FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

The Democratic Hypocrites are at it again

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


S3nd K3ys
It was ok when F9/11 came out, twisting the truth, fabricating lies. But when Path to 9/11 comes out, those on the left want to SILENCE them over it.

How ironic.

The First Amendment is for Me, but not for thee
Quote:
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
Quote:
The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.
Can you imagine the uproar had Bush threatend Micheal Moore over F9/11??

Laughing Laughing Laughing
schudder
I'm thinking that it's mostly cause they are claiming it is based on the *Official 9/11 Comissions report*. By doing this, they are adding a very clear "this is the real, raw truth" air to it.

However, people from that very comission, even people who worked as advisors to the show, have stated (as you can read in the article) that there are a great deal of flaws in the way the story is told, even completely turning around events.

Quote:
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]


So I think they're concerned with the fact that this is being propagated as being "the truth" (and the fact that's being funded by the right wing - they're not even using commericals in this $40 million broadcast), even though most officials involved very clearly state that it is not.
Bikerman
On a more technical point...
Is the distinction not that More made a film which was show in cinema and Disney are using their broadcast franchise to air their production over terrestrial/cable network TV.
Here in the UK, for example, the government frequently cause a fuss over TV progs - especially on the BBC. The most obvious example was a documentary 'Death of a Princess' which showed an Saudi princess being beheaded in Saudi-arabia. The BBC were forced to pull the program despite the fact that it was a documentary and nothing it contained was false or fabricated.
The government cannot, however, exercise such control over film because they don't have the same control over film distribution and cinemas..

I amy be wrong on this as I dfo not know the US position and I'm assuming that the More film was not aired on broadcast TV before the film came out..

Chris.
S3nd K3ys
Bikerman wrote:
On a more technical point...
Is the distinction not that More made a film which was show in cinema and Disney are using their broadcast franchise to air their production over terrestrial/cable network TV.
Here in the UK, for example, the government frequently cause a fuss over TV progs - especially on the BBC. The most obvious example was a documentary 'Death of a Princess' which showed an Saudi princess being beheaded in Saudi-arabia. The BBC were forced to pull the program despite the fact that it was a documentary and nothing it contained was false or fabricated.
The government cannot, however, exercise such control over film because they don't have the same control over film distribution and cinemas..

I amy be wrong on this as I dfo not know the US position and I'm assuming that the More film was not aired on broadcast TV before the film came out..

Chris.


Basically, it doesn't matter what venue, it matters that the left was very quiet when something goes good for them and bad for the right (via free speech), but when the shoe is on the other foot, they try to silence it. i.e. removing free speech. You can bet if Billary were in office, it would be much more silenced than it is. (I'm hearing rumors it's been altered because the left is crying, even though it clearly states it's intentions, content and the fact that it's not a documentary.

I just find it revolting that they would keep doing that shit when they know it is losing them respect, one of the (many) reasons I'm no longer a democrat.
Bikerman
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
On a more technical point...
Is the distinction not that More made a film which was show in cinema and Disney are using their broadcast franchise to air their production over terrestrial/cable network TV.
Here in the UK, for example, the government frequently cause a fuss over TV progs - especially on the BBC. The most obvious example was a documentary 'Death of a Princess' which showed an Saudi princess being beheaded in Saudi-arabia. The BBC were forced to pull the program despite the fact that it was a documentary and nothing it contained was false or fabricated.
The government cannot, however, exercise such control over film because they don't have the same control over film distribution and cinemas..

I amy be wrong on this as I dfo not know the US position and I'm assuming that the More film was not aired on broadcast TV before the film came out..

Chris.


Basically, it doesn't matter what venue, it matters that the left was very quiet when something goes good for them and bad for the right (via free speech), but when the shoe is on the other foot, they try to silence it. i.e. removing free speech. You can bet if Billary were in office, it would be much more silenced than it is. (I'm hearing rumors it's been altered because the left is crying, even though it clearly states it's intentions, content and the fact that it's not a documentary.

Of course it matters...if the situation is as I think then the left have done nothing wrong at all. You can be certain that the right will be complaining about TV network output regularly and as a matter of routine...it's a normal part of politics.

I just find it revolting that they would keep doing that **** when they know it is losing them respect, one of the (many) reasons I'm no longer a democrat.[/quote]

Well, my position on that is different. There is no left and right in US (and UK) politics since, to first approximation, the democrats and republicans are the same thing. Both represent large corporate backers and the differences in social and welfare policies are fairly minor. The same is true of the UK. Blair has acted exactly as a Tory leader would have done if in power. There is little functional difference and individual differences of policy are minimal when compared to the overall agenda.

That is why (certainly here and I guess there) the turnouts in elections have been dropping consistently. The public know that they are being conned by a system which effectively only represents a tiny percentage (if it is as much as that) of the population.

Regards
Chris
S3nd K3ys
Bikerman wrote:

Of course it matters..


Rolling Eyes

No, it doesn't matter. The fact that the left is threatening lawsuits etc over this is childish at the very least. Where were the cries when they were attacking the other side? There were none.

If this were a threat to national security, like what the NYT has been doing, then it should NOT be allowed. Defining TV vs Movies is irrelavant.

That's my point.
Bikerman
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Of course it matters..


:roll:

No, it doesn't matter. The fact that the left is threatening lawsuits etc over this is childish at the very least. Where were the cries when they were attacking the other side? There were none.

If this were a threat to national security, like what the NYT has been doing, then it should NOT be allowed. Defining TV vs Movies is irrelavant.

That's my point.

Ho Hum...the distinction is clearly valid..I'll try one more time to say why.
Government control, to some extent, broadcast TV. They sell the franchises and in return the broadcaster has to conform to certain agreed standards.
Cinema is different. Providing the film receives a certificate from the censor it can be shown regardless of the government's wishes. There would have been, therefore, no point in complaining about More's film because :
a) There is no-one to complain to
b) There was no threat that could be made.

Chris.
S3nd K3ys
Bikerman wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

Of course it matters..


Rolling Eyes

No, it doesn't matter. The fact that the left is threatening lawsuits etc over this is childish at the very least. Where were the cries when they were attacking the other side? There were none.

If this were a threat to national security, like what the NYT has been doing, then it should NOT be allowed. Defining TV vs Movies is irrelavant.

That's my point.

Ho Hum...the distinction is clearly valid..I'll try one more time to say why.
Government control, to some extent, broadcast TV. They sell the franchises and in return the broadcaster has to conform to certain agreed standards.
Cinema is different. Providing the film receives a certificate from the censor it can be shown regardless of the government's wishes. There would have been, therefore, no point in complaining about More's film because :
a) There is no-one to complain to
b) There was no threat that could be made.

Chris.


:sigh:

So why no complaints when F9/11 was on TV??

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
S3nd K3ys wrote:

Quote:

Ho Hum...the distinction is clearly valid..I'll try one more time to say why.
Government control, to some extent, broadcast TV. They sell the franchises and in return the broadcaster has to conform to certain agreed standards.
Cinema is different. Providing the film receives a certificate from the censor it can be shown regardless of the government's wishes. There would have been, therefore, no point in complaining about More's film because :
a) There is no-one to complain to
b) There was no threat that could be made.

Chris.


:sigh:

So why no complaints when F9/11 was on TV??

:roll: :roll: :roll:


Ahh...well...I DID ask if you scroll back and I did make it clear that I didn't know if it had been broadcast on TV. If it has then (as I said) I withdraw the comment. I was only suggesting a possible distinction but if, as you say, More's film went to frnachised TV then there is no point of distinction, I agree.
Chris
joshumu
Quote:
Basically, it doesn't matter what venue, it matters that the left was very quiet when something goes good for them and bad for the right (via free speech), but when the shoe is on the other foot, they try to silence it. i.e. removing free speech. You can bet if Billary were in office, it would be much more silenced than it is. (I'm hearing rumors it's been altered because the left is crying, even though it clearly states it's intentions, content and the fact that it's not a documentary.

Hypocritical
You think the right is different?! There was all kinds of moaning about F9/11. Even though V for Vendetta is fictional, it has pissed all kinds of rightys off, "Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, called V for Vendetta "a vile, pro-terrorist piece of neo-Marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity"". Im sure none of your neo-cons are complaining about path to 911.
Hypocritical
Here is you moaning about F9/11
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-39442.html&highlight=fahrenheit+911
Hypocritical
And this thread is you trumpeting a docudrama that hails the right as our saviors and the left as "those who got us in this mess", even though Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar under Presidents Clinton and Bush, and current ABC News consultant said "as someone who was directly involved in almost every event depicted in the fictionalized docudrama, "The Path to 9-11," I believe it is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted...."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2416946&page=1

So save us your ignorant hypocrisy. Do you think that if you’re so blatantly hypocritical we won’t question it? That only works if you have the mass media under your thumb.
Related topics

Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
USA: States once again begin to assert states' rights.
Things only a Republican could believe
Until I See You Again
Why are no admins helping me?
England to be bombed again?
The downfall of american society
Microsoft is upto it's dirty games again!
HELP!!!! My computer keeps rebooting over and over again.
Cpanel Acess... again!
Democrats at it again: Caught in another lie
Dems: these are merely the facts
Demonstrating against the war/president/etc etc etc = FRAUD
Starting your life all over again
Defending China, sharing weal and woe
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.