Bush apologist/Fox "newsman" John Gibson misses the irony

Desh said:
The movie does not present the facts.

The facts are in direct opposition to many of the claims in the film.

Clinton did attempt to get OBL and when he did what was it that the Republican party members were screaming?

"wag the dog".
They claimed every attempt to get OBL was a divergance from the VERY IMPORTANT STORY of Clinton getting sued by a whore bag called Paula Jones whos' case was so important that it could not wait until after Clinton was president and BTW it would not get in Clintons way of being president.

At least Clinton tried to get him.
Bush yelled at the briefers who tried to warn him about OBL "dont tell me about that again".
The leading terror expert the US had at the time came forward and said plainly that Bush was NOT interested in him and considered it Clinton stuff.

Then MONTHS after Clinton left office while Bush was president OBL got to us.

Clinton tried and failed, BUSH ignored it and thought he would just go away.

Oh and has he got him yet after the fact?
Click to expand...

It was a right wing hit job filled with lies, which republicans just love because they will do anything to attempt to divert attention from the failure of tough boy and the tough party, not catching the murderer of 3,000 Americans, and that takes some lies, so they line up for them , and then cry about it when they hit a few road bumps. Sorry, but abc took a big hit for their hit job, and they will get an even bigger one if they peddle that right wing BS just before the 08 election, which as part of the "liberal media" you can bet they are planning to do.
 
uscitizen said:
Ahh Damo coming as close to admitting defeat as he is able....
Click to expand...
In this case, the only source for the DVD is the source supposedly "choosing" not to release it because it might hurt a candidate. IMO, that is censorship. Not the same as government censorship, but definitely censorship.

I just don't personally believe that it is what they are "choosing". You did the same thing. I was asking questions honestly, I wanted to know where others would draw that line.

Would it be censorship if the assertions are true? IMO, it would be, to others who answered the question it would not. Regardless of the source or the reason if you own the rights to something and choose not to release it because you don't want people to see it for whatever reason, then it would be censorship. Not the same as Amendment 1 type illegal censorship, but definitely it would be censorship.
 
Damocles said:
In this case, the only source for the DVD is the source supposedly "choosing" not to release it because it might hurt a candidate. IMO, that is censorship. Not the same as government censorship, but definitely censorship.

I just don't personally believe that it is what they are "choosing". You did the same thing. I was asking question honestly, I wanted to know where others would draw that line.
Click to expand...


Why is it censorship to refuse to sell a product you own the rights to? No one owns the facts and no one owns the right to create a dramatization from those facts. ABC owns the rights to this particular presentation of the "facts" and the fictionalized accounts, but other people are entirely free to produce their own movie if they so desire.

What's the problem?
 
Dungheap said:
Why is it censorship to refuse to sell a product you own the rights to? No one owns the facts and no one owns the right to create a dramatization from those facts. ABC owns the rights to this particular presentation of the "facts" and the fictionalized accounts, but other people are entirely free to produce their own movie if they so desire.

What's the problem?
Click to expand...
No, IMO if I choose to do it "to keep it from the public" then it is censorship.

Again (for those who don't read) I don't believe that is what is happening here. However, if they actually did choose to not release it because "it might hurt HillBilly's chances of winning" it is censorship. Just not governmental, and therefore, illegal censorship. They have the right not to sell their product, even for such reasons.

My questions wasn't about "problem" it was to find out where others would draw that line.

If the Christian Coalition owned the company that bought publishing rights to one of Moore's films and they decided not to release it because it might hurt R's in the next election, would it be censorship? IMO, yes. Would it be illegal? No. Do they have the right to do that? Yes.

Would they be total jerks for it? Hell, yes.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, if the producers of that particular film chose to present reality in their "dramatization" (read: "fictionalization") there wouldn't be an issue.

And spare me the censorship card, please. An owner of a product refusing to sell that product is not censorship.
Click to expand...

Funny... when Michael Moores pieces of shit, I mean "documentaries" (read fictionalization, a.k.a. pieces of shit) came out... it was all a cry of censorship.... when in reality it was an owner of a business deciding not to show the pieces of shit.
 
Superfreak said:
Funny... when Michael Moores pieces of shit, I mean "documentaries" (read fictionalization, a.k.a. pieces of shit) came out... it was all a cry of censorship.... when in reality it was an owner of a business deciding not to show the pieces of shit.
Click to expand...

Umm don't paint too broad of a swath there, I do not believe I cried censorship about MM's film. Actually the only MM film I have seen is supersize me.

My point is that at that time Damo said it was the stations right not to show it and not censorchip, now it is different though....somehow....
flip flip flip
 
uscitizen said:
Umm don't paint too broad of a swath there, I do not believe I cried censorship about MM's film. Actually the only MM film I have seen is supersize me.

My point is that at that time Damo said it was the stations right not to show it and not censorchip, now it is different though....somehow....
flip flip flip
Click to expand...
*sigh*

It isn't censorship because they are not the only source for the song. KYGO here, could not ever stop me from listening to the Dixie Chicks regardless of whether they chose not to play the music. However, if they were the only source of the music and they chose not to play it because they might corrupt me, then it would be censorship.

Now, would it be illegal? No, because they are not the government.
 
Onceler said:
Who was crying "censorship" when Michael Moore released his docs?
Click to expand...
The ones who said, "These theatres won't play it! It's Censorship!"

I can't remember which theatres chose not to show the Bush Crockumentary, but I do remember some cries of censorship.

Amazingly I made the same argument then. Those theatres were not the only source for the movie, they were not censoring it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top