Skip to comments.
FOX NEWS; CBS WANTS REAGAN MOVIE GONE
fox news
| 11-2-03
| Bootstick
Posted on 11/01/2003 10:38:26 PM PST by BOOTSTICK
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-237 next last
To: ETERNAL WARMING
Lets make a movie about the Clintons. Lets show them planning and laughing while talking about ripping off the FDIC. Lets show them personally running drugs through Arkansas and offing Vincent Foster and ordering hits on people like Ron Brwn.
Think CBS would show it? Its a DRAMATIZATION! we could claim.
21
posted on
11/01/2003 11:02:41 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
To: sharkhawk
Yes, indeedy.
22
posted on
11/01/2003 11:03:23 PM PST
by
SAJ
To: BOOTSTICK
Revisionist history has been incrementally occuring for some time now. It started with the furor over the Smithsonian WWII memorial in Washington DC, then the Disney movie
Pearl Harbor downplayed Japan's aggression, and now the Reagan movie distorts his life.
It's good to see the people fighting back, demanding an accurate portrayal of the history we remember.
-PJ
To: CyberAnt; BOOTSTICK
That hit piece "docudrama" on Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill movie was all Showtime's doings --- they'll take this one if the price is right.
If Showtime buys this one, I'll have to re-sign up with them to drop them again! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
24
posted on
11/01/2003 11:10:38 PM PST
by
onyx
To: Jackson Brown
This is censorship, says one source. A pressure group has had a major network rip this movie to shreds. But we can look forward to one fun outcome: the directors-cut DVD.
That means "says one source" I hate when someone disagrees with me.
25
posted on
11/01/2003 11:11:09 PM PST
by
opbuzz
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
To: Squantos
See BS still would need sponsors for thier little hit piece, the pressure on any company would be enormous.
I understand Saturn got plenty of e-mail from their decision to sponsor it.
The negative publicity on putting a product name around this thing will be long lasting. Bill Gates is the only one who could afford to sponsor it without worrying about losing clients and he's not that crazy.
27
posted on
11/01/2003 11:13:59 PM PST
by
The Brush
(u)
To: BOOTSTICK
Darn! I wanted to see the part where Jimmy Carter tries to bribe the Soviets to interfere in the elections to help Jimmy out.
To: BOOTSTICK
One reason for this could also be the threat of boycotted sponsors, like Hallmark. Saw an ad tonight for an upcoming Hallmark Hall of Fame movie scheduled for late November on CBS.
All I could think was how apoplectic Hallmark must be at the prospect of losing conservative customers :o)
29
posted on
11/01/2003 11:15:13 PM PST
by
b9
To: Jackson Brown
I used to subscribe to Showtime until they dumped Stargate SG-1.
The only reason I watched the dumb channel.
Glad I cancelled my subscription.
Nothing on the channel I want to watch since then.
30
posted on
11/01/2003 11:15:53 PM PST
by
Chewbacca
(Nothing burps better than bacon!)
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; Miss Marple; Tamsey; ...
This is the New York Times CBS Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.
This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!
32
posted on
11/01/2003 11:17:23 PM PST
by
Timesink
To: ETERNAL WARMING
The daughter was on drugs.
33
posted on
11/01/2003 11:19:36 PM PST
by
des
To: ExGuru
True, but the Stone movies were always promoted as alternative views of the facts. The WWII memorial, the Pearl Harbor movie, and the Reagan moviews were being passed off as factual portrayals of real events, or in the case of Pearl Harbor, a factual backdrop for the main story.
-PJ
To: BOOTSTICK
Amazing.
Just 13 years ago or so, before Rush Limbaugh, Free Republic, Fox News, C-span, and the internet, the huge conservative majority of traditional Americans would have just rolled over, quietly seething, feeling like they were in the minority, and certain that there was nothing they could do about the liberalism that they knew was ruining the nation.
There has been a sea change, and it gives me great hope.
To: Calvin Locke
Darn! I wanted to see the part where Jimmy Carter tries to bribe the Soviets to interfere in the elections to help Jimmy out. Dont forget Jimmy's "lust in his heart" we could make up dramatise a lot of good fun with that.
36
posted on
11/01/2003 11:22:49 PM PST
by
RJL
To: BOOTSTICK
have insisted that every fact (though not every line of dialogue) is supported by at least two sources. What does this mean? SO if you have a line of dialogue that is a complete fabrication, thats not an errant fact? Or are they saying that although Reagan never said that sin thing about Aids it dfoesent matter, he meant it anyway?
Newsweak pimps for CBS, those leftist goons.
To: ETERNAL WARMING
Its odd to me when people get all worked up, because its called a dramatization. More like fiction and slander.
To: GeronL
Start with the clinton rape.
Name it "Just put some ice on it".
39
posted on
11/01/2003 11:25:56 PM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(CCCP = clinton, chiraq, chretien, and putin = stalin wannabes)
To: CyberAnt
And .. how many people who have Showtime will threaten to cancel if they plan to show the movie. I know I will
40
posted on
11/01/2003 11:27:28 PM PST
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-237 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson