Posted on 09/08/2006 12:10:14 PM PDT by forty_years
I agree, but have one main question. Did the Republican polititicans write en masse to CBS and cite the FCC in their push to have it not aired OR was the family the main force behind the cancellation of the Reagan bio-pic? I think there is a difference if so.
Agreed, on the issue of Clinton's leftist censorship (cover up) flood ABC with phone calls & e-mails.
While we appreciate receiving feedback regarding the ABC TV network, we suggest that you check the "frequently asked questions" before completing this form. Please use the links below:
For ABC.com, click here.
For ABCNews.com, click here.
For ABC Sports.com, click here.
Why bring up the fact that ABC's broadcast license is bestowed or withheld at the whim of the government? Any other reason than an implied threat?
Is this really correct? What role does the FCC have in licensing a network? I know they must license individual stations, but what about networks?
I think you have it! There IS a difference between people threatening to boycott advertisers AND government officials citing the FCC regulations in the context of demanding the non-showing of a program. People have the right to address advertisers to make their feelings known....congressmen do NOT have the right to threaten, even if subtly, a network in order to prevent a film from being shown.
haha, you are a jerk!
we've eaten better trolls than you for a 2 a.m. snack.....
I just voted for showing the movie.
The question they ask is "Should ABC cancel the 9/11 Ministries...?" A NO vote is for showing.
78% voted for showing the movie was the status at 2:51pm PST. The Dems must have found this vote also.
You really should learn to read a lengthy thread before typing. It might prevent a bad case of the glass stomach syndrome.
Glass Stomach Syndrome: Typically characterized by having one's cranium inserted so far up one's rectum that a glass stomach is required to see where you’re going.
I don't know if you are a troll or not. I have been accused of that myself by one particular hall monitor when I first logged in here last month. I think my posts have vindicated me since.
However, for an ex-President and his henchmen to blow a gasket over a television show tells me he has something to hide and no confidence in his do-nothing administration and just covering his silly a**.
This is pure censorship by a paranoid band of liberals who only care to regain their power. I always thought Vince Foster was laid waste because he stood in their (Clintons) way. This new episode by these thugs only confirms my belief.
That's a fair criticism which I am pretty sure I conceded somewhere in the many posts on this thread.
I heard him, too - he convinced me easily (as if I needed convincing...)of his sincerity......
Yep, I do. This isn't 1998. Ask Dan Rather how many people are paying attention.
No sir, to my deep frustration.
bump
"You really should learn to read a lengthy thread before typing. It might prevent a bad case of the glass stomach syndrome"
"Glass Stomach Syndrome: Typically characterized by having one's cranium inserted so far up one's rectum that a glass stomach is required to see where you’re going."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are suggesting that your prior posts (since 9/3/2006) entitle you to insult and provoke well-established FR menbers? (see airborne's post #28)
A quick read of your offensive history since you have appeared on FR suggests that you are at the very least an unhappy and aggressive newbie that thinks by couching insults in intellectual verbiage, you can intimidate other members, provoke discord, and distract them well enough to leave the forums in disgust. A tactic well known to FR.
If you would like to join the FR community, earn the respect you seem to seek. Since newbies don't often start right out INSULTING other people here, you stand out like a sore thumb, and that thumb is pointing towards DU.
Bottom line is the Reagan bio was pulled because it had personally distasteful info in it (remember politics of personal destruction the dems were so distainful of) but the 9-11 film is a history of an event. Its not all about the Clintons.
I find it astonishing that you insult me in your post and then have the effrontery to take exception to my replying in kind. Respect, is not a one way street. Your tenure here is of no consequence to me and does not confer on you any right to insult. If you disagree with me civilly you will find that I make every effort to be reasonable and polite. I am sometimes wrong (see my post #20) which you obviously did not bother to read before you fired off your TROLL salvo. With the thread already over 80 comments you just could not be bothered to read the others to see if there was any discussion that might make your obnoxious remark unnecessary.
However, to the extent that my reply was made in anger, and lacked Christian charity, I apologize.
First thing most of us do when they get a whiff of troll is to check the 'born on' date, then go look at former posts. You insult other Freepers in several early posts (within your first 2 days!), and we take issue with that.
Several of us saw you sneak in over the transom long before you 'apologized' in post 20.
JUST maybe you might be an excited newbie, happy to have new people to "argue intellectually" with. However, that's not how you've come off, and I suggest you remember to be polite and be less provocative.
Now don't talk to me any more.
Michael Scheuer (the guy who wrote Imperial Hubris and is NOT a Bush fan, came out and just ripped Clinton, saying this movie was completely accurate):
"As I have told you, the core of the movie is irrefutably true: the Clinton administration had 10 chances to capture of kill bin Laden. Had the 9/11 Commission not whitewashed events, personal culpability would have been assigned and we as a nation could have moved on to fight al-Qaeda. The Commission turned out to be hack-dominated, however, and ignored the documents that were presented to them, as well as the testimony it received under oath. Instead of telling the American people that the intelligence regarding bin Laden, al-Qaeda and their intentions was abundant, precise, and not acted on, the Commissioners blamed 'the structure of the intelligence community' for the failure and then proceeded to wreck the community with a horrendous reform package.
"The solution is really quite simple, I think. Declassify the documents and testimony of the men and women who risked their lives to collect the intelligence that Clinton and his lieutenants failed to act on. Present this information to the American people -- and perhaps put some of those officers on TV to answer questions -- and then let the chips fall where they may. If the critics of the ABC movie are so confident they are right, they would surely welcome this process."
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.