in every movie or TV movie when a learned observer can say ‘That didn’t
happen.’"
Still, Gillespie said the miniseries' reported omissions and
exaggerations may cause Americans to "come away with a misunderstanding
of the Reagans and the Reagan administration."
Gabler, for his part, said that kind of thinking is naive and pointed
out that recent TV movies about Judy Garland, Jerry Lewis and Jackie
Gleason all gave fictionalized versions of these public figures' lives.
"If they wanted to indict the people who made terrible TV, every TV
executive would be in Leavenworth," he said.
Gabler added that former President Reagan's failing health fueled the
fire, but that sympathy ultimately shouldn't be enough to stop a
program from being made.
"In human terms, ethically speaking you might want to exhibit a certain
sensitivity," he said. "But CBS in pursuit of its free expression had a
right to do whatever the hell they wanted."
Pinkerton, who supported taking the film off the air, agreed in theory
with Gabler, but said this particular show was blatantly wrong-headed.
"I think [filmmakers] should try to be accurate and I don’t think [the]
people making [the] CBS movie strove to be accurate."
Kettle - Pot; Pot - Kettle
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
| |
| Witziges Rätsel 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| > Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's
quote:
> Fahrenheit 911 during the US Presidential elections?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
Bush and others were not portrayed by actors in Moore's work - their
dishonesty, negligence, and ineptness are real. In ABC's show, Albright,
Berger, and others believe they are being portrayed falsely and their
activities are misrepresented. They might have cause to sue for defamation.
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| On 7 Sep 2006 11:12:03 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
<4500442a$4$450$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
quote:
>
>"bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
>news:pvd0g2dklt8q15r19mgd4g19c6cchgnoo8@4ax.com...
>
>Oh, like to examine and expurgate... what's the other word for that...... oh
>yeah, censor.
Wow, to examine is to censor. I did not know that.
quote:
>So, did the Bush administration ask that the fabricated scenes be changed to
>reflect what actually happened in Moore's Fahrenheit 911 during the US
>Presidential elections?
>
>Hhhhmmmmm??????
>
Do you understand the difference between the government telling a
network to change something and a private citizen objecting to the
content?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Conspiracy of Doves 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
If all they did was ask that the movie be changed, then there was no
censorship or attempted censorship.
If they had attempted to force, threaten, or coerce the studio into
making the changes, THAT would be censorship.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message
quote:
>
> How is it censorship?
They are demanding it be pulled or revised. That's an attempt to censor the
movie, i.e. expurgate scenes or outright kill it.
quote:
> Repeating it does not make it so. Is a bad
> review of a movie censorship?
Did the review demand that it be changed and pulled... with tones of legal
threats?
quote:
> Were reviews of _Da Vinci Code_ that
> pointed out factual errors censorship?
Did you bother to RTFA?
| |
|
| On 7 Sep 2006 12:15:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message
>
>
>They are demanding it be pulled or revised. That's an attempt to censor the
>movie, i.e. expurgate scenes or outright kill it.
>
Nope. That's not censorship.
| |
| George Grapman 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| http://www.newsday.com/other/educat...,0,366688.story
CBS Dumps Reagan Miniseries
By Verne Gay
Staff Writer
In an unprecedented move, CBS Tuesday cancelled a four-hour movie on the
life of Ronald Reagan that had angered conservative critics over its
portrayal of the 40th president.
The four-hour miniseries, entitled "The Reagans," which was to have
aired Nov. 16 and Nov. 18, will now air next year on Showtime, the pay
network owned by Viacom, which is also the parent of CBS.
After formally dropping the miniseries, network executives said in a
statement that the decision "is based solely on our reaction to seeing
the final film [and] not the controversy that erupted around a draft of
the script."
However, the movie's producers appeared to dispute that in their own
statement, expressing disappointment "that CBS will not be airing the
movie that we produced for them from the script that they approved."
Indeed, the controversy surrounding the film starring James Brolin as
Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan began mid-October when a New York
Times story reported snatches of dialogue which portrayed Reagan as out
of touch and uncaring of the plight of people with AIDS. One reported
line -- "those who live in sin, shall die in sin" -- infuriated some
Reagan supporters. The network and producers were unable to support the
line with documentation or eyewitness accounts and it was later excised
from the movie.
Over the last week, CBS has been under relentless attack on talk radio
and the Internet, where one impromptu site -- boycottcbs.com -- had
signed up "north of 100,000" members, according to its founder, Michael
Paranzino, a Bethesda, Md.-based consultant and onetime chief of staff
to former Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.).
Meanwhile, Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie asked CBS
chairman Leslie Moonves last week to allow a team of historians to
review the film before air and "if not, run a crawl informing viewers
that it's fiction."
Reagan's son, Michael, who appeared on "Good Morning America" Tuesday,
said he had seen an eight-minute clip of the movie. "It's appalling to
see my dad in a way I've never seen him," he said.
He also told "GMA" anchor Charlie Gibson, "another thing you know about
my father is his godliness, and to have him say 'Nancy, goddamit, shut
up'...is just an absurdity. He never used God's name in vain."
CBS executives made the decision to pull the miniseries late Monday, and
there was immediate speculation -- much of it aired on cable talk shows
-- that the network had bowed to pressure from Washington, where it is
entangled in a contentious battle with the House and Senate over the
relaxation of media ownership rules. One senior industry executive who
requested anonymity said the network's concerns over Washington were
likely a "catalyst" for the decisions.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
| |
| John Starrett 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
I don't know, but neither has anyone tried to censor the abc movie.
John Starrett
| |
| John Starrett 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| Matt Silberstein wrote:
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 11:12:03 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
> <4500442a$4$450$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, to examine is to censor. I did not know that.
>
> Do you understand the difference between the government telling a
> network to change something and a private citizen objecting to the
> content?
No, he probably doesn't.
| |
| abracadabra 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:4500534d$3$490$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
quote:
> "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message
>
>
> They are demanding it be pulled or revised. That's an attempt to censor
> the movie, i.e. expurgate scenes or outright kill it.
You mean you're afraid that ABC might pull a shitty, inaccurate
"docu-drama". That's a commercial decision, not censorship.
Are you easily confused?
quote:
>
> Did the review demand that it be changed and pulled... with tones of legal
> threats?
LOL - "tone of legal threats"? Sounds like you're a liar and rather easily
confused!
quote:
>
> Did you bother to RTFA?
You obviously didn't!
LOL
| |
| abracadabra 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
"SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:edpfb1$d0t$1@news.albasani.net...
quote:
>
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice dodge, no wait, it wasn't!!
>
> This is about Fahrenheit 9/11, not the 9/11 report.
>
> This is about moore being a liar.
List where Moore lied in F:911
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Be specific! You have seen the film, yes?
| |
| CLICK@KNICKLAS.COM 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:17:53 GMT, bob <bob@home.net>
wrote:
quote:
>On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken"
><nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>
>No one is asking for censorship. They are asking that the fabricated
>scenes be changed to reflect what actually happened.
By "Fabrication", do you mean the basis of Rush
Limpballs entire programs?
you DO know that Limpballs admits that he ENTERTAINS by
assembling/disassembling "facts" to "reflect his
viewers BELIEFS"?
Moore's (funny) attack on your coke-addled, brain-dead,
lying sack of shit ought to be regarded as important as
Conde Nast whacking the shit out of Boss Tweed.
Considering the years and $130+ millions your assholes
spent on trying to discredit the best sitting president
in a century, I'd say your "moral outrage" is a sham
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| On 7 Sep 2006 12:15:04 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
<4500534d$3$490$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message
>
>
>They are demanding it be pulled or revised. That's an attempt to censor the
>movie, i.e. expurgate scenes or outright kill it.
If someone is going to publish false slander about you is it
censorship to ask that the book be pulled?
quote:
>
>Did the review demand that it be changed and pulled... with tones of legal
>threats?
Yep.
quote:
>
>Did you bother to RTFA?
yes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Paul Heslop 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
>
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
yes
--
Paul (Neurotic to the bone No doubt about it)
------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
| |
| Florence Henderson Had A Mullet 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
said:
quote:
>Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
>911 during the US Presidential elections?
Yes, as a matter of fact. It did.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' was actually banned in Rapid City, South Dakota. The
audience for it had to drive to Sioux Falls or Denver, the nearest markets
where it was shown.
Besides that, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was a movie shown in theaters. The ABC movie
is a movie shown on regular TV, which is supposed to operate in the "public
interest, convenience, and necessity."
--
Buy my book about school bullying here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/112781 (recommended)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bo...isbn=1411626559
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1411626559
| |
| Muppet Hi-Fi 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
Another dumbXXXX demonstrates that he hasn't a clue as to what
constitutes censorship.
| |
| Muppet Hi-Fi 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
|
SyVyN11 wrote:
quote:
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice dodge, no wait, it wasn't!!
>
> This is about Fahrenheit 9/11, not the 9/11 report.
>
> This is about moore being a liar.
No, it's not, dumbXXXX, it's about an upcoming ABC docudrama.
Try to keep up, you laughable asswipe ...
| |
| Muppet Hi-Fi 2006-09-07, 7:32 pm |
| Florence Henderson Had A Mullet wrote:
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
> said:
>
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact. It did.
>
> 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was actually banned in Rapid City, South Dakota. The
> audience for it had to drive to Sioux Falls or Denver, the nearest markets
> where it was shown.
No, it wasn't.
Theaters in Rapid City chose not to show it, but such is the
prerogative of private business - after all, every theater chooses not
to show far more films that it does show. Nonetheless, every theater
owner in South Dakota and beyond was free to screen Fahrenheit 911. As
such, it was hardly banned, period, much less by the Bush
Administration.
Your understanding (or lack thereof) of the meaning of the word 'ban'
is as lacking as the OP's understanding (or lack thereof) of the
meaning of the word 'censorship.
| |
|
|
| BaldinPramer@msn.com 2006-09-07, 11:35 pm |
|
SyVyN11 wrote:
quote:
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice dodge, no wait, it wasn't!!
>
> This is about Fahrenheit 9/11, not the 9/11 report.
There was no dodge involved. I commented on F911 and the new 911 film,
pointing out that neither were censored, then pointed out some actual
censorship.
What is your problem with that?
BP
| |
| BaldinPramer@msn.com 2006-09-07, 11:35 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yes.
>
>
> No. Thanks for playing, though.
Do you know what censor means?
BP
| |
|
| bob wrote:
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 12:15:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nope. That's not censorship.
>
Asking is just asking. But really getting it done would be censorship.
Same spirit though.
| |
| Rev. Jones Says \Drink More Koolaid\ 2006-09-07, 11:35 pm |
|
"Florence Henderson Had A Mullet" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:45007c8c.1305656@news.iglou.com...
quote:
> Besides that, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was a movie shown in theaters. The ABC
> movie
> is a movie shown on regular TV, which is supposed to operate in the
> "public
> interest, convenience, and necessity."
Oh, you liberals believing that the airwaves belong to the people....
--
******************************************
Rev. Mercutio Jones
http://www.myspace.com/therightreverendjones
http://www.myspace.com/dayofthesick
************************************************
| |
| Mark D J. 2006-09-08, 2:42 am |
| >
quote:
> In its statement announcing the removal of "The Reagans" from the
> schedule, CBS seemed to admit some inaccuracies.
>
> "Although the miniseries features impressive production values and
> acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify
> each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced
> portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in
> a statement.
>
> According to reports, among the parts that were offensive was the line
> "They that live in sin shall die in sin" -- Reagan's reply to Nancy
> when she asks him to do more for AIDS victims in the miniseries.
Typical American time-wasting bullshit. Every wanker in the country is now
arguing with every other wanker over some stupid line about 'sin' -- while
the FACT that Reagan was responsible for mounds of mutilated corpses across
El Salvador goes *completely unmentioned*...
quote:
>
> Still, Gillespie said the miniseries' reported omissions and
> exaggerations may cause Americans to "come away with a misunderstanding
> of the Reagans and the Reagan administration."
What is this fool talking about? Americans have proved over *decades* that
an actual 'understanding' of 'the Reagans and the Reagan administration' is
something that the country simply *isn't interested in*....
M.
| |
| A.Melon 2006-09-08, 5:33 am |
| 'Mark D J.' wrote in:
quote:
>
>
>Typical American time-wasting bullshit. Every wanker in the country is now
>arguing with every other wanker over some stupid line about 'sin' -- while
>the FACT that Reagan was responsible for mounds of mutilated corpses across
>El Salvador goes *completely unmentioned*...
>
Sounds like another America-hating twit from afar.
quote:
>
>What is this fool talking about? Americans have proved over *decades* that
>an actual 'understanding' of 'the Reagans and the Reagan administration' is
>something that the country simply *isn't interested in*....
>
>M.
>
| |
| Robert P Holley 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
Fred everytime a liberal pulls some hypocritical crap (which is
practically on a daily basis) you come here to complain about it.
Haven't you learned already...this is who they are. It's what they do.
They can't help it. Liberals are by nature hypocrites (among other
things).
You of all people should know that by now.
| |
| Christopher A. Lee 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| On 8 Sep 2006 05:26:34 -0700, "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>Fred Liken wrote:
>
>Fred everytime a liberal pulls some hypocritical crap (which is
>practically on a daily basis) you come here to complain about it.
>Haven't you learned already...this is who they are. It's what they do.
> They can't help it. Liberals are by nature hypocrites (among other
>things).
>
>You of all people should know that by now.
<plonk> yet another in-your-face lying republifundy.
| |
| Robert P Holley 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
quote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 05:26:34 -0700, "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> <plonk> yet another in-your-face lying republifundy.
Censorship!
:-)
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns983760A471FADcipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
quote:
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in
> news:450035dc$1$470$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102184,00.html
Oh, I'm sorry. What part of "elections" did you miss? Why are you grasping
at straws now?
Sigh...
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
news:kOXLg.5057$%75.2017@trnddc05...
quote:
>
> Bush and others were not portrayed by actors in Moore's work - their
> dishonesty, negligence, and ineptness are real.
Wow.... Amazing that you are so ignorant you don't know that Moore's work
was full of falsehoods and misrepresentations. I thought even the bottom
feeders were hip to this by now. Sad... so sad.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:38i0g251fhkul87e18ajo0m1f1jb9hpn42@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 11:12:03 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
> <4500442a$4$450$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, to examine is to censor. I did not know that.
What part of expurgate did you miss, dummy? lol. What a tool you are. Get
over it.
quote:
> Do you understand the difference between the government telling a
> network to change something and a private citizen objecting to the
> content?
Not just objecting, but demanding it be pulled or risk legal action...
Please, RTFA next time, Skippy. 
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157647899.193324.292350@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> If all they did was ask that the movie be changed, then there was no
> censorship or attempted censorship.
>
> If they had attempted to force, threaten, or coerce the studio into
> making the changes, THAT would be censorship.
Well, they demand and toss around words like defamation and libel, that's
attempting to coerce the network, etc, so I guess we agree at least on that
part.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
news:0kl0g2dj1ai6s0umkgf4cnbfu7i6jm6f6c@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 12:15:04 -0500, "Fred Liken"
> <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nope. That's not censorship.
Yawn, you versus the dictionary. Dictionary 1 you NATHAN! lol
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
quote:
>
>
> If someone is going to publish false slander about you is it
> censorship to ask that the book be pulled?
Not to ask, but to threaten libel case, yes. That'd be censorship.
quote:
>
> Yep.
Link, son.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Florence Henderson Had A Mullet" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote
quote:
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact. It did.
>
> 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was actually banned in Rapid City, South Dakota. The
> audience for it had to drive to Sioux Falls or Denver, the nearest markets
> where it was shown.
The Bush administration banned it in just Rapid City, SD? Amazing. Do you
have a link conntecting them, or is this just more Moore-on talk?
quote:
> Besides that, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was a movie shown in theaters. The ABC
> movie
> is a movie shown on regular TV, which is supposed to operate in the
> "public
> interest, convenience, and necessity."
WOAH! lol. So, if it isn't in the public interest, convince or necessity,
it can be forced off the air? Wow, you're quite a fascist.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Florence Henderson Had A Mullet" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4500b94b.16856578@news.iglou.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 14:27:13 -0700, "Muppet Hi-Fi" <muppet.hifi@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> Every first-run theater in that market was owned by the same company, thus
> giving that company a monopoly. This company would not show 'Fahrenheit
> 9/11' due to its political content.
Was that company owned by Bush? OMG, VATS RITE WING CONSEERUSY!!!!
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Muppet Hi-Fi" <muppet.hifi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157663739.293580.107640@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Another dumbXXXX demonstrates that he hasn't a clue as to what
> constitutes censorship.
The irony of your post delights me.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1157677624.987038.205630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Do you know what censor means?
to examine and expurgate
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:1157718394.114796.282440@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Fred everytime a liberal pulls some hypocritical crap (which is
> practically on a daily basis) you come here to complain about it.
> Haven't you learned already...this is who they are. It's what they do.
> They can't help it. Liberals are by nature hypocrites (among other
> things).
>
> You of all people should know that by now.
I'm not sure if I think Liberals are necessarily hypocrites or just
Democrats. There's little they have in common. I could see liberalism
being more prone to hypocrisy since the ideas are unproven and not time
tested, by definition, and therefore likely to precipitate out as
contradictions. There's something to be said about challenging the norm and
trying to evolve they system, but they've had an exceptionally dismal track
record in the last 60 or so years. Some huge wins, like civil rights, etc,
which was a liberal movement, yet not confined to either party's general
population's beliefs. Mostly failures and mucking up of things, though, as
well. The tempering has not ended and will not end if Democrats win the
House, etc. We are in the period of correction. The ebb.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Robert P Holley" <holleyrp@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:1157721014.467721.210880@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> Censorship!
>
> :-)
To be proud and inaccessible is to be timid and weak.
| |
| Hotel Charlie One 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in
news:450177f6$4$508$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
quote:
> "Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns983760A471FADcipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. What part of "elections" did you miss? Why are you
> grasping at straws now?
>
> Sigh...
>
Damn got me again. It's that moral equivalence again isn't it? Repubs
XXXXX and moan about distortions that make their hero look like a
buffoon in a non-election year; good. Dems XXXXX and moan about
distortions implying that they were responsible in some part for 9-11
in an election year; bad.
"I'm not going to send a 2 million dollar missile to hit a $10 empty
tent and a camel's XXX." - George W. Bush 2000 Presidential campaign on
whether he agreed with Clinton's terrorist policies.
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
| |
| tomswiftsr@gmail.com 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> Moore's Fahrenheit 911 during the US Presidential elections?
=====
From: Franklin Hummel
Date: Thurs, Sep 7 2006 7:05 pm
Email: "Franklin Hummel" <hum...@world.std.com>
Groups: alt.showbiz.gossip, alt.gossip.celebrities, rec.arts.tv,
alt.politics.bush
Many people see to forget it all this that ABC and all its affiliates
stations are ALLOWED to use its television frequency through government
permission. A station has to show that it meeting certain standards
and public duties and responsibilities to be granted these licenses.
The citizens of the United States OWN the airways, not ABC, CBS, or
FOX, or whomever. Objecting to what is or is not show on YOUR airways
is not being against Free Speech. It is protecting the use of YOUR
airways from being used for propaganda. That is YOUR right.
Theatrically-released movies are not bound by these standards. Nor are
pay-for-view networks. You choose to pay for them -- or not.
If when it has aired, you feel THE PATH TO 9/11 is right-wing extremist
lies, write a letter to the FCC complaining about it and send a copy to
your local station that showed it.
Of course, right now the government is controlled by Bush and Company,
so nothing may come of it. But the Republicans may not be in power for
much longer.
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
=============
What he said.
-Tom Sr.
| |
| Muppet Hi-Fi 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| Florence Henderson Had A Mullet wrote:
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 14:27:13 -0700, "Muppet Hi-Fi" <muppet.hifi@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
> Every first-run theater in that market was owned by the same company, thus
> giving that company a monopoly. This company would not show 'Fahrenheit
> 9/11' due to its political content. Thus, the audience in Rapid City did not
> get to see 'Fahrenheit 9/11' without commuting to another market hours away.
First off, you're wrong. There are two owners of a total of four
theaters in Rapid City which run first-run films, and these two
ownerships have had a presence there since before Fahrenheit 911 was
released.
Thus, there is no monopoly.
Either way, this does not constitute censorship.
And it certainly doesn't constitute censorship by the Bush
Administration.
I loathe and despise the Bush Administration. I take it you do.
Here's a hint - making idiotic claims along the lines of "The Bush
Administration banned Fahrenheit 911 in Rapid City!" makes you look
like an idiot. If you can't manage to be anti-Bush without appearing
the fool, please shut up. Blithering idiots do not help the cause.
| |
| Jordan 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
> 911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
No, they left that to the Disney corporation who refused to distribute
the film.
They couldn't censor it because there were no demonstrable falsehoods
in it, unlike the new 9/11 movie, hey, what do you know? Also being
done by a subsidiary of Disney! Who'd have thought?
- Jordan
| |
|
|
| Jordan 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Robert P Holley wrote:
quote:
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> Fred everytime a liberal pulls some hypocritical crap (which is
> practically on a daily basis) you come here to complain about it.
> Haven't you learned already...this is who they are. It's what they do.
> They can't help it. Liberals are by nature hypocrites (among other
> things).
>
> You of all people should know that by now.
Liberals are hypocrites? Man, I don't know what to say... Here are some
links:
- Jordan
No child left behind... well, unless you're poor, black and live in
Florida...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/0...s.ap/index.html
No child left behind... well, unless you're in a Head Start program...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...eadstart17.html
No child left behind... well, unless you're a child of military
personnel... Hey! Way to support those troops!
http://edworkforce.house.gov/democr...ryfamilydc.html
No child left behind... well, unless you're a student at a school where
special ed students are taking the same aptitude tests as everyone
else...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/1...g.ap/index.html
Who did Bush appoint to the Food and Drug Administration's panel on
women's health?
If you answered a fundamentalist Christian doctor who's anti-abortion
and prefers prayer to prescribing contraceptives to single patients
then you're right!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS...a.tm/index.html
Who did Bush appoint to the presidential advisory panel on AIDS?
If you answered a fundamentalist Christian, former employee of Bob
Jones university and a man who's on the record as saying that AIDS is
a "gay plague" and that homosexuals are leading a "deathstyle" then
you're right!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS...cker/index.html
Who did Bush appoint as Secretary of Education? If you answered a guy
who
prefers religious indoctrination to education then you're right!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/0...ge.religion.ap/
Who did Bush appoint as Secretary of the Interior? If you answered a
woman who's
on record saying that "business is the best steward of the
environment" then you're right!
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/norton/findings.asp
Who did Bush appoint as Attorney General? A boob covering jerk who
wants
to be able to fire federal judges? Yup! That's right!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opini...7_thomas19.html
Who did Bush nominate for a Federal Judiciary position to the U.S.
District Court in Arkansas? If you answered a right wing lunatic who is
on the record saying that "the woman is to place herself under the
authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the
husband." and that "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the
same frequency as snowfall in Miami." then you're right!
http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07072004/utah/181590.asp
Who did Bush nominate to head the CIA? If you answered another right
wing crony who believes the CIA should have the right to operate within
the borders of the U.S. and arrest U.S. citizens then you're right!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5675992/site/newsweek/
Bush directly targets Saddam Hussein with cruise missiles:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html
Executive Order 11905 makes it illegal to assassination for political
gain (President Ford):
http://resource.lawlinks.com/Conten...order_11905.htm
Executive Order 12333 makes it illegal to assassinate ANYONE
(President Reagan):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html
At the same time Bush is creating hundreds of thousands of new
Veterans of Foreign Wars
he's also slashing Veterans benefits by $15 billion over the next 10
years:
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists...p-7425029c.html
Hey, way to support those troops!
Way to support those troops, part deux:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/te...iraqguns25.html
"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So
in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have
to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an
ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd
Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division."
Way to support those troops, in 3D!
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...-bodyarmor.html
"Nearly one-quarter of the 130,000 American troops in Iraq still have
not been issued the newest body armor, which has ceramic plates to
stop rifle rounds. Delays in funding, production and shipping mean the
last of the needed 30,000 sets of body armor won't be delivered to
Iraq until December - more than eight months after the war began."
Supporting the troops part IV:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/980954.asp?0cl=c3
"A total of 49 percent of those questioned said it was "very unlikely"
or "not likely" that they would remain in the military after they
complete their current obligations."
This poll was run by the Stars and Stripes:
http://www.stripes.com/morale/dayonestats.html
In response, Army says "OK, you'll just be staying a wee bit longer
then..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...8¬Found=true
"According to their contracts, expectations and desires, all three
soldiers should have been civilians by now. But Fontaine and Costas
are currently serving in Iraq, and Eagle has just been deployed. On
their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is
now listed sometime after 2030 -- the payroll computer's way of
saying, "Who knows?"
The three are among thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military
service under the Army's "stop-loss" orders, intended to stanch the
seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military
stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions."
and my personal favorite:
On Osama Bin Laden:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number-one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
George W. Bush 9/13/2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20020313-8.html
Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention
Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people
if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive?
Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until
you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the
threat of --
(Unedited quote)
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's
alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we
haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on
one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the
scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person
who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has
been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness,
exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my
speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to
commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide --
if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
<b>So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.</b> I'm more worried about
making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is
clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched
up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the
support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be
other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the
outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our
soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong,
they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the
world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
| |
| Jordan 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> "Witziges R=E4tsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
> news:kOXLg.5057$%75.2017@trnddc05...
090601819_pf.html[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Wow.... Amazing that you are so ignorant you don't know that Moore's work
> was full of falsehoods and misrepresentations. I thought even the bottom
> feeders were hip to this by now. Sad... so sad.
Lots of people say this, it doesn't mean it's true. I haven't seen a
single provable falsehood in F 9/11. Certainly the key facts aren't in
doubt:
1) Bush failed to meet with his counter-terrorism Czar before 9/11.
2) Bush failed to read the document titled "Bin Laden Determined to
Attack Inside the United States."
3) Bush failed to react to the 9/11 attack, preferring instead to sit
around reading My Pet Goat.
New facts have come out since F 9/11 such as the fact that when we had
Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora he, and other Al Qaida and Taliban
members, were miraculously air-lifted out to a remote part of Pakistan.
That same area of Pakistan that has now given any terrorist operating
within it's borders amnesty.
http://www.thisisrumorcontrol.org/node/1919
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...8,1,6879961.st=
ory?coll=3Dchi-opinionfront-hed
- Jordan
| |
| t...@optonline.net 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> Well, they demand and toss around words like defamation and libel, that's
> attempting to coerce the network, etc, so I guess we agree at least on that
> part.
I'm no lawyer, but I recall a legal idiom that truth is an absolute
defense against libel. So, as long as ABC is confident that they can
defend the truthfulness of "Path to 9/11" (in regards to scenes they
depict as having happened) they can't be coerced to change or pull it.
| |
| t...@optonline.net 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| I used to be baffled about the right-wing technique to address every
issue as generalizations, no matter how particular the specific event
is. Everything is liberal media bias, or Hollywood slants. They
rarely focus on the singular issue, but make sure it's decryed as a
much bigger problem. (my generalization of this case notwithstanding).
Here's one situation where this works to their advantage. I've read
several right-wing stories about "Path to 9/11" and nearly every one
has a comment like "well, now the liberals are complaining about media
bias", or "they admit the Hollywood spin exists when it works against
them". None of them say "liberals are upset because specific scenes of
the show are contrary to the factual record of the events they
portray".
If there are valid black-eyes in this story for the Democrats and the
Clinton administration (and I don't doubt there are), I'd say to lay
the mess at the proper doorstep. But when they have to lie to
highlight a failure to act, tells me they couldn't find enough truthful
mistakes to make the dramatization compelling enough.
ABC claims the blame is spread between both Clinton and Bush. But
(apparently) this show has zero mention of Bush hiding in a preschool
classroom while our country was being attacked, delaying critical
executive orders, until he's practically dragged out of the room. I
can't think of a more shameful moment for any president.
ABC also claims it is not politically motivated, and isn't right-wing
oriented, but they only sent advance copies to conservatives and
Republicans (apparently some that weren't even requested), but none to
liberals or Democrats, despite pleadings to be allowed to preview how
they were being depicted.
Well, because my job requires ~75% travel in my work schedule, I'll be
on an airplane while this propaganda airs, and I won't record it, nor
will I regret not watching it. I will wince from now on when this show
is used by dimwitted right-wingers as a source of proof of some talking
point falsehood they're trying to pawn off as fact.
| |
| t...@optonline.net 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
|
SyVyN11 wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1157642419.269783.85260@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nice dodge, no wait, it wasn't!!
>
> This is about Fahrenheit 9/11, not the 9/11 report.
>
> This is about moore being a liar.
>
I keep hearing this claim that Michael Moore lied in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I haven't actually heard what any of the lies are. I saw the movie,
and although I didn't agree completely with the opinion parts, they
can't by definition be called lies. The event based parts seemed
factual enough, albeit presented in a very one-sided way.
So, I'll ask (as others have before me). What are the specific lies in
Fahrenheit 9/11? I'm very open minded on the subject, convince me of
the lies, and I'll call them lies too (I'll still agree with and
believe the true parts though).
I was listening to a talk radio show the other night, and a caller
claimed that there were 63 documented lies in Fahrenheit 9/11. The
host asked him to list 3 of them, I presume he was going to follow up
with requests for substantiation. The caller couldn't even name one
lie. That didn't stop him from repeating the charge a few more times
during the call. That caller didn't do much good for the conservative
cause that day.
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| On 8 Sep 2006 09:13:07 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
<45017a23$4$517$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>
>Not to ask, but to threaten libel case, yes. That'd be censorship.
If so then censorship can be admirable. And all you have done is try a
rhetorical ploy to attack something. You have name called rather than
discuss the actions. Forget whether or not it is censorship, is the
ABC program accurate and if not should people point that out and ask
for corrections?
quote:
>
>Link, son.
I was giving a hypothetical, I am not about to go back and search
through various reviews.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| On 8 Sep 2006 09:07:06 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
<450178b2$1$439$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:38i0g251fhkul87e18ajo0m1f1jb9hpn42@4ax.com...
>
>What part of expurgate did you miss, dummy? lol. What a tool you are. Get
>over it.
>
>
>Not just objecting, but demanding it be pulled or risk legal action...
>
>Please, RTFA next time, Skippy.
>
If the material is libelous then it is absolutely proper to threaten
legal action. In fact, it may well be an important legal move to put
them on notice before they cause the damage. You have a legal
responsibility to mitigate your damages, I have no idea how that
applies in this case.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| Ben Kaufman 2006-09-08, 7:36 pm |
| On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Quick question, did the Bush administration try to censor Moore's Fahrenheit
>911 during the US Presidential elections?
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0601819_pf.html
>
"Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has made it out of the art theaters and
become a huge box office hit, even though the Disney Corp. did everything it
could to torpedo the documentary. ....."
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/fahrenheit0729.php
MICHAEL EISNER/DISNEY -- TOOL OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND ENEMY OF DISSENT
AND FREE SPEECH!
According to a report in today's Variety, Disney has taken steps to prevent
Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's new documentary Fahrenheit 911. The
film is still going to have its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in a few
weeks. The film is highly critical of Bush and his actions since the September
11 attacks, and reveals ties between the Bush family and wealthy Saudis,
including the family of Osama bin Laden. Disney executives say they will not
budge from their position.
http://filmbrain.typepad.com/filmbr...el_eisnerd.html
So that would be a yes.
Ben
| |
| SyVyN11 2006-09-09, 7:34 pm |
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:95i0g217sfhhtarumbe3i4h1utj93l8857@4ax.com...
quote:
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:52:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "SyVyN11"
> <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> in <edpf8u$cup$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>
>
> How is it censorship? Repeating it does not make it so. Is a bad
> review of a movie censorship? Were reviews of _Da Vinci Code_ that
> pointed out factual errors censorship?
WHEN YOU HAVE US SENATORS (Ried, Durbin, Shuster, Boxer) SAYING THAT EITHER
CHANGE THE CONTENT OF THE FILM OR RISK LOSING YOUR LICENSE IF DEMS EVER GET
BACK IN CHARGE IS CENSORSHIP!
quote:
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.org
> http://www.darfurgenocide.org
> http://www.savedarfur.org
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
| |
| SyVyN11 2006-09-09, 7:34 pm |
|
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:64ZLg.25564$gY6.16455@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> http://www.newsday.com/other/educat...,0,366688.story
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CBS Dumps Reagan Miniseries
> By Verne Gay
> Staff Writer
>
>
> In an unprecedented move, CBS Tuesday cancelled a four-hour movie on the
> life of Ronald Reagan that had angered conservative critics over its
> portrayal of the 40th president.
>
> The four-hour miniseries, entitled "The Reagans," which was to have aired
> Nov. 16 and Nov. 18, will now air next year on Showtime, the pay network
> owned by Viacom, which is also the parent of CBS.
>
> After formally dropping the miniseries, network executives said in a
> statement that the decision "is based solely on our reaction to seeing the
> final film [and] not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the
> script."
>
> However, the movie's producers appeared to dispute that in their own
> statement, expressing disappointment "that CBS will not be airing the
> movie that we produced for them from the script that they approved."
>
> Indeed, the controversy surrounding the film starring James Brolin as
> Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan began mid-October when a New York
> Times story reported snatches of dialogue which portrayed Reagan as out of
> touch and uncaring of the plight of people with AIDS. One reported line --
> "those who live in sin, shall die in sin" -- infuriated some Reagan
> supporters. The network and producers were unable to support the line with
> documentation or eyewitness accounts and it was later excised from the
> movie.
>
> Over the last week, CBS has been under relentless attack on talk radio and
> the Internet, where one impromptu site -- boycottcbs.com -- had signed up
> "north of 100,000" members, according to its founder, Michael Paranzino, a
> Bethesda, Md.-based consultant and onetime chief of staff to former Rep.
> Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.).
>
> Meanwhile, Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie asked CBS
> chairman Leslie Moonves last week to allow a team of historians to review
> the film before air and "if not, run a crawl informing viewers that it's
> fiction."
>
> Reagan's son, Michael, who appeared on "Good Morning America" Tuesday,
> said he had seen an eight-minute clip of the movie. "It's appalling to see
> my dad in a way I've never seen him," he said.
>
> He also told "GMA" anchor Charlie Gibson, "another thing you know about my
> father is his godliness, and to have him say 'Nancy, goddamit, shut
> up'...is just an absurdity. He never used God's name in vain."
>
> CBS executives made the decision to pull the miniseries late Monday, and
> there was immediate speculation -- much of it aired on cable talk shows --
> that the network had bowed to pressure from Washington, where it is
> entangled in a contentious battle with the House and Senate over the
> relaxation of media ownership rules. One senior industry executive who
> requested anonymity said the network's concerns over Washington were
> likely a "catalyst" for the decisions.
Apples and Oragnes, 'THE REAGANS' was aired uneditied of content on
ShowTime. In fact right now you can buy it for as little as $1.99 on
Amazon.com, also unedited. Nobody censored it, if you wanted to see it
you can.
quote:
>
> --
> To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
| |
| Jordan 2006-09-09, 7:34 pm |
| SyVyN11 wrote:
quote:
> WHEN YOU HAVE US SENATORS (Ried, Durbin, Shuster, Boxer) SAYING THAT EITHER
> CHANGE THE CONTENT OF THE FILM OR RISK LOSING YOUR LICENSE IF DEMS EVER GET
> BACK IN CHARGE IS CENSORSHIP!
Too bad they never said such things, huh?
Fact is that a television network, using the public airwaves, doesn't
have the right to tell lies about anyone and that's what they were
doing with the unedited Path to 9/11.
Clinton NEVER denied the CIA the ability to take out Bin Laden. They
had a standing order to do so if a clear opportunity arose.
- Jordan
| |
| SyVyN11 2006-09-10, 11:35 pm |
|
"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157822335.175934.82400@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Too bad they never said such things, huh?
>
> Fact is that a television network, using the public airwaves, doesn't
> have the right to tell lies about anyone and that's what they were
> doing with the unedited Path to 9/11.
>
> Clinton NEVER denied the CIA the ability to take out Bin Laden. They
> had a standing order to do so if a clear opportunity arose.
>
> - Jordan
Never?
http://newsbusters.org/node/7469
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The
Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from
experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program (meaning that none of these
folks has actually seen it!) indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that
will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic
events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day (much like "Fahrenheit
911" did without any of these folks' concern!). Furthermore, the manner in
which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a
partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well
respected news organization like ABC. 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 (sounds eerily similar to conservative
complaints about "Fahrenheit 911," doesn't it?) of your corporate and civic
responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
(Now the threats begin!) 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.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report
and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The
9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks
(by whom?), and association with it carries a special responsibility.
Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand
extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an
entertainment or educational program (once again, this was the position
conservatives took concerning the misinformation about 9/11 presented by
Michael Moore that fell on deaf ears). To quote Steve McPhereson, president
of ABC Entertainment, "When you take on the responsibility of telling the
story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get
it right."
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network¹s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is
based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves,
as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
* Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners
who recently viewed the program, said, "As we were watching, we were trying
to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings
the way that they had." ["9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and
Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]
* Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security
advisor to ABC has described the program as "deeply flawed" and said of the
program's depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence
agent, "It's 180 degrees from what happened." ["9/11 Miniseries Is
Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]
* Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a
consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, "he thought
they were making things up." [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
* Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has
admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. ["9/11 Miniseries Is
Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased," New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false
recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the
motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed
program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that
reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these
concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of
and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries,
Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh (once again what was brought under serious question
concerning Michael Moore's political leanings), in promoting this miniseries
across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be
construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important
event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney
brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals
from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings.
Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this
misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual
information is a disgrace.
As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, "It is critically important
to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school
children, understand what actually happened and why so that we can proceed
from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make
our country safer."
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual
record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of
Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the
United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full
consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected
member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the
public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided
program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
quote:
>
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U9ZLg.14520$lk6.3899@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
quote:
>
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
> news:4500534d$3$490$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
> You mean you're afraid that ABC might pull a shitty, inaccurate
> "docu-drama". That's a commercial decision, not censorship.
> Are you easily confused?
Oh, it'd be a commercial decision if it was merely commercial factors
causing its removal. No, we're talking about legal threats trying to force
them to remove it. Very different things, but I can see why you're confused
by it. It's very heady stuff for someone like yourself.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bZLg.14534$lk6.740@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
quote:
>
> "SyVyN11" <syvyn11@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:edpfb1$d0t$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> List where Moore lied in F:911
> 1.
Bush allowed Saudis to leave, via plane, while there was a ban on commercial
flights, etc, when the ban was actually partially lifted and Clarke, no
friend of the administration, allowed it personally, which he admits on May
25, 2004
quote:
> 2.
Peter Damon
quote:
> 3.
Moore claims that soldier's pay was proposed to be cut by 33%, which was a
lie.
quote:
> 4.
That Florida Secretary of State Patherine Harris counted votes.
quote:
> 5.
That Gore would have won if his recounts were not stopped by the Supreme
Court under any scenario. In fact, Gore would have lost using the
recounting method Gore requested in his lawsuits. SC didn't have anything
to do with it. Even the New York Times admits this. lol.
quote:
> 5. (sic)
Pantagraph December 5th vs 19th, etc, fabrications.
quote:
> 7.
That potential Gore voters where purged from the rolls on the basis of race.
Voters were not purged on basis of race. That's a lie. Convicted felons
were purged, though, but that's the law in Florida. lol. Race wasn't used.
quote:
> 8.
That no president had ever witnessed such a thing like the anti-Bush protest
on his inauguration day. lol, Actually the dolt was even alive for the
anti-Nixon protest on his inauguration day. lol
And, minor, so no point extra. Protestors pelted Bush's limo with more than
one egg. It was one egg. lol. Can't even get the little things right.
quote:
> 9.
That Bush was on vacation 42% on the first eight months. That's actually
13% and he even worked during much of that time.
quote:
> 10.
That Bush did not read the brief "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."
quote:
> Be specific! You have seen the film, yes?
Oh, of course, let me complete your response for you....
Those aren't lies!
Double standard.
Make your response very compelling. I'm losing interest in your flailing.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45006BD1.C3B65529@blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
> yes
Link. Hadn't seen that. Thanks, pookims
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Florence Henderson Had A Mullet" <mister1900mister@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4501a7ed.5714281@news.iglou.com...
quote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 09:16:05 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
> said:
>
>
> You're quite a fascist, Fred Lichen.
I know you are, but what am I?
I'm not the one calling for censorship, fascist. lol
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157737027.276210.283620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fred Liken wrote:
quote:
> "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
> news:kOXLg.5057$%75.2017@trnddc05...
>
> Wow.... Amazing that you are so ignorant you don't know that Moore's work
> was full of falsehoods and misrepresentations. I thought even the bottom
> feeders were hip to this by now. Sad... so sad.
quote:
> Lots of people say this, it doesn't mean it's true. I haven't seen a
> single provable falsehood in F 9/11. Certainly the key facts aren't in
> doubt:
>
> 1) Bush failed to meet with his counter-terrorism Czar before 9/11.
Hardly a key fact.
quote:
> 2) Bush failed to read the document titled "Bin Laden Determined to
> Attack Inside the United States."
Where's the proof of that? Even Moore admits it's not a fact.
quote:
> 3) Bush failed to react to the 9/11 attack, preferring instead to sit
> around reading My Pet Goat.
Hardly a key fact.
Sad you think those are "key facts". lol. Just forget about it. You're
allowed to drink the koolaid. It's America, after all.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "t...@optonline.net" <tarnower@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1157737441.878061.208560@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Fred Liken wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm no lawyer, but I recall a legal idiom that truth is an absolute
> defense against libel. So, as long as ABC is confident that they can
> defend the truthfulness of "Path to 9/11" (in regards to scenes they
> depict as having happened) they can't be coerced to change or pull it.
They already have a disclaimer in it saying it's a drama. Do you even read
the articles?
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "t...@optonline.net" <tarnower@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1157738066.121590.261110@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> ABC claims the blame is spread between both Clinton and Bush. But
> (apparently) this show has zero mention of Bush hiding in a preschool
> classroom while our country was being attacked, delaying critical
> executive orders, until he's practically dragged out of the room. I
> can't think of a more shameful moment for any president.
I agree. He should have used his SOOOPUUURRRR POAOAOAOAWWWUUURSSS to circle
around the sun and go back in time and stop the freedom fighters that
defended themselves from the evil twin towurs of DOOOOMMMMZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:2am3g21lq0k208lsc8nib686morlrj7pp7@4ax.com...
quote:
>
>
> If so then censorship can be admirable.
I guess which side of the libel suit you're on. Typical, though, of people
that don't take the first amendment seriously.
quote:
> And all you have done is try a
> rhetorical ploy to attack something.
Yawn.
quote:
> You have name called rather than
> discuss the actions.
Yawn.
quote:
> Forget whether or not it is censorship,
No thanks.
quote:
> is the
> ABC program accurate and if not should people point that out and ask
> for corrections?
Straw man.
quote:
>
> I was giving a hypothetical,
Lie.
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:1mo3g21o688js4tp9fqo1ljj2qlbk00hns@4ax.com...
quote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 10:11:03 -0500, "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has made it out of the art theaters and
> become a huge box office hit, even though the Disney Corp. did everything
> it
> could to torpedo the documentary. ....."
Disney was never threatened by Congress. NEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXT!
| |
| Fred Liken 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| "Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1157822335.175934.82400@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> SyVyN11 wrote:
>
>
> Too bad they never said such things, huh?
>
> Fact is that a television network, using the public airwaves, doesn't
> have the right to tell lies about anyone and that's what they were
> doing with the unedited Path to 9/11.
Dan Rather called, he wants you to stop talking.
| |
| Matt Silberstein 2006-09-13, 7:34 pm |
| On 13 Sep 2006 12:42:02 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> in
<45084298$0$60387$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>message news:2am3g21lq0k208lsc8nib686morlrj7pp7@4ax.com...
>
>I guess which side of the libel suit you're on. Typical, though, of people
>that don't take the first amendment seriously.
The 1st Amendment deals with the government.
quote:
>
>Yawn.
I agree.
quote:
>
>Yawn.
Yep.
quote:
>
> | | |