|
|
Post by Stonewall on Nov 5, 2003 12:23:26 GMT -5
Well, the Communist Bull Shiznit (I didn't want to be edited) Network has pulled the Reagan miniseries because, as they stubbornly had to admit, it was a load. Thoughts? Comments? Worthless Drivel?
|
|
|
|
Post by guestvito on Nov 13, 2003 19:56:59 GMT -5
if it had been a unflattering Clinton miniseries and CBS had dropped it due to left-wing pressure, Reagan-worshippers and other right wingers would be screaming censorship. More right wing hypocrasy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall on Nov 21, 2003 11:29:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the worthless drivel. CBS didn't drop it because of right wing pressure, they dropped it because it was a pack of lies! They made stuff up! It says alot about someone if you have to fabricate lies in order to put him down. Clinton, on the other hand, has a whole laundry list of felonious behavior that would require a ten-part mini-series at least. I'd love to see the scene where he gets disbarred, personally. But Clinton is Hollywood's boy-toy, so if they ever made a movie about him they would probably portray him as the savior of the known universe. Oh, and it's spelled "hypocrisy". ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 22, 2003 14:37:47 GMT -5
Liberals didn't call for the yanking of the recent 9-11-bush-as-savior-of-the-universe (in which lots of stuff flattering to Bush was made up). Dems also didn't call for the censorship of a recent History Channel *documentary* (which is *supposed* to be all true) that portrayed Lyndon Johnson as involved in the JFK assassination. They complained about it loudly, of course, but *after* it had been aired.
Making stuff up is the essence of docu-dramas. I hate all docu-dramas myself, but they shouldn't be censored for political reasons. And if you think that CBS didn't cave to right-wing pressure on this, I would ask you to provide me another example of where they (or any other network) pulled a docudrama because (shock! horror!) some of it was fictionalized.
One more reason why I just have to shake my head and smile when I hear conservatives rattling on in their bullying paranoiac whine about how the 'liberal media' stifles conservative expression.
Oh golly gee, did I misspell anything? Sure hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Nov 23, 2003 9:52:59 GMT -5
Sorry, vito.
CBS dropped nothing. The Reagan miniseries will be aired on Showtime over all protests.
The issue was money. Jack. Dinero. CBS' sponsors were walking. No, running.
History Channel vs. Showtime should be the issue. Distorting the facts just to make a point, are we, Vito?
Facts. Inconvenient little buggers (to Liberals), aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Nov 23, 2003 12:58:17 GMT -5
The issue was money. Jack. Dinero. CBS' sponsors were walking. No, running. Perhaps, but the reason they did so was because: a) they suddenly realized "hey, this fictionalized docu-drama has some parts that are actually fictional" or b) they feared the Friends of Ron organizing boycotts and cancelling their K-street meal tickets Multiple choice, no cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by joebulldog on Dec 4, 2003 16:34:28 GMT -5
if it had been a unflattering Clinton miniseries and CBS had dropped it due to left-wing pressure, Reagan-worshippers and other right wingers would be screaming censorship. More right wing hypocrasy! "Unflattering" would essentially be on the order of presenting Clinton as he actually is without the need for lowering his charachter, such as was done with a president who is arguably the greatest president in U.S history. Pathetic argument Guestvito!  |
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 4, 2003 17:18:24 GMT -5
Once again boys and girls, CBS dropped nothing at all.
In case you didn't know, it ran in it's entirety on Showtime.
CBS pulled it from it's original slot for business reasons, not ideological reasons. Sponsors were pulling out like a stampede.
They invested big bucks in the program so they salvaged it by running it on their "premium" channel.
Once again the left is dallying with the facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Dec 6, 2003 22:44:21 GMT -5
Sorry, vito. CBS dropped nothing. The Reagan miniseries will be aired on Showtime over all protests. The issue was money. Jack. Dinero. CBS' sponsors were walking. No, running. History Channel vs. Showtime should be the issue. Distorting the facts just to make a point, are we, Vito? Facts. Inconvenient little buggers (to Liberals), aren't they? Conservatives lie just as much as liberals. It is only the moderates who truly realize the value of facts. There can be no facts in one-sidedness. Left or right, there is no truth but in the center. For the moment you pledge yourself to liberalism or conservatism, you swear that truth will not matter. You will always defend your own kind. If Bill Clinton does something wrong, liberals will flock to defend him. It is the same with George Bush or any other conservative. Even if he did something that was obviously wrong, conservatives would make up something to defend him. It's a natural instinct. Nobody wants to think that their side is imperfect. When a president is elected, he is regarded as a liberal or conservative hero. Damn anyone who might suggest that he possesses some sort of flaw, however small. From what I have seen, most liberals and most conservatives tend to treat the people who represent their ideology as a sort of Beowulf figure. Now, I in no way mean to disrespect that ancient epic. I have just concluded reading it for the third time this evening, and begun reading the Poem of the Cid, which seems to be about another "perfect" hero. I am only saying that Beowulf was a perfect hero in every way, who never faltered anyway throughout the course of his life. This is not counting when his sword proved useless against the dragon and Wiglaf had to save him-and in any case, Beowulf dealt the death-blow. Being a moderate, I look at great men and see not a Beowulf or a Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, but rather a Gilgamesh. Two-thirds god, perhaps, but still one-third man. I will in no way attempt to manufacture lies to cover the people I admire. If they have flaws, I will accept them, and change my perception of them because of their flaws. I will not say to myself, "There is no way this can be true. This must be a conservative/liberal lie. I'm sure there's some explanation for this." I will look for the facts, and I do not care how much the truth hurts. Brave is the man who can accept the truth. A coward is the man who turns away from it. The sad thing is that a lot of people don't understand that truth is not conservative or liberal-it's just truth. Truth doesn't take sides in anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Dec 6, 2003 22:53:40 GMT -5
Walter, as in every man's life, there will come a time when the truth will make you feel ashamed of yourself, and there will come a time when the truth will vindicate you from the lies of your enemies. There is no escaping it. The truth is the friend of no one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Dec 7, 2003 1:29:20 GMT -5
Ogilvy says:
While your statement could be said to apply to all mankind, I have a distinct problem with your personalizing it as applying only to me.
The truth in this case (the Reagan documentary) is about as well respresented as it was in Bowling for Columbine. That neither shames me nor does it vindicate me; more importantly, it's not about me, it's only about those who choose to ignore the truth or to represent falsities as truth in an effort to promote their own agendae.
Sorry Ogilvy. If you want to engage in a food fight over the relative integrity of the Reagan production, it has already been done and there is nothing more to gain from continuation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Dec 7, 2003 11:16:17 GMT -5
Ogilvy says: While your statement could be said to apply to all mankind, I have a distinct problem with your personalizing it as applying only to me. The truth in this case (the Reagan documentary) is about as well respresented as it was in Bowling for Columbine. That neither shames me nor does it vindicate me; more importantly, it's not about me, it's only about those who choose to ignore the truth or to represent falsities as truth in an effort to promote their own agendae. Sorry Ogilvy. If you want to engage in a food fight over the relative integrity of the Reagan production, it has already been done and there is nothing more to gain from continuation. I am sorry if you thought I was personalizing it. I was not doing that at all. I said "as in every man's life." So of course it does not only apply to you! My post was concerned mainly with your comment about truth being inconvenient for liberals. Perhaps true for a lot of liberals, but then perhaps true for a lot of conservatives. Sometimes truth seems inconvenient to all of us, but I believe that we must accept it nevertheless. In fact, I do not care much about the Reagan miniseries. I would not watch it. I only watch the History Channel nowadays. Simply put, Dish Network stinks. Other than the History Channel, which is admittedly very good, there is nothing but Court TV (endless reruns of the same old thing), CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the Lifetime channel (which constantly shows movies that are reruns of the same old plot), and some movie channels that never have any good movies on them. |
|
