Democrats Assault on Free Speech

Gosh, you mean they object to having lies told about them? Dern Democrats!

 

Republican Assault on Free Speech

So you would agree that when the Republicans tried to stop a show that misrepresented Reagan that they were assaulting free speech? What is the difference? I don't really see one. If Clinton (etc) does not like what this show has to say he has the choice not to watch it and to dispute its content.

 

George Bush proved to be pretty smart, by never even mentioning "Farenstupid 9/11" by Micheal Moore.

Clinton's tantrum will only make people want to see it.

Besides, can there be any question he gave up on the mideast terror problem ?

 

Does anyone remember the good ole free speech Democommunists when it came to Ward Churchill and Michael Moore? Boy...they had to protect that free speech at all cost. I guess political ideology got in the way of free speech with this one. If it is nothing but lies and distortions as Farenheit 9-11 was, they would have ignored it or set the record straight, not tried to suppress it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-S:thumbs:

 

I'm just kinda amused that the same people who went ballistic (many of them right here on this board) over a Reagan docudrama, are now wondering why democrats don't like the same thing done to them.

Double standard rules, that's for sure.

 

Brother Curtis,

I know that I shouldn't comment on your comments.

But, this is one of your better ones . . .

Wayne

 

Hillary Clinton

She was just on ABC . . . and she sounds like a new politician.

 

The only real difference I see between Farenheit 9-11 and this film is that the documentation in Moore's work was flawless, and this, typical of conservative attempts to blacken their opponents, contains little documentation at all.

What was that last piece of trash they put out about a decade or so ago, the Clinton Chronicles, in which virtually every piece of information was refuted, and a lot of the people who appeared as the "county sherriff" and so forth, were all actors hired for the parts?

9-11 happened on Bush's watch. There is a mountain of documentation regarding all of the warnings Bush received about the very possibility of such an attack, and stacks upon stacks of intelligence information provided by the Clinton administration that Bush's people casually passed off and said, "thanks but no thanks, Bill."

The fact that conservative Christians keep their support in this guy's pocket is, well, frankly, pathetic.

 

Micheal Moores rubbish has been exposed and debunked. He has been proven to intentional fake video and doctor up stories.

 

Objecting to slander and lies on publicly owned airways is being a crybaby?

It's so cute and Coulterish the way you add insult to the injury!

 

Yes indeed. When the left says patently untrue things and smears the name of good and honorable men, they don't complain. But then all of the sudden they do an about face when it is about one of their own. This is pure and utter hypocrisy on the part of Democrats. They stand up and tell bald-faced lies, and then complain that a movie allegedly does it. Have they no shame?

Of course, I pointed out clear cases of a double standard last week and certain people didn't like it. They actually tried to absolve themselves of guilt by blaming me for it. It was absurd then, and it is absurd now.

The Democrats don't seem to mind when they make up stuff and broadcast it, and the five names on the letter are some of the most guilty. It reveals to us that the Democrats have little regard for the Constitution, and the right to free speech. They have only a big regard for themselves. (And yes, Republicans have done it to.) The amazing thing about Bush is how he has stayed above it. Say what you will about his policies (and much could certainly be said). But he has been reticent to attack his enemies, even when they have brutally attacked him.

Predictably, Daisy comes down on the side of Democrats, choosing to foster a regime of censorship of opposing views because they differ with her own. Why not give to ABC and the Republicans the same leeway you give to Democrats? If anyone thinks ABC is carrying water for the Bush administration, they are smoking something powerful.

Daisy, you seem to be in favor of free speech and people being allowed to say what they want. Do you not think ABC should have the right to do whatever they want in this regard, and allow the people to make up their minds about the truth? You object when the Bush administration tries to hide some of the truth (whether or not they actually do it), but now you applaud when the Democrats want to hide some of what may indeed be the truth. That seems inconsistent (a common theme with you, it seems).

I have no real issue with the movie. I think it will probably be a stupid movie. Like most movies, it will stretch the truth and fictionalize parts of it. It will subsume large amounts of data from a long time into a short scene for the sake of a story.

Whatever the movie can say, no one can seriously dispute that Clinton did not address terrorism as seriously as he could have. He did some, but not enough. Bush has not addressed terrorism as he could have. Both are at fault for the situation we find ourselves in. Can not both sides be honest enough to say that?

 

Actually in the instance of the elementary school moore and others served history

Actually the first lie came from the bush administration Moore actually set the record straight with the distortion of the "my pet goat debacle" by bush.

The official story is that Bush was meeting with a group of pre-schoolers when he was informed of the attack on the World Trade Center and quickly left the room. Not quite right, says Moore. [The official story has changed since the footage of Bush reading to the children has been published.] Bush learned of the first attack before entering the school, 'decided to go ahead with his photo op,' and began to read My Pet Goat to the students. Informed of the second attack, he incredibly remained with the students for another seven minutes, reading from the book, until a staff member suggested that he leave. The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of _9/11=bush

snippet:
Context of '(8:55 a.m.)'


This page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event '(8:55 a.m.)'.

(8:55 a.m.): Situation Room Director Informs Bush of WTC Crash

Captain Deborah Loewer, director of the White House Situation Room, is traveling in President Bush’s motorcade toward Booker Elementary School, when she learns of the first WTC crash from her deputy in the Situation Room at the White House. According to some reports, as soon as the motorcade reaches the school, Loewer runs from her car to Bush’s car, and informs Bush. [Catholic Telegraph, 12/7/2001; Associated


snippet: and my comment at end :
Context of '(9:00 a.m.)'


This page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event '(9:00 a.m.)'.

(9:00 a.m.): Rice Informs Bush Flight 11 Has Accidentally Hit the WTC, but Knows Nothing Else


really sad day in our history and it really shows the bush incompetence at its zenith, but America in time of attack and horror
rallys...and what is even more sad is the one the rallied around was really not up to the job and I think history will prove that, imho.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For that reason, we are offering, if you click here, a few minutes of George W. Bush sitting in the Booker School classroom on September 11th, 2001, after he was notified that both twin towers had been attacked. (Bush will be notified of the second terrorist attack about one minute into the video and then sit another five minutes before the tape ends.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We say, "show me," and what does this video show us?[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That Bush is a pawn and unable to act decisively until his handlers tell him what to do and hand him a script.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That he put at risk the children and adults at Booker School by staying in the classroom, even though he might, the White House claimed, have been a target of the terrorist attacks that day.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That he calmly listened to a pet goat story and complimented the children on their reading skills as Americans and foreigners burned alive or jumped to their deaths from the twin towers.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That he did not ask a question of Andrew Card or seek any further information on the terrorist attack on America until his handlers had decided FOR him what he should do.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That he showed the chronic lack of leadership that has characterized his entire life, the scion of a family who are brand names that other forces use to advance an anti-American, Neo-Confederate, plutocratic, fundamentalist religious agenda. He cannot act on his own.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That he chose to continue a photo-op with black children designed to give him the image of a "compassionate conservative" concerned about education for even black kids was more important than the national security of the United States.[/FONT]

what is really odd but yet spiritual if you watch the entire video is that the teacher keeps saying "Get ready!" over and over again and bush even during that seemed sheepish.

 

Yeah, but Bush was "slandered" with actual news footage while ABC is presenting a "fictionalization." Imagine if Moore had made up quotes and got an actor to portray Bush as saying things he didn't....somehow I doubt you'd've found that amusing.

 

That's just silly, Aslanspal, and you know it. Where do you come up with this idiocy? Let's say that Bush leaves immediately. What was he going to do? Nothing. That's right. Nothing. Until more was known, there was nothing to do. He was not in any danger. That is extremely obvious. The hijacked planes were all more than a thousand miles away, and that was clearly known.

Bush showed an amazing amount of leadership by not panicking. Lesser leaders would have panicked. He did not. He handled himself very well. It was only later that he began to make some bad decisions.

You are extremely gullible, it appears, willing to tote the water for the conspiracy theorists no matter how silly and easily debunked it is. Remember, at that time, there was no solid evidence of a terrorist attack. Looking back, it is all very easy to see. But at the time, it was not known. To impose current knowledge on past events is a severe lack of critical thinking.

There is no glory in naivete, and especially not in broadcasting it to others. To borrow a line from someone else, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, then to open it and remove all doubt." The longer you keep spouting this conspiracy stuff, the more you look totally out of touch with reality.