BLOGROLL!
Right Minded
The Democrat Call For Censorship, Liberal Tolerance At It's Best
It looks like the Democrats have found a new angle to limit freedom of speech in this country: censorship. The liberals, with the help of the ACLU have been steady at work denying people their 1rst Amendment right to freedom of expression of religion in the public square through either their lawsuits in courts, or endorsement of those who wish to stop everything from, including the name of God in any Valedictorian speech in public schools to forcing Easter displays to be removed from work places.
Now, they want to ban ABC from airing a documentary next Monday and Tuesday night entitled, “The Path To 9/11”. You can read the whole story here. Why do they want to ban it? Because, it portrays the Democrats, and the Clinton Administration, in a bad light. They charge that there are parts of it that are untrue, and we just can’t have that!
I wonder where the Democrats got this sudden concern over the importance of the presence of truth in documentaries?
Let’s see, when a TV movie was made a couple of years ago about the late Ronald Regan, which played fast and loose with his character, not a peep could be heard from them. When ultra-liberal, Michael Moore produced his “documentary” about 9/11 and the War in Iraq, which was riddled with lies and leftist Anti-Bush propaganda, was being peddled as a factual documentary, Hillary Clinton didn’t rise to the occasion and express her disgust and proclaim that when it comes to something as important to American history as 9/11 the people needed only the truth. Nope, she was silent along with the rest of the Democrats. I haven’t heard anything from the Democrats regarding a recent movie made that includes the assassination of President Bush in it.
But, you let a movie come out that shows Clinton and the Democrats in less than a perfect light and it’s: “freedom of speech be damned, it’s time to threaten the network with consequences if it doesn’t back down from airing such a damaging film”. In other words, it’s time for some good old Soviet-styled censorship.
This is yet another example of how the liberals, who claim to have the corner of the market in tolerance, really in fact don’t. They are only tolerant of their own viewpoints. Any viewpoint counter to theirs needs to be banned, even if it is in fact, dead on. Go read Dick Morris’ take on the Democrat's charge of falsehood in the documentary in an article found here regarding how the documentary to be aired on ABC, does in fact have the Clinton Administration pegged. If any one should know it would be Dick Morris who worked with Clinton for 20 years.
Bush can be denigrated all day long in the media and in fake documentaries like Michael Moore’s and it’s a ok. But, you let some documentary portray Clinton in a bad light and the hysterics and whining from both Slick Willy and the Democrats begins.
The liberal’s war against talk radio stations who air conservative viewpoints and documentaries like “The Path To 9/11” tells you all you need to know regarding their so-called “tolerance”. The “open-minded”, “intellectual” left is anything but that. They know they can’t make it in the open market place of ideas, that is why they must stifle any other viewpoints and ensure the only media and information available to the voting public is tainted with nothing but their viewpoint.
This is yet another reason why conservatives should resist the temptation to stay at home and not vote in the upcoming elections. If we allow the liberals to regain power, they will use that power to ensure they have as much control of what the public is exposed to as they possibly can. This current display of rabid censorship on the part of the Democratic party is telling.
I for one, don’t want a Soviet style press and media that is controlled by a leftist agenda. Do you?
Now, they want to ban ABC from airing a documentary next Monday and Tuesday night entitled, “The Path To 9/11”. You can read the whole story here. Why do they want to ban it? Because, it portrays the Democrats, and the Clinton Administration, in a bad light. They charge that there are parts of it that are untrue, and we just can’t have that!
I wonder where the Democrats got this sudden concern over the importance of the presence of truth in documentaries?
Let’s see, when a TV movie was made a couple of years ago about the late Ronald Regan, which played fast and loose with his character, not a peep could be heard from them. When ultra-liberal, Michael Moore produced his “documentary” about 9/11 and the War in Iraq, which was riddled with lies and leftist Anti-Bush propaganda, was being peddled as a factual documentary, Hillary Clinton didn’t rise to the occasion and express her disgust and proclaim that when it comes to something as important to American history as 9/11 the people needed only the truth. Nope, she was silent along with the rest of the Democrats. I haven’t heard anything from the Democrats regarding a recent movie made that includes the assassination of President Bush in it.
But, you let a movie come out that shows Clinton and the Democrats in less than a perfect light and it’s: “freedom of speech be damned, it’s time to threaten the network with consequences if it doesn’t back down from airing such a damaging film”. In other words, it’s time for some good old Soviet-styled censorship.
This is yet another example of how the liberals, who claim to have the corner of the market in tolerance, really in fact don’t. They are only tolerant of their own viewpoints. Any viewpoint counter to theirs needs to be banned, even if it is in fact, dead on. Go read Dick Morris’ take on the Democrat's charge of falsehood in the documentary in an article found here regarding how the documentary to be aired on ABC, does in fact have the Clinton Administration pegged. If any one should know it would be Dick Morris who worked with Clinton for 20 years.
Bush can be denigrated all day long in the media and in fake documentaries like Michael Moore’s and it’s a ok. But, you let some documentary portray Clinton in a bad light and the hysterics and whining from both Slick Willy and the Democrats begins.
The liberal’s war against talk radio stations who air conservative viewpoints and documentaries like “The Path To 9/11” tells you all you need to know regarding their so-called “tolerance”. The “open-minded”, “intellectual” left is anything but that. They know they can’t make it in the open market place of ideas, that is why they must stifle any other viewpoints and ensure the only media and information available to the voting public is tainted with nothing but their viewpoint.
This is yet another reason why conservatives should resist the temptation to stay at home and not vote in the upcoming elections. If we allow the liberals to regain power, they will use that power to ensure they have as much control of what the public is exposed to as they possibly can. This current display of rabid censorship on the part of the Democratic party is telling.
I for one, don’t want a Soviet style press and media that is controlled by a leftist agenda. Do you?
posted by Clay | 10:10 PM
11 Comments:
meatbrain,
I am not lying, and there have been many *demanding* ABC not air it. In a story found here: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/bill_sics_legal_eagles_on_abc_nationalnews_philip_recchia______and_jennifer_fermino.htm
It has gone beyond simple demands and now involves legal action to ensure that it is not shown.
To sue so that to ensure the program is not aired is to *pursue a ban* on it's airing and is therefore censorship.
I am telling the truth, meathead. How about you stop using disengenous spin and stick to the truth yourself.
Meathead,
How can I be lying again when I never lied in the first place? Either you are dense or just plain, well, meat-headed.
As for the article, I didn't read the whole thing before I pointed you in that direction. That is my fault. However, it does say that Clinton had his lawyer draft a angry demand for ABC to not show it.
Albeit a law suit hasn't been filed yet, but anytime a lawyer is involved there is a good chance that a law suit is immanent.
Even if one isn't persued, my point still stands. There are demands by Clinton and other Democrats that this program not be aired.
One more time, so that you can hopefully take it in: trying to ensure that the program is not aired is trying to ban the program.
If anyone is having trouble with the truth, it most certainly is you. So again, drop the spin and come up with an argument of your own as to why this isn't an attempt by the Democrats to ban the show.
Meathead,
You said:
"If this claim is true, it should be a simple matter to show who specifically is attempting to ban ABC from airing the show. You have failed to do this. Your claim that an attempt has been made to "ban" the film is a lie."
I did show you specifically, Bill Clinton. But, I didn't even need to do that since, you yourself admit that you are aware that the Democrats are trying to stop the airing of the program when you said: "False. Asking -- or even demanding -- that ABC not air the film does not constitute a ban. "
You said:
"You are backpedalling, Clay. Your original claim was that an attempt was being made to "ban" the film, not merely that demands had been made. You have failed to demonstrate that any attempt at a ban has occurred."
I am not backpedalling at all meathead. I am consistantly demonstrating that the Democrats are trying to prevent the show from being aired.
You said:
"Tell me something, Clay: Who banned CBS from airing 'The Reagans' on that network in 2003?"
Huh? I have no idea, since I never said it was banned in the first place,not to mention the fact that it never was banned to my knowledge. Where did you get that from?
You said:
"False. Asking -- or even demanding -- that ABC not air the film does not constitute a ban."
Ok. Once more, real slowly, if they can succeed in getting ABC to not air the show then they have succeeded in it being banned, albeit by ABC themselved, i.e. it doesn't get aired.
The purpose of my post, which flew right over your thick head, was to point out, first of all, the hyprocisy of the left who get all up in arms when something doesn't show them in a good light, and start becoming "concerned about factual representations". Yet, when any of the other stuff aimed at the other side is aired, like Michael Moore's propaganda films dressed up as documentaries, they show no such concern for the truth.
Secondly, I am demonstrating yet another bad quality of the left. The desire for only news and information that they approve of to be aired. Hence, my "Soviet Press" analogy.
So, again I'm not a liar. You are.
Do you get it now?
Meatbrain,
Yawn. If anyone is dense. It is most certainly you. The Democrats are trying to censor what is shown on public TV regarding 9/11 and their part in it.
The point of my post continues to fly over your thick head. I have done no "backpeddling" whatsoever.
There is no doubt that the Democrats would love to get the program banned from the air; hence their heated demands. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the left wasn't trying to protect its thin reputation in this manner.
Talk about being dense!
Nice try, meathead. But no. You're wrong. You must do more than just call your opponent names. You should actually *read* the post and respond intelligently to it. Playing symantic games with the word "ban" in no way makes any of the points in my post ineffective.
You are apparantly, what some in the blogosphere refer to as an "ankle-biter", and like the ones I've dealt with in the past, you are ineffective when it comes to actually making any sound arguments in defense of the left.
Here's a hint for you. I don't need to prove any ban as occured. I said they wanted a ban, not that they had placed one. That they want one is clear in their adament demands that the program not be aired. They definately want to stop it from being aired. That's a fact. Only an air-head (meat-ehad?) would miss that point. That they have suceeded in getting it banned, is irrelevant to the point of my post.
Perhaps, you should reread my post. This time read it slowly, so that you can catch the points that my post is making.
Meathead,
You said:
"You also said that legal action had been initiated. That was a lie, as well. No one has sought a ban. Your claim is false, and you are a liar."
When did I say legal action had been initiated?
You said:
"You're afraid of answering any of my questions. Run away, little liar."
"Run away little liar?" Is that the best you can do? You're pathetic. I am not a liar. But, apparently you are.
"Only an air-head..." [my words]
You said:
"You must do more than just call your opponent names" -- and, obviously, you are incapable of following your own advice.
Again, is that the best that you can do? I allow you to litter my post with arrogant, smug, name-calling remarks, so, I respond to you in obviously the only way you understand and you want to *try* and turn the tables on me? Please!
You are classic "liberal ankle-biter" material.
You are obviously incapbale of anything beyond: "I know you are, but what am I?" tactics.
Please come back when you are ready to actually debate the issue in a logical fashion.
Meatbrain,
When I said it involves legal action I was refering to Clinton's hiring of a lawyer to persue the demand to not air the show.
Come back when you can stop spinning and playing the semantic game.
meatbrain,
You said:
"You are the one playing semantic games here, Clay. "Legal action" means more than simply writing a letter -- the phrase in fact means "lawsuit". There is no common usage in which it means merely writing a letter."
I will concede that point to you. Hiring a lawyer to send a demand to not air the show, would be more along the lines of preliminary steps taken before a law suit would be necessary.
You said:
"And yes, we do know that when you used the phrase you actually meant that a lawsuit had been filed, because that's how you referred to it:
"To sue so that to ensure the program is not aired is to *pursue a ban* on it's airing and is therefore censorship."
This lying on your part as I obviously had already apologized for the use of law suit in one of my responses to you:
"As for the article, I didn't read the whole thing before I pointed you in that direction. That is my fault. However, it does say that Clinton had his lawyer draft a angry demand for ABC to not show it."
But of course, you leave that out so you can pretend that I am some liar by posting claptrap like this:
"You didn't mean that Clinton's lawyers were merely writing a letter. You meant that they were filing a suit. You're lying when you claim otherwise."
That is pure B.S. on your part. How do you know what I meant? You can't even get passed the words "ban" and "law suit" to even intelligently dispute my post.
I meant what I said when I responded to you in the with following previous comments:
"When I said it involves legal action I was refering to Clinton's hiring of a lawyer to persue the demand to not air the show."
"Albeit a law suit hasn't been filed yet, but anytime a lawyer is involved there is a good chance that a law suit is immanent".
Apart for what I had already conceded to you, (which you have deceptivly left out of your name-calling tactic), when I had not orginally read all of the article I was citing regarding Clinton and his lawyer, I have never said in any way that Clinton had started legal proceedings to sue the network.
Again, it is you who is being the liar.
Throughout this whole exchange you have done nothing but try and nitpick on one or two words, call me a liar, and yet offer no clue that you even read my post. You certainly haven't offered any argument to refute the points my post make.
Why don't you runaway little misguided liberal troll.
Meatbrain,
You said:
"Question: When CBS decided not to air 'The Reagans' on that network in 2003. whose complaints caused them to ban the film?"
Republicans and those who found the film to be highly disrespectful and totally tilted via lampooning characterizations of the Regans for sole political partisanship. That's who.
You said:
"Look up what happened three years ago when CBS was planning to air 'The Reagans'. Look at who was bitching about that film. Your accusations of hypocrisy ring hollow in the cold light of history."
Only in the cold light of mistakenly trying to equate what the writers of "The Reagans" were trying to do with what the writers of "In The Path Of 9/11" were trying to do.
In "The Reagans", they were all about portraying Ronald Regan as some kind of bumbling gay basher, while his wife Nancy actually ran the show. This ludicrous portrayal
was the underlying theme of the show, a mocking caricature, like something you'd expect to see on SNL.
"In The Path to 9/11", a serious attempt is being made to portray what led us to 9/11 and our ineptness during it. That is the focus.
There aren't any disrespectful mocking, SNL type characterizations. There are to be sure controversial moments in the film displaying the ineptness of the Clinton Administration in the handling of al Qaeda and Osama, but no comic slam of Clinton trying to make him out to some kind bumbling goofball, unlike what "The Reagans" tried to do with Ronald Reagan.
Dick Morris has pretty much supported the documentary's take on the Clinton Administration, as I referenced in my post. He ought to know, he was there in the midst of it.
Having lived through the Clinton fiasco of an administration, I remember the laxidaisical approach he took to terrorist attacks and terrorists.
As for what happened three years ago with "The Reagans" here is reference for you to check out:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html
And here is a good take away quote from the article:
"Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle later called the decision to pull the show "appalling." CBS "totally collapsed," he told National Public Radio."
You see, here is one of those Democrats who obviously wasn't concerned with truth back then. He was upset that CBS pulled "The Reagans"!
While I personally don't think either program should be banned, we do have First Amendment rights in this country, and you can always watch something else or turn your TV off. I am appalled at the obvious hypocrisy of the left and Bill Clinton.
I can see why Bill doesn't want it aired. The truth makes him, and the Democratic party who fumbled the ball when they had it in terms of Osama and al Qaeda, look bad. As well they should.
The same party who blew it, have then gone on to try derail every effort President Bush puts forth to effectively deal with Osama, Bin Laden and all supporters of Islamo-Facist terrorists.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
The truth? The Democrats aren't really interested in the truth. Just fighting against President Bush and regaining political power by hook, or by crook.
Meathead,
you said:
"(Emphasis mine.) You clearly meant that Clinton had already filed a lawsuit. It's no one's fault but your own that you (a) don't read the sources you cite (you have admitted this), and (b) let your irrational hatred of all things Clinton lead you to post transparent lies."
I admitted a mistake and you, instead of accepting it just keep repeating it as if I never corrected it to support your ridiculous notion that I am a liar.
As for the 'hatred of all things Clinton therefore a liar' drivel, this is typical of a liberal. If you disagree with the left's darling, Clinton, you are blinded by hate of "all things Clinton" and are therefore driven to lie.
you said:
"We've established who the liar is in this thread, Clay. Take a deep breath, grow some scruples, and admit that you deliberately and knowingly posted untrue statements."
We have in no way established that I am a liar. We have only established that you seem to think that that is the way for you to win any argument by calling someone a liar. Your wishful thinking does not in any way make me a liar.
Calling someone a liar is a pretty serious charge. I in no way use lies to argue my positions. I may get it wrong sometimes, as everyone is bound to do from time to time, but, lie? No way.
You, on the other hand, seem to do so with impunity.
You said:
"Idiot. I can hardly have quoted the contents of your post without having read it. Think before you type, little liar."
Wow! I get called two names in this mindless reply of yours.
Based upon your fixation with, "liar", "little liar", "ban", "legal action" and addressing little else of the article, makes drawing the conclusion that you probably haven't read and understood the intent of the post in the first place reasonable.
It is, after all, the nice way to put it. The other way would be to conclude that you either don't understand the post, or you are incapable of refuting it in any way beyond nitpicking over words single words and calling me names.
Based on your behavior here, I'd say the only lying idiot here is you, based upon your little "name calling" tactics sans reasonable refutation of the post's points.
Move along troll. Nothing more to see here. It's apparently all over your head anyway. I left the sixth grade decades ago, so name calling doesn't impress me that much. Actual sound reasoned argument does. Ciao
Meathead,
your continued drivel:
"Given that you are a proven liar, Clay, that remark is particularly hilarious. To what specific scenes and conversations in The Path to 9/11 have the Democrats raised objections?"
Yawn
More claptrap from you:
"You deliberately made a false statement, Clay. What appellation should we apply to you, if not "liar"?"
Yawn, Still living in a fantasy world huh?
Even more of your arrogant delusions:
"Yes, I know you tried to palm off your lie as a 'mistake'. Unfortunately, your mea culpa isn't terribly convincing, because you persisted in your mendacious behavior. Even after you said you'd made a mistake about the lawsuit, you still claimed that Bill Clinton was trying to ban the film.
You lied, you tried to claim that the lie was a 'mistake', and then you reworded the lie."
Yawn. If any one has been persistant in mendacious behavior it has been you. You can't get past "ban" and "lawsuit" and calling me names. Like I said, why don't you move on. You obviously don't have any counter arguments to make to my post other than: "liar, liar you're pants are on fire".
You can reply if you wish, but I am through trying to reason with a childish little leftist anklebiter like you. You've wasted enough of my time. Go call someone else names since you are obviously incapable of reasoned debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home