Free Speech...unless you attack Democrats
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Sunday, September 10, 2006 16:20
VIEWED: 8374
PAGE 1 of 6
The Constitution provides a fundamental right to free speech in this country and it is a right practiced by millions of registered Democrats from sea to shining sea (ie the coasts) and nowhere in between.
If you decide to say something Democrats disagree with, be it here in this forum or on the ABC broadcasting network, the liberals and Democrats line up to remind us all of the fine print contained in the 1st Amendment ("Free Speech...unless we, the Democratic Party, as supreme arbiters of your rights do not like what you are saying").
They scream, cry, and even threaten the broadcast license of those who disagree with them: http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624&&year=2006&
Thats what Democrats are all about. Free speech...as long as you say what they allow you to say and when they want you to say it...in other words we all just need to know our place...like 90% of the black folk have learned in their last fifty years of Party slavery.
ABC airs many hours of fictional content each week. Some of that content is, like this miniseries, based upon real events. Sure, some of the scenes may be dramatized...but maybe if Clinton hadn't sent his folk in to clean out the archives after 9/11 (it was the shoving of classified documents into their pants that gave them away) maybe we'd have a better picture of just what Clinton was really doing (Monica) when he was supposed to be protecting American interests.
Funny, I remember a certain inflatering movie about Ronald Reagan in 2003, not long after he died...I'm just sayin...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In fairness (and please remember I'm not American) the articles I've read said the Democrates believe the show is based entirely on lies, uses the 9/11 attacks to attack the Clinton administration (probobly to give Mrs. Clinton's campaign an early kicking) and should be corrected or pulled because of that.
I don't know if this is true, but I think anyone making a documentary on a tragedy as huge and with such global consequences as 9/11 should really steer clear of any domestic political issues. Using it to have a dig at another political party seems pretty callous to me.
More animations available at http://desktophippie.googlepages.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Dems are simply scared of the rest of the world discovering the truth. This mini-series is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. You can bet it is light years more accurate, more fair and more objective than Michael Moore's sad satyrical 'mockumentary' about Bush. Michael Moore was hugged by Harry Reid at the premier of F 9/11 Moore was given a seat of honor at the DNC Convention in Boston, sitting w/ former President Carter . Moore was treated like a rockstar by the Left, and no one on the Right made any such grandstanding demands that his movie not be shown, or censored in any way.
Democrats. The 'Do was we say, not as we do' people!
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
...Funny, I remember a certain inflatering movie about Ronald Reagan in 2003, not long after he died...I'm just sayin...
Didn't Republicans get that Reagan movie pulled from the network broadcast and it aired instead on Showtime? Neither party seems to have a problem with censorship when it suits their purposes...
That being said, ABC can say that President Clinton was a transvestite, wife beating, Russian spy if they choose to. And about half the country will believe it.
So much for that liberal media bias, aye fellas'?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The democrats in question are the Clinton admin, which *is* the Bush admin, so what does it matter?
The thing is trying to shift 9-11 blame to Clinton, sure, but why bother? I mean, if all Bush is guilty of is failing to prevent 9-11 then who cares? If you look at past presidents, the record for handling a crisis in the first year is pretty terrible. If anything, Bush's response to Katrina merits more concern.
My concern with Bush and 9-11 is that someone in his administration was actually guilty of planning the attacks. I think people brush this idea off, and that's a bad idea. Terrorists high in the US govt? And the evidence to back this up is all over the web, and a solid 10% of it seems to be actually true, which put much more evidence against members of the Bush admin than against members of Al Qaeda, particularly Bin Laden.
On another note, Armitage admitted to the Plame affair.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero
----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
I don't know if this is true, but I think anyone making a documentary on a tragedy as huge and with such global consequences as 9/11 should really steer clear of any domestic political issues. Using it to have a dig at another political party seems pretty callous to me.
Did you enjoy 'Fahrenheit 9/11' which, oddly, was released in 2004 in the midst of an actual Presidential campaign to attack an actual candidate (as opposed to attacking the husband of a potential candidate in a campaign that is still over a year away)?
Republicans were angry with Michael Moore, but I don't remember them trying to censor him...he was even a guest at their convention.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- i wish you would take the time to consider that both parties are in fact controlled by the same money interests, who use the opposing philosophies to play good cop/bad cop with the American public. for example...border security; neither party is stating the obvious(minus a few republicans) that national security is IMPOSSIBLE without border security, and America + millions of immigrants = third world economy; so why are our best interests constantly being defied? its not that hard to do the right thing.... only its because OUR interests are not the objective; PERIOD. im tired of listening to people get duped by this phony partisan rhetoric and influence... because they are both corrupt and diceptive idealogies devised to give false choices, rather then to offer solutions
as DT stated, when you look into the political reality of the New World Order agenda, suddenly the letter in front of a candidates name becomes trivial and irrelevant; the same CFR, multinational elitist agenda is forwarded regardless, because the central Banks finance everyone and anyone to complete each phase of their fascist global monetary plot
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It’s funny to me that when the Democrats get caught red handed doing something hypocritical or just down right nasty, it seems to turn out to be a product of the environment. Everyone’s hypocritical. Everyone’s corrupt. But when the Republicans get caught, well then it’s a cultural of corruptness within the Republican Party or a vast Right-Wing conspiracy. So we’re all to blame for the faults of Democrats, but Republicans are on their own. 
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Its nearly laughable that you dredge up some unproven BushCo conspiracy theory when we have the central {convicted} actor caught with the bloody evidence stuffed into his underwear, trousers and socks. We all know about the classified documents Sandy Berger sneaked out of the National Archives. Why does Berger get a free pass on this?. Or did BushMoronGenius fuity oaty bar Berger with sublim transmissions?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html
Quote:
the edit alters the controversial scene in which Sandy Berger refuses to give the CIA authority to kill bin Laden. Also, the film will now be billed as based only “in part” on the 9/11 Commission Report.
Patterico: "it appears that the particular scene probably didn’t occur exactly as depicted in the film. The scene was probably overdramatized and made into a composite of various failures.
But while Clinton’s failure should not be overstated, neither should it be understated."
Michael Scheuer, the chief of the Bin Ladin station thought the capture plan was “the perfect operation.” It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States.
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME