In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Name:
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Friday, September 08, 2006

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?

23 Comments:

Blogger meatbrain said...

"Now, they want to ban ABC from airing a documentary next Monday and Tuesday night entitled, "The Path To 9/11"."

You're lying, Clay. There have been no efforts to ban the film. There have been many who have called on ABC not to air the film because of the great number of misrepresentations it contains.

Try the truth, Clay. It really is much easier.

10:46 AM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

12:50 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

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.


The article you cite provides no information about any lawsuit, Clay. Who is suing, and in what court has this alleged lawsuit been filed?

If you cannot provide evidence of a suit, we'll know that you're lying again.

3:02 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

3:51 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"How can I be lying again when I never lied in the first place?"

In your post, Clay, you stated:

"Now, they want to ban ABC from airing a documentary next Monday and Tuesday night entitled, "The Path To 9/11"."

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.

In your first reply to me, you stated:

"It has gone beyond simple demands and now involves legal action to ensure that it is not shown."

If this claim is true, it should be a simple matter to show who specifically has brought legal action against ABC to ensure that the film is not shown. You have failed to do this. Your claim that legal action has been taken against the film is a lie.

"Even if one isn't persued, my point still stands. There are demands by Clinton and other Democrats that this program not be aired."

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.

Tell me something, Clay: Who banned CBS from airing 'The Reagans' on that network in 2003?

"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."

False. Asking -- or even demanding -- that ABC not air the film does not constitute a ban. The decision would be made voluntarily by ABC, not imposed on it by a government agency or a court. Only such an imposed restriction could be counted as a ban, because in the absence of same, ABC could air the film at any time -- thus demonstrating that no ban was in place.

Your original post was based on a lie, and you've dug yourself a deeper hole by continuing to lie. It's so much easier to just stick to the truth.

4:12 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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?

4:32 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"I did show you specifically, Bill Clinton."

Bill Clinton is an ex-President who holds no position in the US Government. Under which statute does he have the power to ban the airing of any film?

"I am consistantly demonstrating that the Democrats are trying to prevent the show from being aired."

False. Your original claim was that the Democrats are trying to "ban" the airing of the film. Now you backpedal to saying merely that "There are demands... that this program not be aired". Do you understand the difference between an official, government-imposed ban and a network deciding not to air a program? Do you even understand that there is a difference?

"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?"

Read for comprehension, Clay. I didn't say that you claimed that 'The Reagans' had been banned. Jeez, you're dense.

Go read the history of the film, and tell me this: Did anyone criticize its content before it was aired? Who did that? Who was therefore responsible for banning it when CBS decided not to air it?

"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."

False. A decision by ABC is a decision by ABC -- it is not a ban. You are quite simply lying about what is happening. You are quite simply lying about the meaning of the word "ban".

"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"."

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.

5:10 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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!

5:20 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

You are still unable to demonstrate that any "ban" has been sought. Your claim was, and remains, a lie.

5:31 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

5:55 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"...you are ineffective when it comes to actually making any sound arguments in defense of the left."

I have not attempted to defend any political viewpoint. I've highlighted your dishonesty, nothing more.

"I said they wanted a ban..."

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.

You're afraid of answering any of my questions. Run away, little liar.

"Only an air-head..."

"You must do more than just call your opponent names" -- and, obviously, you are incapable of following your own advice.

7:38 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

7:52 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"When did I say legal action had been initiated?"

Here:

"It has gone beyond simple demands and now involves legal action to ensure that it is not shown."

(Emphasis mine.)

Please come back when you can at least keep track of your own lies.

2:31 AM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

4:35 AM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"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."

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.

You couldn't back up your claim that legal action had been taken, so now you are redefining the term retroactively. 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."

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.

Question: When CBS decided not to air 'The Reagans' on that network in 2003. whose complaints caused them to ban the film?

Run away, little liar.

2:27 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

As regards 'liberal hypocrisy' vs 'conservative hypocrisy', I direct your attention to recent comments at Media Matters:

"Other conservatives in the media, such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III, have been similarly inconsistent in their statements about The Path to 9/11 and The Reagans. Bozell acknowledged on the September 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, that "[p]erhaps two percent of [The Path to 9/11] is wrong" and "[p]erhaps two percent of it is debatable," but then excused the falsehoods by adding: "That leaves you with about 96 percent of the movie that's accurate, and that no one is disputing." Bozell did not similarly excuse alleged misrepresentations in The Reagans; according to a November 5, 2003, CBS News article, he responded to that film by declaring: "There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people. ... I don't care who you are. You don't have that right." Similarly, Scarborough declared on September 6 that "Democrats [are] demanding censorship from Disney" and are "calling on ABC president Bob Iger to censor offending parts of the miniseries." But in 2003, Scarborough praised CBS' decision not to air the "cruel parody" The Reagans, because "[t]his isn't about Soviet censorship. This is about Jeffersonian democracy. ... Americans picked Ronald Reagan over Hollywood.""

3:30 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

7:47 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"That is pure B.S. on your part. How do you know what I meant?"

Because you told us what you meant by legal action, Clay:

"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."

(Emphasis mine.) When you posted the claim, your use of the term "legal action" meant "to sue". Period. Only after it was pointed out that no lawsuit had been filed did you try to weasel your way out of this by claiming that when you said "legal action" you meant that a lawyer wrote a letter.

"...I have never said in any way that Clinton had started legal proceedings to sue the network."

You're lying again, Clay. After citing the New York Post article about Clinton, you clearly stated:

"It has gone beyond simple demands and now involves legal action to ensure that it is not shown."

(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.

"Again, it is you who is being the liar."

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.

"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."

Idiot. I can hardly have quoted the contents of your post without having read it. Think before you type, little liar.

8:30 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

8:30 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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

10:36 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

"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."

You've just admitted that the Republicans had The Reagans banned, Clay. If that is the case, how can you know how the film portrayed Reagan?

"I am appalled at the obvious hypocrisy of the left and Bill Clinton."

And how do you feel about the obvious hypocrisy of the right?

"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."

Is it your contention that everything depicted in The Path to 9/11 -- all events, all conversations -- is absolutely and indisuptably 100% true?

"The Democrats aren't really interested in the truth."

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?

"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."

You deliberately made a false statement, Clay. What appellation should we apply to you, if not "liar"?

"We have in no way established that I am a liar."

Who filed a lawsuit seeking to 'ban' The Path to 9/11, then, and in which court?

"I in no way use lies to argue my positions. "

Who filed a lawsuit seeking to 'ban' The Path to 9/11, then, and in which court?

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.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Clay said...

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.

4:21 PM  
Blogger meatbrain said...

To what specific scenes and conversations in The Path to 9/11 have the Democrats raised objections?

Is it your contention that everything depicted in The Path to 9/11 -- all events, all conversations -- is absolutely and indisuptably 100% true?

If the Republicans had The Reagans banned, how can you know how the film portrayed Reagan?

You're afraid to answer simple questions, and you are running away.

Run, little liar.

4:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home