namelesstavern.net

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/re ... id=262624&

The DNC dislikes the Path to 9/11 so this is what they send in a letter to ABC. There is no ifs, ands, or buts here. The DNC has used the Federal Government to change a program they didn't like.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest...

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.

The real comedy here is lisetning to Bill Clinton demand 'The Truth!' and Sandy Berger be listened to about anything factual in regards to this, given his history of stealing top secret 9/11 documents in his pants.

The end of that letter appears to be a veiled threat to ABC, and anyone reading the news can already see the demand for censorship, primarily coming from two politicians, one who lied under oath multiple times, and another who stole documents that probably would've explained much more of what happened with Bin Laden.

With how stupid people are i dont think showing them a DOCADRAMA is the best plan in the world. BUT i am not one for any type of censorship so id just use my FREEDOM to not watch this shit.

You do know that the writer of this piece of trash is a hard-core right wing activist, yes? Who is using this platform as a backdoor means of slamming the democrats during an election year?That the FBI agent that they used as a consultant for the project quit over the blatant inaccuracies? Hell, one of the actors, Harvey Keitel has come out pissed about them now too.

Also, how is this ANY different than what the conservatives did to the mini-series "The Reagans" a couple years back? Where was your outrage about THAT?

-Arlos

I think this is a deliberate attempt to cloud peoples thoughts but id be a hypocrite if i screamed shut it down i think. Do you want it shut down arlos ?

Yes, obviously ABC is a right wing attack studio. Not. There were many people involved with this docudrama and to hear you claim someone is a right wing activist controlling this is false, when many who produced, wrote, and edited this were from Clintons team or are avid Bush haters.

The GOP never threatened anyone over the Reagan miniseries, just like W never threatened anyone about Fahrenheit 9/11 which was truly a pure propaganda deceitful piece of garbage. Condeming something or saying it's wrong is fine. The problem is people in the government demanding things. That didn't happen before.

Anyway, equivocation is irrelvent. It's nice to see you support censorship and abuse of the Federal government when it's for a cause you believe in because you don't 'like' the guys who wrote, directed, or whatever. This is a disgusting ploy from the DNC, and all you can say is this guy has different views, so it's ok to leverage governmental power and demand censorship. I disagree and think that many have double standards.

Censoring people who say things you dont wanna hear is the american way lyion. Your prolly for it to some extent. If they wanted to show farinheight 911 on nbc youd proly wig out. If they started dropping the f bomb on nbc it would prolly also freak you out.

I heard it showed some shortcommings of both administrations, I wonder if we'll ever get to see it to know for sure. I for once am in agreement with spazz, and I could have cared less if they had shown Farinheit 9/11 on network TV.

This kind of brow beating is something everyone should be concerned about. I'll bet the ACLU jumps right on this freedom of speach issue, yea right.

lyion wrote:Anyway, equivocation is irrelvent. It's nice to see you support censorship and abuse of the Federal government when it's for a cause you believe in because you don't 'like' the guys who wrote, directed, or whatever. This is a disgusting ploy from the DNC, and all you can say is this guy has different views, so it's ok to leverage governmental power and demand censorship. I disagree and think that many have double standards.

Arlos never said he supported or felt the DNC was right in doing this, he argued that the content was inaccurate and that it was a product of political bias. His position on forced or pressured removal of the program was not stated, and I'm guessing that though he feels it's political propoganda and inaccurate, he doesn't agree with it being censored or pressure by the government put on ABC to remove it from the program line up.

I have no problem with arguing about accuracy and bias of a program, however I think the DNC made a big mistake in it's actions. It actually lends credibility to the program. If it's all invention then why try and stop it from airing and risk the whole censorship brow beating issue.. unless you can't can't reasonably argue against the content once the public has seen it?

spazz wrote:Censoring people who say things you dont wanna hear is the american way lyion.

Holy fucking shit!

I'm not watching any of it on any channel. I'll be watching the game on ESPN.

Have been watching it for about an hour or so... I really don't see any political damage it would cause even if people see it all as absolute factual truth (and there have been messages stating that dramatic liberties were taken in some cases).

I missed it, was it a vicious right wing attack docudrama as promised? Did the FCC storm the magic kingdom yet? Inquiring minds want to know!

Nope, it was a quite tame but insightful docudrama presented with what information was left for the 9/11 commission and others.

Unfortunately Sandy Berger, that wonderful Democrat, snuck out and shredded most of the Clinton ones that would've told the whole story.

I have it taped and might host it, if I ever get a new webhost.

Send it to me, I will host it for you if you want. Have the bandwidth to spare this month.

/shrug I watched most of it and enjoyed it for the most part. I watched it way more for entertainment purpose, not to try to learn a bunch of shit I didnt know. God I hate politics, makes everything so much less enoyjable when they are around.

I don't see this as a threat at all, it's hardly censorship

Naethyn wrote:

Nice example of intollerant hate mongering you have there.

How, exactly, is that different than any recent book by, say, Coulter, Hannity, et al, which are filled with vile frothing hatred of anyone they deem to be a "liberal"? It is more blunt, to be true, but I'd argue that there's far more hatred and bigotry contained in any 1 page of those works than in that jpg.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:How, exactly, is that different than any recent book by, say, Coulter, Hannity, et al, which are filled with vile frothing hatred of anyone they deem to be a "liberal"? It is more blunt, to be true, but I'd argue that there's far more hatred and bigotry contained in any 1 page of those works than in that jpg.

-Arlos

I laughed and said to myself, "Arlos is wrong, we only need a half a page" (sorta unfair to Hannity since I've never read any of his books). The big contrasting difference would be substance of argument, at least where Coulter is concerned while she may write of radical reactions or methods, it's usually on the basis of a particular point.. the picture is just kinda general.

Oh please. The right is just as intollerant as the left. How many times has Limbaugh referred to environmentalist as leftist wackos? How many times has Hanitty and the rest of them cast insult after insult at anyone who doesn't agree with them? Answer: COUNTLESS.

Well, they say a picture is worth 1000 words, yes?

-Arlos

The difference is about entertainers versus the mainstream party representatives.

I'd say there's a big difference between non affiliateds like Coulter, Hannity.. which, btw, you nicely forget to mention all the liberal equivalents.. You know, Maher, Michael Moore, Garofolo, Franken, and most of Hollywood that gets free air time, etc and the party representatives such as...

The chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean. Dean represents the DNC and spouts more hate than the Iranian parliament discussing trade with Israel. You just don't see that on the other side.

Anyways, liberals are pussies so it's not like they'd be punching anyone. Except for their women punching police as they run through security checkpoints, since they'd get their ass whooped, or shot.

Anyways, no use spouting common sense... Since when we deal with them, we enter....

The Liberal Twilight Zone...

lyion wrote:Anyways, liberals are pussies so it's not like they'd be punching anyone.

I agree with this statement. Especially Canadian Liberals.