"The Reagans"

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oy. Because I just said "you can win without the South!!!!" didn't I?

 

Thanks for the polysci lesson, though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

TheMikeSC: Making himself irrelevant since 1998.

 

Wanna compare verbal gaffes?

Like I'll waste the time getting into this pissing contest with you. I don't need to play "My dick is bigger than yours".

-=Mike

You don't?

 

So you didn't just post five topics in a row with the basis of "DEMOSPLATS SUCK REPUBLICANS RULE!!!!"

 

Oh.

Dems provide such ample material.

 

But, hey, if YOU have no problem with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence being used for political purposes --- more power to you.

Regardless, it's still -- your words -- a "pissing contest" and you're a vapid hypocrite.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oy. Because I just said "you can win without the South!!!!" didn't I?

 

Thanks for the polysci lesson, though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dean wants to win the WH.

 

He's alienating the South.

 

You don't win without the South.

 

And, trust me, you NEED the poli.sci help.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Regardless, it's still -- your words -- a "pissing contest" and you're a vapid hypocrite.

Was referring to a verbal gaffes fight, but hey, think what you wish.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Look at the context of the quote.

I did, thanks. Here are his exact words:

 

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

 

Nothing was taken out of context.

 

It wasn't pandering, it was saying that he needs the South to vote for him to win the Confederacy

So, now you're equating the South and the Confederacy? Here's another tip: Howard Dean cannot win the Confederacy. That's because there is no Confederacy. There hasn't been for over a hundred years. Might want to bring your boy up to date on the current century.

 

Because, after all, nobody has ever made the connection that South = Redneck EVER EVER EVER, right?

What are you trying to say here? All Southerners are rednecks? Southerners are commonly thought of as rednecks, and that makes Dean's appeal to a Southern stereotype acceptable? Other people do it too, so why can't we?

 

Y'know, when you're caught in your contradictions you look even more pathetic as your candidate. He just stupidly bulls ahead and refuses to acknowledge he's been wounded. You desperately try to twist, decontextualise, trivialise, deny, and nuance every syllable of every word you've ever said.

[Guest MikeSC]

It wasn't pandering, it was saying that he needs the South to vote for him to win the Confederacy

So, now you're equating the South and the Confederacy? Here's another tip: Howard Dean cannot win the Confederacy. That's because there is no Confederacy. There hasn't been for over a hundred years. Might want to bring your boy up to date on the current century.

 

Because, after all, nobody has ever made the connection that South = Redneck EVER EVER EVER, right?

What are you trying to say here? All Southerners are rednecks? Southerners are commonly thought of as rednecks, and that makes Dean's appeal to a Southern stereotype acceptable? Other people do it too, so why can't we?

 

It's really not worth it, Marney (though I will admit that it perversely fun to watch him squirm). In his eyes, all Southerners are bigots and probably inbred yokels. This has been the view of the North for years now. We're all too stupid to know better.

 

Which is why the Dems have, historically, done REAL bad here. In their eyes, it's because we're racists and bigots.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I AM a Southerner, you freaking dolt.

 

I'm hardly "squirming", but thanks.

[Firestarter 0]

I AM a Southerner, you freaking dolt.

That's nice, but it doesn't get you a free pass. Care to explain yourself? How were Dean's comments taken out of context? No, he didn't endorse the Confederate flag or slavery or racism, as some of his fellow candidates tried to claim, but he did say that in order to win the South he had to appeal to voters who, he seems to think, do endorse one or more of those three things. Is that right so far? Now, do you agree with that assessment? Does Dean need to appeal to racists, rednecks, and the historically ignorant or willfully deluded in order to win the South? If you say yes, you're saying that a majority or at least a plurality of Southerners can fairly be thus characterised. If you say no, you're admitting that Dean was flat-out wrong.

And let's keep in mind that there's a moral dimension to this issue as well. If I were running for any public office in the United States, let alone President, I wouldn't want the votes of racists, rednecks, and fools. I wouldn't claim I wanted to be their candidate. I'd tell them, in so many words, "Don't you dare vote for me. You disgust and appall me, and it shames me that people like you still exist in this time, in our country. There is no room for you in my party and there is no room for you in my campaign. I refuse to be associated with you and should you offer your support I will reject it. If elected, I will represent you honourably, as I would any other constituents, but I will not advance your sectional interests, and I will do my best to ensure that our posterity will not be burdened by your evil, your hatred, and your ignorance. God bless America, but damn you to hell."

[Firestarter 0]

This has been the view of the North for years now. We're all too stupid to know better.

 

Which is why the Dems have, historically, done REAL bad here. In their eyes, it's because we're racists and bigots.

Right right, and we hate all those damn niggers like Al Gore they keep a-nominatin'. We only want white people like Janice Rogers Brown, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice in power in this country.

 

 

 

Wait a minute...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No, I'm not saying the comment was an intelligent one at all. He used a stupid stereotype of a southerner which people like myself absolutely despise. However, as you admitted, it's NOT an endorsement of the lifestyle etc. and claiming that this means that he won't get the black vote is both absurd and pointless with which to argue. Yes, he should get rid of the stereotyping. No, it's not some outrageous, horrible slur that deserves a national forum on Howard Dean's TRUE motivation concerning the virtues of the Confederacy and slavery.

[Justice 0]

Odd that no one has made the point that the last three democratic presidents have all been Southern Democrats.

 

Anyways, Tyler, on the movie: When it apparently has incredibly slanderous quotes like the most common one ("They that live in sin shall die in sin.", and you can't take that out of context.) which has literally no basis and is character assasination for a man who can't even fight back, there's cause for outrage. I don't see how anyone can still defend this series when it is so obviously biased.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

We only want white people like Janice Rogers Brown, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice in power in this country.

But you're not a "Real" black unless you get the Jesse Jackson/Poo-Face/NAACP stamp-of-approval...

[Guest MikeSC]

No, I'm not saying the comment was an intelligent one at all. He used a stupid stereotype of a southerner which people like myself absolutely despise. However, as you admitted, it's NOT an endorsement of the lifestyle etc. and claiming that this means that he won't get the black vote is both absurd and pointless with which to argue. Yes, he should get rid of the stereotyping. No, it's not some outrageous, horrible slur that deserves a national forum on Howard Dean's TRUE motivation concerning the virtues of the Confederacy and slavery.

BUT, he was GIVEN several chances to admit he said something stupid --- AND REFUSED to do it. He REFUSED to apologize for even a poor choice of words. Not many people are given a chance to CORRECT their blunders; he was given SEVERAL.

 

It's not like he made a gaffe and tried to retract it later and couldn't. He was GIVEN the lifeline OVER AND OVER --- and refused to take it.

 

And his views on the South are why he CAN'T win the South. As a Northerner, he ALREADY has to prove to the South that he DOESN'T think of us as yokels and hayseeds --- and he's done a real bang-up job thus far.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

More columns on Howard Dean and the Confederate flag:

 

Jay Bryant

Jonah Goldberg

Charles Krauthammer

 

This is the funniest story since we were treated to a discourse on what the definition of "is" is. Governor Dean has a beautiful gift for pissing people off. I mean how often do you manage to offend the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Ku Klux Klan all at once? Years from now, conservatives are still going to be telling and retelling this one with a sort of pure childlike glee. Please, oh please, let Howard Dean get the nomination. I'll be laughing myself silly with every vote.

 

"Classic Democratic marksmanship - he shot himself in the foot three times."

- Jonah Goldberg

 

 

 

Tyler? Comments?

 

<collapses in an uncontrollable gigglefit>

[Firestarter 0]

Oh, and Wesley Clark has expressed an interest in time travel.

 

Jesus God, I can't wait for 2004. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, this campaign will be sheer joy to watch.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, and Wesley Clark has expressed an interest in time travel.

No scientifically sillier than George W's beliefs in God.

[Firestarter 0]

Eh. Science has absolutely nothing to say about God.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Still, the point remains that we've had wars started and people killed on both sides and he's still going on about how he knows God is on our side.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, and Wesley Clark has expressed an interest in time travel.

No scientifically sillier than George W's beliefs in God.

I figure we'll hear this line out of Dean's mouth soon enough.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

When I read Dean's comments, it sounded like the worst kind of pandering.

 

I can vaguely understand the sentiments. Something like "We need to win back the votes of those proud of their heritage, such as those who still remember the confederancy."

 

I mean I could see that. I think I'm actually more offended by the whole pickup line. Why didn't he just say "I'd like to get the redneck votes, please." I mean, at least then he would have said please.

 

I just don't understand what exactly he was trying to say here...

[teke184 0]

When I read Dean's comments, it sounded like the worst kind of pandering.

 

I can vaguely understand the sentiments. Something like "We need to win back the votes of those proud of their heritage, such as those who still remember the confederancy."

 

I mean I could see that. I think I'm actually more offended by the whole pickup line. Why didn't he just say "I'd like to get the redneck votes, please." I mean, at least then he would have said please.

 

I just don't understand what exactly he was trying to say here...

Let's see...

 

White Southerners are referred to as:

 

Racists (Because EVERYONE outside the south sees the flag as racist no matter what the person who uses the design of the flag actually thinks)

 

Rednecks (Because God forbid anyone realize that cities are cities and the boon docks are the boon docks in OTHER parts of the country. If you added a little more heavy industry to Mississippi and moved it to New England, it would be like having another New Jersey.)

 

 

Pickup-truck drivers (Yeah... everyone in the South owns a pickup truck and, because I live in Louisiana, I ride a pirough to work and have fucking alligators in my yard.)

 

 

Dean's already got a bullseye on him from all of the other Democrats in the race and may not get the nomination if he makes a few more missteps. Even if he does get it, he's in serious trouble.

[Firestarter 0]

Back to the original topic:

White House budget documents from the 1980s show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education and treatment. In 1998, the Congressional Research Service's Judith Johnson reported that the administration spent $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS from 1982 to 1989, with average AIDS outlays growing a generous 128.92 percent a year.

"The Encyclopedia of AIDS" repeats another widespread myth: that Reagan never said the word "AIDS" until 1987. In fact, no later than Sept. 17, 1985, Reagan told reporters, "ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS... Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer..."

Reagan penned a newspaper column to condemn Proposition 6, a November 1978 ballot measure that targeted California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality. The measure lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat... that Ronald Reagan did nothing, or worse, about AIDS and hated gays, to boot, is a tired, left-wing lie about an American legend.

- The Big AIDS Lie by Deroy Murdock

[Guest MikeSC]

Some op-ed pieces about the show:

 

Apathy, not outrage, was the reaction of viewers to the "controversial" TV movie "The Reagans," according to final numbers on the three-hour Showtime telecast.

 

A mere 1.15 million people bothered to watch the new movie, which found itself on the Viacom-owned pay cable network after the chief of Viacom-owned CBS drank a big glass of Republican National Committee Kool-Aid, abruptly decided that the project he had ordered for the November sweep, the period when stations use ratings to set ad prices, was insufficiently flattering toward the former president, and cut bait.

 

Most Americans, judging by the turnout, did not care enough to see what the fuss was all about to sign up for Showtime and watch the movie, though 1.1 million viewers is twice the audience Showtime usually enjoys in the slot. But it pales compared with the 16 million who instead watched CBS's free-but-cloying Valerie Bertinelli flick "Finding John Christmas" Sunday night. It's also slightly less than half the number of pay-cable viewers who opted to watch a rerun of "The Sopranos," the latest episode of "Carnivale" and the first half of the '02 flick "Fear dot com" on HBO in the same time slot.

 

The very next night, only about half a million bothered to return to Showtime to watch the panel discussion "Controversy: 'The Reagans.' "

 

This was a blessing for moderator Frank Sesno, because it means that hardly anyone witnessed him lose control of the shrieking panelists about four minutes in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2003Dec3.html

Not TOO left-leaning there. Nope.

During Showtime’s Monday night panel, Controversy: The Reagans, two liberals, Marvin Kalb and Lou Cannon, denounced the inaccurate portrayal of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in the movie switched from CBS to an airing Sunday night on Showtime. In addition, a co-producer of the film contradicted Showtime’s CEO and admitted that the movie was not historically accurate, answering “no” when asked if the movie was “meant to be historically true?”

 

    Meanwhile, on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes on Monday night, Ronald Reagan’s adopted son Michael condemned the portrayal he saw of his father, complaining: “They made my father look like Mr. Magoo.” And as for the repeated instances in the movie of Ronald calling his wife “Nancy-pants,” Michael Reagan revealed: “I never heard my dad call Nancy 'Nancy-pants.’”

 

    During the 9pm EST panel show from Washington, DC on Showtime, and simulcast on C-SPAN, former NBC News correspondent Marvin Kalb, who is now with the Shorenstein Center at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University, asserted: “The tone of it was insensitive, I think it was hostile in many places. I think when one realizes that President Reagan is in California in the tail end of a deep siege with Alzheimer’s, this is not the time to do this kind of a movie.”

 

    After panel moderator Frank Sesno, a CNN veteran, ran a clip from the movie in which Holmes Tuttle, Mike Deaver and others in 1965 discuss how to convince Reagan to run for Governor of California, a scene in which they talk about how they can teach Reagan what to say and they suggest that they’ve been “talking to the wrong Reagan,” meaning Nancy really decides for her husband, former Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon, who has penned several biographies of Ronald Reagan, rued:

    “It’s hard to imagine a cartoon that could be that bad. Here is a guy, Ronald Reagan, who has been in politics most of his life, he’s been involved in a student strike as a freshman, he’s been all through that gritty politics of the New Deal, the Democrats want him to run for Congress in the '50s. He’d given a speech for Barry Goldwater in '64. He was in politics....It’s so bad, that I don’t even know how they got there.”

 

    Later, Cannon added: “I’m sure everybody on this panel and that you remember the famous debate where Lloyd Bentsen says to Dan Quayle, you know, 'I know John F. Kennedy and you’re no John F. Kennedy.’ Well I do know Ronald Reagan. This isn’t Ronald Reagan. And I know Nancy Reagan and this isn’t Nancy Reagan.”

 

    For a look at some of Cannon’s books on Reagan, see these Amazon.com pages:

 

    For, Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power: www.amazon.com

 

    For, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime: www.amazon.com

 

    For, Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio: History as Told through the Collection of the Ronald Reagan Library and Museum: www.amazon.com

 

    When Martin Anderson, a long-time friend of the Reagans and a domestic policy adviser in the Reagan White House, pointed how the producers and CBS had said the movie was “historically accurate,” Sesno put the question to Carl Sferrazza Anthony, an author of a book on First Ladies who carried the title of “co-producer” of The Reagans, but seemed to have little to really do with it: “Speak for the film makers here for a moment: Was this, is this meant to be historically true?” Sferrazza Anthony emphatically answered: “No.”

 

    But in a taped message which aired before the movie, Showtime Chairman and CEO Matt Blank had maintained: “As you probably know, The Reagans has been criticized by those who have yet to see it as an unbalanced denouncement of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. We believe it is, in fact, an honest portrayal of many of the turning points in his life and in his political career....A diligent attempt was made by the filmmakers to have factual sources for every scene in this movie. For dramatic purposes, some dialogue has been embellished and some characters are composites. But nearly all of the historical facts in the movie can be substantiated and have been carefully researched.”

 

    And last Wednesday morning on FNC’s Fox & Friends, MRC analyst Amanda Monson noticed, Blank insisted “we think it is” when asked if the movie would reflect “an accurate depiction” of the lives of the Reagans.

 

    The November 26 exchange:

 

    Steve Doocy: “Well, I’m sure you’re going to have a big audience because people are wanting to see what all the controversy is about. The big question though is, is the version you’re going to run an accurate depiction of what the Reagans life has been like?”

 

    Blank: “Well, we think it is. Obviously some people will disagree. At the end of this movie you’ll learn that Ronald Reagan is a man who entered the Cold War, brought down the Iron Curtain. He also was a man involved in Iran Contra, who didn’t mention the word AIDS for seven years of his administration. The Ron and Nancy Reagan story is one of the great love stories of our time and yes, Nancy Reagan was a very tough woman and a very demanding woman. And I think that it’ll be a very balanced portrayal of their life and Ronald Reagan's presidency.”

 

    But, as Micheal Reagan, a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host, noted on FNC’s Hannity & Colmes on Monday night: “The reality of it is, if I can jump in for a moment, the only time you got anything positive out of this show last night was if you stayed awake long enough and you were willing to suffer through the terrible acting to get to the end when they scrolled at the end to show you what my father accomplished as President of the United States of America. Nowhere during the movie did they really, really get into what he did for America, what he did for the military.”

 

    Indeed, the movie did not credit Reagan with winning the Cold War and only in a post-movie bit of text on screen did viewers learn:

“A year after Reagan left office,

the Berlin Wall came down,

ushering in the eventual

dissolution of the Soviet Union.”

 

    The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth took down some of Michael Reagan’s comments:

 

    -- Sean Hannity: “Did you watch the whole thing, Michael?”

    Michael Reagan: “Yeah, I want my money back. I had to pay to get Showtime into my house, Sean. I called today and cancelled it. ...You know, after watching it, I got to tell you, Sean, after watching it, I would like to say we conservatives pressured CBS into moving over to Showtime. After watching it, we didn’t have to pressure them at all. I think CBS looked at the show and saw the terrible job that they did, terrible acting job, the way it was portrayed, and said, 'This is a piece of trash, send it over to Showtime. They’ll buy anything.’”

 

    -- Reagan: “This was a 'trash Nancy’ movie. My goodness gracious. If Nancy, Nancy should have put her head under the covers last night when this movie was on.”

    Alan Colmes: “They made her, but, Michael, let me ask you something. Didn’t they make Nancy look a lot worse than they made your dad look?”

    Reagan: “Oh, my good gracious, yeah, absolutely right. There was no redeeming qualities about Nancy in this movie at all. And I’ll tell you, if I would have heard my dad call her 'Nancy-pants’ one more time, I would have shot the TV with a shotgun. I never heard my dad call Nancy 'Nancy-pants.’”

 

    -- Reagan: “But the reality of this whole thing is, the way it was really, you know, portrayed, the whole thing, was just, it was just so disingenuous to my father. They made my father look like Mr. Magoo. And, listen, it wasn’t Mr. Magoo running the White House. It was President Ronald Reagan. ...”

 

    -- Hannity: “I would say this isn’t so much about one version or interpretation. This is about real character assassination. And as you once said, this really took your father, this affable, lovable man, and just portrayed him as a bumbling idiot who was-“

    Reagan: “Mr. Magoo.”

    Hannity: “And that was the point because liberals wanted to rewrite history. And Barbra Streisand’s husband has a political agenda.”

    Reagan: “And they also tried to infer through the whole McFarlane thing that somehow he had Alzheimer’s early on in the administration, which is something...the liberal left have always believed.”

 

    Monday morning on NBC’s Today, Katie Couric allowed former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan to run through what she found most inaccurate about the movie but then, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens noticed, Couric pointed out how “many people bemoaned what happened,” when Viacom, in the wake of conservative protest, moved the movie from CBS to Showtime, “as a real loss for free speech in this country.”

 

    Couric asked on the December 1 Today: “In closing, what about, just a quick note about the brouhaha that ensued. Many people bemoaned what happened as a, as a real loss for free speech in this country. Other, others, I mean obviously this, sort of, brought up all sorts of different feelings. And I’m just curious now after all is said and done what do you think about CBS’s decision to move it to cable? Do you think they, they buckled under pressure that they shouldn’t have buckled under or they did the right thing and it was a so-called moral decision?”

 

    Noonan said she believes CBS Chairman Les Moonves did the right thing when he dropped it from CBS when he realized it was political propaganda and she marveled at the “spontaneous uprising” by the public when many saw the movie as “unfair,” and “that’s free speech.”

 

    Showtime has scheduled three more airings of The Reagans:

 

-- Thursday, December 4 at 8pm EST on Showtime East, 8pm PST on Showtime West

-- Saturday, December 6 at 8pm EST on Showtime Too East, 8pm PST on Showtime Too West

-- Wednesday, December 10 at 8pm EST on Showtime East and 8pm PST on Showtime West

 

    The Thursday one, any maybe the others, will be followed by a re-play of the hour-long panel show.

 

    For my take on the movie, see the December 1 CyberAlert: I spent three hours -- two hours and 53 minutes to be exact -- on Sunday night watching The Reagans on Showtime so I could spare you the pain: The movie was every bit as awful as conservatives feared with a belittling portrayal of Ronald Reagan. The movie delivered a cartoonish Ronald Reagan who read words fed to him by others, seemed capable only of uttering short quips about “commies” and “big government” and followed the orders of others -- mainly an all-controlling Nancy Reagan who came across every bit as what rhymes with witch. One reviewer observed: “We get Iran-Contra, but not Reagan's 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.’ We get the stupefyingly ill-advised visit to a cemetery where Nazi SS troops were buried, but not the Reagans teary-eyed at the memorial for the Challenger astronauts.” www.mediaresearch.org

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031202.asp#4

 

Just a taste of what was said about the hit piece --- I mean "movie"

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Back to the original topic:

White House budget documents from the 1980s show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education and treatment. In 1998, the Congressional Research Service's Judith Johnson reported that the administration spent $5.727 billion on HIV/AIDS from 1982 to 1989, with average AIDS outlays growing a generous 128.92 percent a year.

"The Encyclopedia of AIDS" repeats another widespread myth: that Reagan never said the word "AIDS" until 1987. In fact, no later than Sept. 17, 1985, Reagan told reporters, "ncluding what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS... Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer..."

Reagan penned a newspaper column to condemn Proposition 6, a November 1978 ballot measure that targeted California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality. The measure lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat... that Ronald Reagan did nothing, or worse, about AIDS and hated gays, to boot, is a tired, left-wing lie about an American legend.

- The Big AIDS Lie by Deroy Murdock

There was also that AIDS pamphlet that was mailed to every single person in America. No disease has ever had that done for them.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I wonder if Ms. de Moraes also wrote that Paramount DIDN'T drink a big glass of GLAAD Kool-Aid when those "First Amendment bin Ladens" tried to get Dr. Laura off the air before her TV show had one episode broadcast...

[Ripper 0]

So...are we going to ignore that the state of georgia was won by the republicans on the back of the confederate flag and the republican party flat out said they were trying to attract?

 

Lets not act like Dean's comments, no matter how stupid, didn't have some truth to it.

 

And to say that the Confederacy isn't celebrated in the south makes me wonder if you are talking about South America or South Dakota because in these southern states, it certainly is still celebrated.

[Guest Cerebus]

So...are we going to ignore that the state of georgia was won by the republicans on the back of the confederate flag and the republican party flat out said they were trying to attract?

 

Lets not act like Dean's comments, no matter how stupid, didn't have some truth to it. 

 

And to say that the Confederacy isn't celebrated in the south makes me wonder if you are talking about South America or South Dakota because in these southern states, it certainly is still celebrated.

Ok how many times did Sonny Perdue actually mention the flag? Or Mark Sanford in South Carolina for that matter?

Edited December 6, 2003 by cerebus316

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Fun Fact: James Brolin is one of only two Americans seriously considered for James Bond by EON. Roger Moore demanded a huge salary for Octopussy (Because of the success of TSWLM, MR, and FYEO, and because Sean Connery's rival Bond film meant that MGM would take no chances on the success of the film), during the talks John Glen tested Brolin and decided that he would be acceptable in the role. All was for naught however, when Moore's salary demands were met. Octopussy went on to become the high grossing Bond film till 1998's Tommorow Never Dies.

 

The other American seriously considered for the role of Bond? Adam West, TV's Batman was offered the role point blank by Cubby Broccoli during pre-production of OHMSS. However, West declined saying that he felt uncomfortable as an American playing the Scotch/Swiss James Bond. The role eventually went to George Lazenby.

 

Before anyone says anything about Burt Reynolds, Reynolds was suggested by MGM/UA to Broccoli and Saltzman while casting for LALD, they told MGM/UA that under no circumstances would they allow him to play Bond. Roger Moore had wanted to play Bond since casting for Dr. No, but had been busy with The Saint TV Show.

 

 

I can find the James Bond angle in ANY topic, people.

[Swift Terror 0]

Scotch/Swiss  James Bond

 

Huh? Isn't the Bond character straight-up English?

 

BTW, excellent seqway into a Bond reference, well done.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Scotch/Swiss  James Bond

 

Huh? Isn't the Bond character straight-up English?

 

BTW, excellent seqway into a Bond reference, well done.

No.

 

James Bond was born of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, from the Canton de Vaud. His father being a foreign representative of the Vickers armaments firm, his early education, from which he inherited a first-class command of French and German, was entirely abroad. When he was eleven years of age, both his parents were killed in a climbing accident in the Aiguilles Rouges above Chamonix, and the youth came under the guardianship of an aunt, since deceased, Miss Charmian Bond, and went to live with her at the quaintly-named hamlet of Pett Bottom near Canterbury in Kent. There, in a small cottage hard by the attractive Duck Inn, his aunt, who must have been a most erudite and accomplished lady, completed his education for an English public school, and, at the age of twelve or thereabouts, he passed satisfactorily into Eton, for which College he had been entered at his birth by his father. It must be admitted that his career at Eton was brief and undistinguished and, after only two halves, as a result, it pains me to record, of some alleged trouble with one of the boys' maids, his aunt was requested to remove him. She managed to obtain his transfer to Fettes, his father's old school. Here the atmosphere was somewhat Calvinistic, and both academic and athletic standards were rigourous. Nevertheless, though inclined to be solitary by nature, he established some firm friendships among the traditionally famous athletic circles at the school. By the time he left, at the early age of seventeen, he had twice fought for the school as a light-weight and had, in addition, founded the first serious judo class at a British public school. By now it was 1941 and, by claiming an age of nineteen and with the help of an old Vickers colleague of his father, he entered a branch of what was subsequently to become the Ministry of Defence. To serve the confidential nature of his duties, he was accorded the rank of lieutenant in the Special Branch of the R.N.V.R., and it is a measure of the satisfaction his services gave to his superiors that he ended the war with the rank of Commander. It was about this time that the writer became associated with certain aspects of the Ministry's work, and it was with much gratification that I accepted Commander Bond's post-war application to continue working for the Ministry in which, at the time of his lamented disappearance, he had risen to the rank of Principal Officer in the Civil Service.

 

- You Only Live Twice James Bond's "Obituary"