Posted on 09/20/2001 11:02:26 PM PDT by GreatOne
Keep contacting your loacl ABC affiliates and the sponsors.
Mervyn's dropped their ads just today:
Update #2 -Politically Incorrect Advertisers Contact List
As you noted further above in this thread ... Maher was obviously (to me) making a statement (without the courage to name names) about the frivilous way that Bill Clinton USED America's military capabilities - not about the military personnel who executed his directives. Once again I applaud your restraint here ... it must gall you to have Web Warriors demean your patriotism when they know nothing about your life, duty and service. It's unfortunate.
That's an indication of Maher's unwillingness to antagonize the liberal Hollywood power brokers he relies on for work. But whether Maher specifically named Clinton and his staff as the gutless architects of politically riskless - but lethal - carnage, or that he chose to cynically drape the characterization as an indictment of faceless "policy makers" ... the fact remains that the indignation directed at Maher here and elsewhere was not a result of Maher's cop out - the backlash is based on a false charge that he identified the the military, and it's personnel, as the cowards. Didn't happen.
That is not an insignificant difference. I saw the show, and at no time did he infer that the soldiers, sailors and airmen of the U.S. military were afraid to engage their enemy in any warfare save anonymous, totally safe long range missile attacks. Maher never meant that, he never said that, he never inferred that, and anyone who watched the exchange understood that completely.
I've never met Sneakypete, we've only exchanged posts once or twice in 3 years, but I know you've seriously misjudged this individual. He doesn't wear his sacrifices and service on his sleeve. He didn't choose a forum name that would identify him as a battle veteran in VietNam. Some folks do, and there's nothing wrong with that ... but the knowledge of any Freeper's military service to this country, especially the sacrifice of combat service, projects upon them an immediate assumption of certain kind of respect and deference. Sneakypete has never taken that short cut to respect, he's earned it through his demeanor and integrity over the years.
SneakyPete's request was all that was needed for a very prestigious and decorated group of Vietnam SF vets (the same group that exposed the CNN Operation Tailwind fraud) to come in to Free Republic and forthrightly expose a guy who was fraudulently presenting himself as a highly decorated combat hero. Pete smelled a rat. The investigation soon exposed some sick kid who learned a very important lesson in life, I hope. Pete enlisted this group because was the object of vicious pack-mentality abuse for the audacity to raise questions, politely, about a high-profile Freeper's dubious claims of battlefield valor.
He was right, he never held it against anyone in this forum, he just did his duty to the real heroes and his fallen comrades and moved on. That's the guy y'all are insulting around here right now. It's wrong.
I think you will notice that the viscious name calling between he and I came from him. I may have made fun of him but did not resort to obscenity. Every word I posted I stand by.
Get out......really? I haven't been able to stomach him especially when he started giving bubba virtual bj's (figuratively speaking). I might have to bite the bullet and tune in.
That's an indication of Maher's unwillingness to antagonize the liberal Hollywood power brokers he relies on for work. But whether Maher specifically named Clinton and his staff as the gutless architects of politically riskless - but lethal - carnage, or that he chose to cynically drape the characterization as an indictment of faceless "policy makers" ... the fact remains that the indignation directed at Maher here and elsewhere was not a result of Maher's cop out - the backlash is based on a false charge that he identified the the military, and it's personnel, as the cowards. Didn't happen.
That is not an insignificant difference. I saw the show, and at no time did he infer that the soldiers, sailors and airmen of the U.S. military were afraid to engage their enemy in any warfare save anonymous, totally safe long range missile attacks. Maher never meant that, he never said that, he never inferred that, and anyone who watched the exchange understood that completely.
Your stirring defense of the other individual on this thread who seeks to put words into Bill Maher's mouth is misplaced. His past heroics do not mean that everytime he suggests something that is unpopular that he is being unfairly harassed. In this case, he is stating something unpopular and also wrong-headed.
There are apparently a handful of people on this thread who possess the super-duper-top-secret Bill Maher decoder ring because they are ascribing motives to him that are simply not made clear by his own statements on the matter.
He has been given ample opportunity to cite Clinton as the sole person he meant when he cited cowardice and has not done so. So why must some here continue to insist that that is what he meant? What is gained from positing that argument when there is no evidence to support it?
He appeared on the Leno show Friday night and made a comment to this effect: Well some people say Clinton, it was him, but it was all the policy leaders, and everyone else that let it happen.
I'm not suggesting he was blaming the military. I think it is more devious than that. Since he REFUSES to clearly name Clinton, I suspect he really blames the American people.
If someone has a transcript of the comments he made on the Tonight Show, please provide them so I can clear up this fictional tripe that people are ascribing to Maher!
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.