Democrats Assault on Free Speech

I watched the first half of this film tonight. I really didn't think it was that outlandish. I was struck by two things though.

1) The Republicans claimed that Clinton's missle strike against bin Laden was only an attempt to draw attention away from his extramarital affair. No support at all from the other side of the aisle.

2) The movie skips from Dec. 31, 1999 to Sept. 11, 2001. It says nothing about the mistakes of the Bush administration. Oh, but yessiree it's even handed (right....).

 

Strawman. The producers say they are producing a show based on the 9-11 commission, yet they create scenes which contradict that report. A request is not a demand and doesn't infringe upon the producers freedom of speech. The show is playing unedited, is it not? So where was the infringement?

I'm neither a "Dem" or "Repub".

It was snide, untrue and off-topic.

It was snide and untrue, so no, it is not okay. Your personal attacks on my character are simply a diversion from the actual issues here.

Oooo! more snide untruthfulness!

 

Can you imagine if they included the part where the FBI agent quits in disgust, because Muslims in America are being set off-limits on investigation of terrorism, or the part where an FBI agent is shocked to learn that the Bush administration has decided that terrorism is not a priority?

Dick Cheney would have had another coronary.

Partially, I suppose that was in reaction to the Clinton attacks on Bin Laden. Reflexively, many republicans then attacked Clinton for attacking him, in much the way many opposed Clinton when he stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

 

I just watched "Path to 9/11" and think it was pretty fair. Makes me wonder what Clinton was afraid of, the truth maybe? Could it be a guilty conscience made him overreact?

 

If anyone recorded the show and is willing to send me a copy...

 

Fair in what way?

It was the lack of truth that he - assuming the letter was written with his knowledge and consent - objected to, the made-up parts that you found so fair.

 

Daisy, What part(s) were not accurate? I did not see anything that tried to lay the blame on any one person. The blame lays on all the bureacrats trying to run military operations. The military, FBI, CIA are only effective when given clear directives and allowed to execute them. The politicians need to give clear directions and get out of the way.

Clinton was responsible because he was in charge, he put those in place that made the bad decisions. But Republicans probably would not have done much better. We will probably see this tonight.

The problem is we elect politicians and not Statesmen. Honor, integrity and leadership does not matter anymore. We elect people that tell us what we want to here rather than looking at character. That is the problem.

 

The infringement was attempted by calling on them to change the movie to fit their particular view of events. It didn't work, but it was attempted.

So? How is that relevant? You almost always take the liberal position. And here, you did it again.

Well, at you got one out of three right. It was off topic, I will admit. But it was true, and it wasn't snide.

Well, first, it was true. You almost always take the liberal side. Second, it wasn't snide, and saying it three or four times won't change that. Third, you didn't actually explain your standard for these kinds of comments.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was a comment of observation. But it was a diversion, which you have successfully extended further into the thread, further calling attention to your own patterns of defending liberals and defending yourself at all costs, no matter how ridiculous it becomes.

Where? My statement that you dodge consistency is plainly indicated in last week's thread where you 1) failed ot read closely enough and accused me of accusing you of lying, when in fact I explicitly did not do that, and 2) demonstrated your inconsistency by changing the definition of lying so that it is different for you than for Bush. Once again, Daisy, you were caught because you were not careful with your words. I didn't post here for a long time, and don't post much now. But some things haven't changed, and this is one of them. It is virtually impossible to have a civil and decent conversation with you because of your approach to truth and issues. Honestly, I don't care that we differ politically. It doesn't bother me in the least. I tend to be more conservative; you tend to be more liberal. That is fine. But I do care when the truth doesn't come out, and when people dodge it. My respect for you would have greatly risen last week if you had simply said, "I mispoke. I didn't have all the facts." But you didn't. You proceeded to defend the indefensible. And that is a problem. We all see it ... except for those of you who willfully turn a blind eye because of political and idealogical alliances. But the rest of us can see through it, and find it distasteful

 

Didn't watch it. Not interested. TV is for baseball, & the Simpsons.

 

Do you know what "infringement" means? A couple of letters requesting a change and a statement of expectation - no actual infringement was attempted.

It's relevent because you mentioned "Dems" and "Repubs" as though everyone is one or the other which is simply not the case. You wrongly conflate "Dems" with liberal.

But it's not hard to imagine Daisy coming to the aid of liberals, to try to make their attacks on free speech seem noble.
That crack was snide as well as untrue - I have not tried to make their self-defense seem "noble", I'm wouldn't call Clinton, Albright, et al liberal and they were defending, not attacking.

That's not the part I objected to.

I know snide when I see it, and "trying to make their attacks seem noble" qualifies, no matter how many times you deny it.

I did actually - I said that slander wasn't protected speech. I did not address lies and snidery.

It was a personal attack, one of your favorite condescending putdowns, "please try to be consistent..."

Yes, I do defend myself against your ridiculous attacks. Perhaps I ought not to bother.

More untrue yet snide personal attacks. I won't bother to defend point by point. Anyone who managed to slog through that already knows what was said; no one else cares.

 

I seem to recall that ABC decided not to go with Fahrenheit 9/11 right before an election, didn't they? And to which "lies and distortions" are you referring? I know that you loved that poorly done Fahrenhype 9/11, but they spent a considerable amount of time on a few items while largely ignoring most of the points made by Michael Moore.

BTW, does anyone remember that docudrama about President Reagan (starring Mr. Streisand) that came out a while back? Was everyone okay with that one being broadcast on national television?

Or is it only a problem when the work in question is about the opposition?

BiR

 

:applause:
That was great!!!

I trust that all is well with you and yours in Big Sky Country, Bro. Curtis!

Your LIBERAL brother in Christ,
BiR (actually in Richmond this week - riding my road bike every night)