Guest Ronixis Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 This is some shit. Drudge hit the nail on this one. CBS had to back off. The Liberals are in a corner, and changes are about to start...I can feel it.
Vern Gagne Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 I was hoping CBS would air the movie. It sounded funny, in a bad kind of way. Besides most people's opinions are made up about the Reagan's . Plus, the O'Reilly's and Drudges of the world have already disclaimed some of the lies, and would be able to do so even if it did actually air on CBS.
Guest JMA Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 Plus, the O'Reilly's and Drudges of the world have already disclaimed some of the lies, and would be able to do so even if it did actually air on CBS. O'Reilly pointing out lies? Wow, that's kind of funny.
Vern Gagne Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 It's true in this case. Even the people involved in the movie, admitted Reagan never said the things the movie claims he did.
Guest JMA Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 It's true in this case. Even the people involved in the movie, admitted Reagan never said the things the movie claims he did. I'm not denying that. I just find it funny when someone like O'Reilly points out lies. But yes, this film is propoganda. Edit: Although, so was the "DC 9/11" farce.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 4, 2003 Report Posted November 4, 2003 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. So, CBS execs are upset --- but not upset enough to can this thing, but rather to shunt this off to Showtime (and, no doubt, portraying this as the "miniseries too controversial for broadcast TV")? -=Mike
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 You know who had two of the ugliest people I've ever seen on to discuss this last night.
Guest JMA Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 You know who had two of the ugliest people I've ever seen on to discuss this last night. Ronald and Nancy? To be fair, they are pretty old...
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 No he had some financial guy and a tv critic on. They were both fugly.
Jobber of the Week Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 So, CBS execs are upset --- but not upset enough to can this thing, but rather to shunt this off to Showtime Showtime literally doesn't have to deal with ratings. They only deal in subscriptions. And I doubt thye're going to get tons of conservatives calling up and declaring this movie was tasteless considering the other things Showtime runs would probably get that reaction already. (and, no doubt, portraying this as the "miniseries too controversial for broadcast TV")? -=Mike It's like Al Franken vs The Media Whore. The more you want to make a stink and get the word out, the more publicity you're harping upon it.
Justice Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 (and, no doubt, portraying this as the "miniseries too controversial for broadcast TV")? -=Mike It's like Al Franken vs The Media Whore. The more you want to make a stink and get the word out, the more publicity you're harping upon it. The "Dogma" Theory.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 So, CBS execs are upset --- but not upset enough to can this thing, but rather to shunt this off to Showtime Showtime literally doesn't have to deal with ratings. They only deal in subscriptions. And I doubt thye're going to get tons of conservatives calling up and declaring this movie was tasteless considering the other things Showtime runs would probably get that reaction already. (and, no doubt, portraying this as the "miniseries too controversial for broadcast TV")? -=Mike It's like Al Franken vs The Media Whore. The more you want to make a stink and get the word out, the more publicity you're harping upon it. The right isn't harping on it. We criticized a grotesquely unfair and vicious hit piece on Reagan that was to air on CBS --- but I don't hear anybody bitching that it's on Showtime now. -=Mike
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 A little fallout. From barbrastreisand.com: I am deeply disappointed that CBS, the network that in 1964 gave me complete artistic control in creating television specials, now caved in to right wing Republican pressure to cancel the network broadcast of the movie The Reagans. (And I say MOVIE - because this is NOT a documentary - it's a television drama.) The movie will now be aired on Showtime, where the difference in viewership is in the millions. Read: "Damn! Our ability to smear him will be significantly lower. Damn!" One can only imagine the kind of pressure that would compel CBS to take such an extraordinary action. This was an organized Republican spin machine at work. Remember the Dixie Chicks controversy? It wasn't the larger general public that called in to radio stations and burned CDs, it was a small group of right wing activists. In fact, now the band is more popular than ever, with a sold out summer tour. As was pointed out at the time, the tour was sold out long before the controversy. I can say that, thankfully, I have not heard them on the radio once since all of this hit. I don't believe Democrats often, if ever, try to muscle the First Amendment like this. For example, in 1983, no one stopped NBC from airing Kennedy, a biopic that portrayed President Kennedy and other members of his family and administration as deeply flawed, even though the movie could have potentially been hurtful to Jackie Kennedy, who was still alive to see it, as well as to her children. Difference between "deeply flawed" and "total jackass". This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not all that pure. Censorship never is. Due to their experience with the restrictive English government, the framers of our constitution specifically included a ban on prior restraint in the First Amendment, which is an attempt to stop information from getting out there before the public has a chance to see it at all - exactly what is going on in this case. Of course, CBS as a company has the legal right to make decisions about what they do and do not air. However, these important decisions should be based on artistic integrity rather than an attempt to appease a small group of vocal dissidents. Indeed, today marks a sad day for artistic freedom - one of the most important elements of an open and democratic society. Hmm, how 'bout we have a Clinton biopic with a GRAPHIC rape scene involving Juanita Brodderick (which, ironically, would be MORE provable than many of the crap in "The Reagans")? How 'bout we have him castigating "Them Darkies"? Think she'd support the film getting released? -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Hey Mike, have you seen the film in question? No? Oh. Grotesque hit job indeed.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Hey Mike, have you seen the film in question? No? Oh. Grotesque hit job indeed. CBS' head Moonves: "It just doesn't work," Moonves told staffers in a bold move of conscience. "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased." Don't know why I'd say it was a hit piece. They only had Nancy slapping her daughter, Reagan suffered Alzheimer's as early as 1985, the whole "They live in sin, they should die in sin" line... Yeah, NOT a hit piece AT ALL. Should we see a Clinton biopic with a rape scene, we'll see how much you don't mind it. -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Oh Jesus fucking Christ, like rape compares at ALL to ANYTHING said in that movie. One portrays Reagan as a devoutly religious guy and one shows Clinton as a subhuman monster. Stop with the ridiculously skewed rhetoric.
Firestarter Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 I dunno, I think that anyone who calmly accepted the deaths of countless people because he considered their sexuality "sinful" would qualify as a "subhuman monster."
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Oh Jesus fucking Christ, like rape compares at ALL to ANYTHING said in that movie. One portrays Reagan as a devoutly religious guy and one shows Clinton as a subhuman monster. Stop with the ridiculously skewed rhetoric. Clinton actually has somebody who has ACCUSED him of rape (Brodderick), so you can at least argue that there is SOME basis for it. Ron was shown as being a heartless, profane (nobody who knew him heard him swear) jerk. Nancy is implied as a pill popper and, apparently, somebody who slaps her daughter. Nancy was played in a similar light to Faye Dunaway's Joan Crawford. This piece was a hit piece. It was offensive. And, thank God, it was taken off CBS. Just 5 years ago, that would have NEVER happened. Your defense of it is disturbing --- actually, it's about what was expected. BTW, how does it feel that your candidate wants to be the candidate of the guys who drive around with the Confederate flag in their rear window? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 He wants to reach out to the south? No shit... Look at what your candidate said. "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the — the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 He wants to reach out to the south? No shit... Because, as we all know, all Southerners are racists who fly the Confederate flag. And God knows THIS will help him with blacks, a rather key block for Dem pols (and a small problem considering that Dean is a governor of a state that is about as white as Utah). But, heck, I'm LOVING the Dean candidacy. Watching him go down in flames should be fun. -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 TheMikeSC: Making himself irrelevant since 1998. Wanna compare verbal gaffes?
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 He wants to reach out to the south? No shit... Look at what your candidate said. "The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the — the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003 Out of context quotes? Have you sunk to this depth? World of difference: YOUR candidate is a joke with no hope of winning. Mine is the President right now and in 2004. -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Have I sunk to what depth? Yours? Taking quotes out of context? NO WAY, HOLY SHIT... Not like you're not doing that RIGHT THE FUCK NOW! Jesus Christ, listen to yourself for once.
Firestarter Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 He wants to reach out to the south? No shit... And this is precisely why he'll fail. Because he, and the people who support him, see "the South" as a homogenous mass of states not only willing but eager to suck his dick if he speaks sympathetically about the Confederate flag. Here's a tip, guys: we aren't proud of the Civil War. We don't celebrate the Confederacy. We grieve for our dead, we honour their sacrifices, and we remember them with respect and love. But overwhelmingly, we do not glorify their cause, and we accept that we were on the wrong fucking side. Thanks for assuming that we can be bought by pandering to us as if we were racist, ignorant rednecks, though. That would make our decisions in 2004 so much easier if they weren't pretty easy already.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 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
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Look at the context of the quote. It wasn't pandering, it was saying that he needs the South to vote for him to win the Confederacy. Because, after all, nobody has ever made the connection that South = Redneck EVER EVER EVER, right?
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Have I sunk to what depth? Yours? Taking quotes out of context? NO WAY, HOLY SHIT... Not like you're not doing that RIGHT THE FUCK NOW! Jesus Christ, listen to yourself for once. Dean has been giving several chances to explain it. The other candidates gave him SEVERAL chances to admit that he said something stupid. He refused. Repeatedly. -=Mike
Dr. Tyler; Captain America Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 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.
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 Look at the context of the quote. It wasn't pandering, it was saying that he needs the South to vote for him to win the Confederacy. Because, after all, nobody has ever made the connection that South = Redneck EVER EVER EVER, right? Dean has definitely made that connection. It's idiotic, asinine, and self-defeating. And, thus, he WON'T WIN THE South. And that he and his supporters are SO blind to this is comical. This is why so much of the country has so little tolerance for people in the Northeast --- they are CLUELESS as to the REST OF THE COUNTRY. And you don't win the White House without winning the South. Dean will learn that painful lesson soon enough. But, you'll learn this in 2004. -=Mike
Guest MikeSC Posted November 5, 2003 Report Posted November 5, 2003 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.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now