"The Reagans"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Don't hire that set painter! He's a Republican! He might try and paint put a penis into the Oval Office set as a gag!

Only if he was a Disney animator...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And gays FOUGHT common sense measures. When there started being REAL evidence that the virus was sexually transmitted and that bath houses were areas where the virus was SPREADING in a frightening manner due to the anonymous sex, gays FOUGHT the closing of them. Fought it tooth and nail.

Sure, the National Organization Of All Gay People suddently formed and fought back against closing bath houses.

 

Look, I'm sure there was some sort of organized resistance, but you can't pin that on every gay person. The owners saw themselves as just trying to run a business (don't get me started) and they resisted. Have you ever seen "And The Band Played On"? It's about this period in history. Since you're probably too busy to read the book, the movie has this scene where Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins) plays a bathhouse owner saying he's not interested in shutting down because he's making money hand over fist. That was pretty much the owners' perogative. Not a good one, but hardly representative of all gay people.

 

AIDS first appeared in 1981. When was it actually NAMED AIDS? When did they have anything resembling a test? When did they have definitive proof of HOW it was transmitted?

 

I'll give you this one, sorta. The term AIDS came in 1982, the test was FDA approved in 1985. But was first noted as being only in gays in the late 70s and early 80s. (Source)

 

Most observers wanted more money for a disease that afflicted a TINY portion of the population?

 

This is an absolutely cruel stance, but furthermore a foolish one. Diseases DO mutate you know, and we knew that back then.

 

Sure, THAT is a great idea. How long did it take for it to become clear that it couldn't be passed by casual contact?

 

Too long. VH1's "I Love The 80s Strikes Back" nostalgia show has a PSA from 1987(?) with Bob Barker informing watchers that you can't get AIDS from a cat.

 

Falwell is an epic tool. So what?

 

Those lines are simply there to show the cause of a later effect. Although I've ranted about Christian Fundamentalists in the past, this really isn't about them so much.

 

Which is a lie. The administration LACKED CLEAR INFORMATION.

 

THAT IS WHAT RESEARCH FUNDING EXISTS FOR!!!!

 

You only have so much money you CAN spend --- and things like CANCER SHOULD get a considerably larger chunk of the pie than AIDS.

 

So, on one hand, the administration has nothing but fuzzy information about the disease. But getting research done to get some hard facts is a waste of money?

 

Again, I'll ask --- WHAT ELSE COULD HE HAVE DONE?

 

Before '84, the info on the disease was laughingly bad. It's best that you DON'T make national policy when you have precious little info.

 

Responding to these comments is futile when you consider the gathering of evidence through research to be a waste of money, so I won't even try.

[Guest MikeSC]

And gays FOUGHT common sense measures. When there started being REAL evidence that the virus was sexually transmitted and that bath houses were areas where the virus was SPREADING in a frightening manner due to the anonymous sex, gays FOUGHT the closing of them. Fought it tooth and nail.

Sure, the National Organization Of All Gay People suddently formed and fought back against closing bath houses.

 

Look, I'm sure there was some sort of organized resistance, but you can't pin that on every gay person. The owners saw themselves as just trying to run a business (don't get me started) and they resisted. Have you ever seen "And The Band Played On"? It's about this period in history. Since you're probably too busy to read the book, the movie has this scene where Phil Collins (yes, that Phil Collins) plays a bathhouse owner saying he's not interested in shutting down because he's making money hand over fist. That was pretty much the owners' perogative. Not a good one, but hardly representative of all gay people.

 

And in that same bad movie (yes, I saw it) they had a hearing in SF where they discussed closing the bath houses and the gay men screamed and howled about it.

 

AIDS first appeared in 1981. When was it actually NAMED AIDS? When did they have anything resembling a test? When did they have definitive proof of HOW it was transmitted?

 

I'll give you this one, sorta. The term AIDS came in 1982, the test was FDA approved in 1985. But was first noted as being only in gays in the late 70s and early 80s. (Source)

 

Because, AT THE TIME, it appeared to be a GAY-ONLY DISEASE. Reagan's administration didn't name the darned thing.

 

Most observers wanted more money for a disease that afflicted a TINY portion of the population?

 

This is an absolutely cruel stance, but furthermore a foolish one. Diseases DO mutate you know, and we knew that back then.

 

Hardly cruel. EVERY disease's advocacy group wants more money. ALS doesn't get tons of money and it's a far more vicious disease than AIDS. Should THAT get more money than AIDS, even though it affects fewer people?

 

You have to prioritize spending on diseases, seeing as how there isn't an infinite sum of money to be spent. The most legitimate way to do that is to determine which diseases affect more people.

 

Can you justify spending more on AIDS research than cancer research?

 

No matter HOW you prioritize spending, you're going to be "cruel" to somebody.

 

Sure, THAT is a great idea. How long did it take for it to become clear that it couldn't be passed by casual contact?

 

Too long. VH1's "I Love The 80s Strikes Back" nostalgia show has a PSA from 1987(?) with Bob Barker informing watchers that you can't get AIDS from a cat.

 

So, you want Reagan's administration to go out and discuss AIDS when info on it is sketchy? Yeah, great idea.

 

Which is a lie. The administration LACKED CLEAR INFORMATION.

 

THAT IS WHAT RESEARCH FUNDING EXISTS FOR!!!!

 

AND YOU ONLY HAVE SO MUCH MONEY YOU CAN SPEND ON RESEARCH FUNDING.

 

THUS, YOU HAVE TO PRIORITIZE SPENDING ON DISEASES.

 

There are untold number of disease researchers ALL begging for money. Money that goes to AIDS comes from cancer, ALS, etc research. I guess you're darned cruel for not even caring about the other diseases.

 

You only have so much money you CAN spend --- and things like CANCER SHOULD get a considerably larger chunk of the pie than AIDS.

 

So, on one hand, the administration has nothing but fuzzy information about the disease. But getting research done to get some hard facts is a waste of money?

 

Wow, you do construct straw men with the best of them, don't you?

 

Getting hard facts is well worth the money. But you have MANY OTHER DISEASES to research. And you don't have infinite money to spend on all of them. So it's a zero-sum game. What goes to AIDS comes from others.

 

So a disease that, at the time, affected maybe 1% of the population, should get more money than cancer and the like?

 

Again, I'll ask --- WHAT ELSE COULD HE HAVE DONE?

 

Before '84, the info on the disease was laughingly bad. It's best that you DON'T make national policy when you have precious little info.

 

Responding to these comments is futile when you consider the gathering of evidence through research to be a waste of money, so I won't even try.

 

How about you buy a clue and understand what I wrote rather than trying to play the role of indignant liberal?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Quoting your post breaks the board and all sorts of HTML pops up, so I'll have to use italics.

 

And in that same bad movie (yes, I saw it) they had a hearing in SF where they discussed closing the bath houses and the gay men screamed and howled about it.

 

Right, and while there's some dangerous and risky types in any group of people, not ALL gay people were interested in having bareback sex at the local bathhouse regardless of AIDS. I doubt those people were resisting the government pressure either. It was the people who owned those places.

 

The problem of your thinking is that you seem to think all gay people had no problem with the spreading of AIDS even though it was killing people. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion.

 

Because, AT THE TIME, it appeared to be a GAY-ONLY DISEASE. Reagan's administration didn't name the darned thing.

 

I'm not blaming Reagan at all. You asked if they knew how it was transmitted at the time Reagan was taking office, and I was saying that the answer was yes, since they already figured out only the gay people were getting it.

 

You have to prioritize spending on diseases, seeing as how there isn't an infinite sum of money to be spent. The most legitimate way to do that is to determine which diseases affect more people.

 

Can you justify spending more on AIDS research than cancer research?

 

You know, there is a difference between spending a bit of the money and not spending one red cent of it. You make a good point but again see things too much in black and white when reality is shades of grey. Who said he had to spend more of it than was being spent on cancer?

 

I'm not saying they had throw money into it like wood into a furnace, I'm saying it would have helped more if they chose to spend a damn fraction of it, even.

 

Getting hard facts is well worth the money. But you have MANY OTHER DISEASES to research.

 

Okay, so the amount of money being spent looking for a cure for Cancer, a much higher-spreading disease that is affecting many more people, is appearantly just as much research money as it would take to learn about HIV and educate the public? That suddently makes no sense.

 

I agree they shouldn't have gone off immediately spending millions looking for a cure (something we haven't gotten to now with more money and time,) but gaining knowledge, which you admit we had a very clear lack of, is a good thing and shouldn't cost nearly as much as is being spent on it now.

 

You're saying the government was mostly clueless as to the details, your mom was mostly clueless as to the details, then think about how in the dark the general public was.

[Vyce 0]

It's like an SAT word analogy.

 

Ronald Reagan is to Bill Clinton as Bill Clinton is to Ronald Reagan.

 

Both accomplished some significant things in their tenure as president.

 

And their enemies in the opposite political party will do everything in their power to paint them in a negative light and destroy / minimalize their legacy.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

An interesting post, Vyce, and certainly not the one I expected.

 

There's a lot of truth in that, I guess.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quoting your post breaks the board and all sorts of HTML pops up, so I'll have to use italics.

 

Nothing taken personally.

 

And in that same bad movie (yes, I saw it) they had a hearing in SF where they discussed closing the bath houses and the gay men screamed and howled about it.

 

Right, and while there's some dangerous and risky types in any group of people, not ALL gay people were interested in having bareback sex at the local bathhouse regardless of AIDS. I doubt those people were resisting the government pressure either. It was the people who owned those places.

 

The problem of your thinking is that you seem to think all gay people had no problem with the spreading of AIDS even though it was killing people. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion.

 

What I'm saying is that there was considerable outcry from the gay community --- the most at-risk community (still) for the disease --- over the most common sense policies.

 

Because, AT THE TIME, it appeared to be a GAY-ONLY DISEASE. Reagan's administration didn't name the darned thing.

 

I'm not blaming Reagan at all. You asked if they knew how it was transmitted at the time Reagan was taking office, and I was saying that the answer was yes, since they already figured out only the gay people were getting it.

 

The first case, I believe, appeared here in 1981 and we had NO clue what it was for a long while. Then, early on, the ONLY thing we knew was that gay men seemed to be getting it. The realization that it was passed PRIMARILY through sexual activities took YEARS (and, yes, I'm more then fully aware that you can contract AIDS in other manners).

 

You have to prioritize spending on diseases, seeing as how there isn't an infinite sum of money to be spent. The most legitimate way to do that is to determine which diseases affect more people.

 

Can you justify spending more on AIDS research than cancer research?

 

You know, there is a difference between spending a bit of the money and not spending one red cent of it. You make a good point but again see things too much in black and white when reality is shades of grey. Who said he had to spend more of it than was being spent on cancer?

 

Some money WAS spent on it. Lots of money? No --- because the disease affected precious few people.

 

I'm not saying they had throw money into it like wood into a furnace, I'm saying it would have helped more if they chose to spend a damn fraction of it, even.

 

They gave some money to a disease that --- and this isn't a stretch --- that people assumed might not be a huge problem long-term.

 

Getting hard facts is well worth the money. But you have MANY OTHER DISEASES to research.

 

Okay, so the amount of money being spent looking for a cure for Cancer, a much higher-spreading disease that is affecting many more people, is appearantly just as much research money as it would take to learn about HIV and educate the public? That suddently makes no sense.

 

OK, we'll go with an analogy.

 

Let's say you have $100 for medical research. You don't have more.

 

So, you have to decide what to spend the $100 on.

 

So, what diseases get the most money? Which ones get the least money? It's not a FUN job, but somebody has to prioritize which diseases get how much money.

 

I agree they shouldn't have gone off immediately spending millions looking for a cure (something we haven't gotten to now with more money and time,) but gaining knowledge, which you admit we had a very clear lack of, is a good thing and shouldn't cost nearly as much as is being spent on it now.

 

Umm, we knew how to avoid it for a long time now. I don't see AIDS being all but gone yet, even though it is quite difficult to catch it.

 

And, very much in Reagan's defense, can you name how many of the budgets he proposed that were actually passed by Congress?

 

The answer: not a single one.

 

You're saying the government was mostly clueless as to the details, your mom was mostly clueless as to the details, then think about how in the dark the general public was.

 

But there are untold thousands of diseases at the time that were just as deadly and affected miniscule portions of the population. Hindsight is 20/20 here.

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Criticizing the content is one thing, but getting pissy over who's playing a part because of who they are married to is just childish. It's not like Al Franken is playing him either or something. If Gary Oldman was cast as a Democrat president, I don't see what would be wrong with that provided he could pull the part off well. Looking at those pics of Brolin as Reagan, it certainly seems he's got the look down reasonably well, at any rate.

[Slayer 0]

We can make the "Ronald Reagan Movie Drinking Game"

 

Ex:

1 shot everytime he says "Well..."

[The Robfather 0]

The way I see it, if they are going for ridiculous lies, mis-quotes, and distortions, why not go all out? Make it a musical, add huge dance numbers, and maybe a car chase or two.

 

This is so silly. What was CBS thinking? If they were low blows in this movie, it was going to come out. I must say, I do find it quite amusing. It looks like the public outcry over their revisionist history has forced them to backpedal.

[Guest MikeSC]

Criticizing the content is one thing, but getting pissy over who's playing a part because of who they are married to is just childish. It's not like Al Franken is playing him either or something. If Gary Oldman was cast as a Democrat president, I don't see what would be wrong with that provided he could pull the part off well. Looking at those pics of Brolin as Reagan, it certainly seems he's got the look down reasonably well, at any rate.

When you have the husband of as outspoken a Democrat as humanly possible playing a President in a film that is, by early accounts, quite the hit piece --- criticism is inevitable.

 

Oldman was a Dem? I don't remember him playing a political role outside of "The Contender" --- and I thought he was supposed to be a GOP in that movie (which was pretty good)

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

The way I see it, if they are going for ridiculous lies, mis-quotes, and distortions, why not go all out? Make it a musical, add huge dance numbers, and maybe a car chase or two.

 

This is so silly. What was CBS thinking? If they were low blows in this movie, it was going to come out. I must say, I do find it quite amusing. It looks like the public outcry over their revisionist history has forced them to backpedal.

Wow, it'd be like "Cop Rock".

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Criticizing the content is one thing, but getting pissy over who's playing a part because of who they are married to is just childish. It's not like Al Franken is playing him either or something. If Gary Oldman was cast as a Democrat president, I don't see what would be wrong with that provided he could pull the part off well. Looking at those pics of Brolin as Reagan, it certainly seems he's got the look down reasonably well, at any rate.

When you have the husband of as outspoken a Democrat as humanly possible playing a President in a film that is, by early accounts, quite the hit piece --- criticism is inevitable.

 

Oldman was a Dem? I don't remember him playing a political role outside of "The Contender" --- and I thought he was supposed to be a GOP in that movie (which was pretty good)

-=Mike

I was just using Oldman because he's a reasonably outspoken conservative (in fact he criticized his role in "The Contender" upon viewing the movie after the fact because he thought it made Republicans look bad), but also a reasonably accomplished actor, as is Brolin. We arn't talking about a bunch of hacks here.

[Slayer 0]

Source

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CBS is considering canceling or postponing its upcoming mini-series "The Reagans" under mounting Republican criticism that the production inaccurately depicts the former president and his wife, Daily Variety reported on Monday

   

Also, the director of the four-hour TV movie, Robert Allan Ackerman, has quit the production over creative differences with CBS executives who have insisted on numerous last-minute alterations to the mini-series, the Hollywood trade paper said.

 

Depending on the nature of the final cuts, Ackerman may ask the Directors Guild of America to remove his name from the movie in protest, Variety said.

 

Neither producers for the two-part film, slated to air Nov. 16 and 18, nor Ackerman's representative, could immediately be reached for comment.

 

A CBS executive, David Marko, director of movies and miniseries for the Viacom Inc.-owned network, declined to comment on the report.

 

But CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves acknowledged on CNBC last week that "there are some edits being made trying to present a more fair picture of the Reagans."

 

"We've looked at the rough cut. There are things we like ... there are things we don't like ... there are things we think go too far," he told the cable news channel.

 

The only comment from the Reagans themselves has come from former first lady Nancy Reagan, who in a brief statement issued last week to the Fox News Channel said, "The timing of (the mini-series) is absolutely staggering to me. Obviously, it's very hurtful."

 

She apparently was referring to the fact that the 92-year-old former president is severely ill with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites).

 

Variety, citing unnamed sources linked to the production, said Moonves will decide in the next few days whether to pull the mini-series from the network's November schedule altogether and possibly reschedule it for a later date once he is satisfied with the final edits.

 

Moonves also has mulled the possibility of moving the mini-series onto sister pay-cable network Showtime, Variety said.

 

However, if Moonves goes ahead with plans to air "The Reagans" on Nov. 16 as planned, the final product is likely to differ substantially from the film that Reagan supporters have criticized, with many controversial scenes heavily edited or cut from the production, Variety said.

 

The furor over the mini-series arose after the New York Times, which obtained a copy of the script, reported last month that the film portrays the former president and his wife, Nancy Reagan, in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of what political conservatives regard as his key achievements.

 

In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.

 

Adding insult to injury, as far as Republicans are concerned, the Gipper himself is played by James Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand. Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are self-described liberals, as are the film's two executive producers, Craig Zadan and Neil Meron.

 

On Friday, Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie asked the network to allow a team of scholars to review the film in advance for historical accuracy. Otherwise, he said, CBS should inform viewers that the film is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans.

[Guest JMA]

Like I said before, the production needs to just use HARD FACTS. No add-ons or speculation. I'm no Reagan supporter, but fairness must be maintained.

[Justice 0]

In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.

 

What the FUCK? I don't think this seems all too unbiased anymore...

[Guest JMA]

In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.

 

What the FUCK? I don't think this seems all too unbiased anymore...

I have to agree with you there.

[Guest SideFXs]

Like I said before, the production needs to just use HARD FACTS. No add-ons or speculation. I'm no Reagan supporter, but fairness must be maintained.

The people who demand tolerance and fairness seem to be the most intolerant and bias.

 

A scene show's Nancy reacting to an alzheimer's spell in 1985, in the Oval Office. President Reagan's Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed 8 years later, in 1993

 

Oh, keep coming with the lies you liberal nutts. This movie should put Babbs permanently under certifiably insane, in most peoples minds.

 

Its funny, she just can't get out of her own way and wants to control everything. What's wrong Barbra, you got tired of trying to find out what's wrong with you, so now you focus on what's wrong with everyone else? Now there is a path that leads to insanity.

 

She is almost there. Brolin should get out now, before the shit really hits the fan back at home in Malibu.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I was just watching a certain cable news commentator whose network, in the year 2003, makes me laugh out loud, and he read a few lines from this show, when Ronnie was talking to his future better half. It went something like this.

 

"Come here mommy. Do you wanna marry me?"

 

WTF?

 

Too bad they made this into some one-time mini-series and not a pilot for a comedy series -- it has potential.

 

Hey, Rob, nice to see you back -- thanks for the VH1 South Park heads-up by the way...

[Guest JMA]

The people who demand tolerance and fairness seem to be the most intolerant and bias.

Not necessarily. Plenty of people who demand fairness and tolerance DO really want those things.

 

Oh, keep coming with the lies you liberal nutts.  This movie should put Babbs permanently under certifiably insane, in most peoples minds.

Liberals aren't the only ones spouting lies to further their agendas. It's not as simple as black and white.

 

Its funny, she just can't get out of her own way and wants to control everything.  What's wrong Barbra, you got tired of trying to find out what's wrong with you, so now you focus on what's wrong with everyone else?  Now there is a path that leads to insanity.

I have to agree with you here. I find Baps to be very annoying.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Did CBS ever make attempts to say this movie was a factual account of history? I'm curious.

 

 

And yet that movie where the That's My Bush guy plays Dubya With CAJONES~! in the middle of 9/11 goes by unnoticed.

[Justice 0]

Did CBS ever make attempts to say this movie was a factual account of history? I'm curious.

 

 

And yet that movie where the That's My Bush guy plays Dubya With CAJONES~! in the middle of 9/11 goes by unnoticed.

In one scene, the character of Reagan says of AIDS (news - web sites) patients, "They that live in sin shall die in sin." There is no evidence that Reagan actually ever said such a thing.

 

Well, I think stuff like the above has something to do with the complaints, Jobber...

[Justice 0]

Oh Christ, turn on that Colin Quinn show. Colin just called Scott Thompson on the whole gay thing, pulling out the pro-gay legislation Reagan passed back in the 70's. While I like the guy, watching him execute a scramble drill to talking about Nancy Reagan was absolutely HILARIOUS. Damn, that was good.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Somebody just got disinvited to the next Babs function...

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

I was just watching a certain cable news commentator whose network, in the year 2003, makes me laugh out loud, and he read a few lines from this show, when Ronnie was talking to his future better half. It went something like this.

 

"Come here mommy. Do you wanna marry me?"

 

WTF?

 

Too bad they made this into some one-time mini-series and not a pilot for a comedy series -- it has potential.

 

Hey, Rob, nice to see you back -- thanks for the VH1 South Park heads-up by the way...

"I would crawl halfway across the country for you!"

 

Yes, this commentator seems to have it in for CBS. He claims that all the networks are talking about it, but I only see him doing anything.

[Guest MD2020]

I was just watching a certain cable news commentator whose network, in the year 2003, makes me laugh out loud, and he read a few lines from this show, when Ronnie was talking to his future better half. It went something like this.

Just want to say that this is one of the best descriptions ever of a news network.

 

As for being on topic, I wouldn't care if it was critical, but when you start making stuff up like that "Live in sin; die in sin" stuff, you've go over the line.

 

As for gays, I saw a quote on another message board talking about this. Basically, some in his administration weren't fond of gays, but Reagan was like "Listen, I'm from Hollywood. I know many gays--just leave them alone".

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yes, this commentator seems to have it in for CBS.  He claims that all the networks are talking about it, but I only see him doing anything.

He did? I would usually think the opposite because You-Know-Who tends to pat himself on the back and say how he's LOOKING OUT FOR YOU when no other network is.

 

Oh, and if we're talking about cable news networks, right-winger Joe Scarborough -- OMG FAU... oh, he's on MSNBC. Nevermind -- has been going on this, too...

[Downhome 0]

Why the fuck didn't they just think ahead about this? Here is the latest news concerning this situation...

 

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

 

NEW YORK - Following a storm of protest and threatened advertiser boycott, CBS announced Tuesday it was pulling "The Reagans" miniseries off the air.

 

 

The network said it was licensing the completed film to Showtime, a pay cable network that, like CBS, is owned by Viacom.

 

 

CBS insisted it was not bowing to pressure about portions of the script, but that the decision was made after seeing the finished film.

 

 

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

 

 

As a broadcast network, CBS has different standards than a pay cable network, CBS said.

 

...so that's that, for now.

[Swift Terror 0]

Well, it is official--CBS will not air 'The Reagans'. Honchos at Viacom have decided to run it on Showtime. Viacom also says this will allow them to show it as the writers intended, whatever that means. Sounds like some of the controversial elements will remain.

 

Jeez, just as I wrote this, I saw the above post.

 

Oh brother, CBS says this decision has nothing to do with the controversy, only that they are unhappy with the finished film themselves? So we're supposed to believe they would have done the same thing had no one complained? That's funny.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, and if we're talking about cable news networks, right-winger Joe Scarborough -- OMG FAU... oh, he's on MSNBC. Nevermind -- has been going on this, too...

He should have been fired when he brought someone on his show to take a shit on a company that he's suing, while acting on-air like an innocent observer with no ties either way.