The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
eh, theres the jessica lynch story, but no protests there inconsistent bastards.
Originally posted by: drewshin
Originally posted by: Drensch
http://www.house.gov/dingell/Reagan.pdf
"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."
LOL ketchup as a vegetable. you're right after those ridiculous eight years of shamanomics, and four years of bumbling bush, clinton did have it easy, we had nowhere to go but up.
1. I don't think anyone really knows what happened with her. It's all a big mess.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
eh, theres the jessica lynch story, but no protests there inconsistent bastards.
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Good god, our boys are dying over in Iraq and you people on the right are cheering about a freakin made for tv Reagan mini series being pulled?
How about those Right complain about our pulling our boys DYING in Iraq back? I dont hear too much of that now.
Do they complain about the following....
Rising deficit to historical levels? Nope.
Or the millions of unemployed? Nope.
The families without healthcare? Nope
The fact they put out Southern California fire? Nope
The fact that we were blatently lied to about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, links Al-Qaida and everything else by our current administration. Hell no.
I could go on.
They continue to bitch about taxes and the ten commandments outside judge moore's building. Jeez, I would love being a conservative, it would make dangerous ignorance seem like complete bliss.
Yes please remember that it is more important to these Neo Cons to keep the ficticious image of Ronald Waxhead as a great leader than it is discuss the lives of American Soldiers in IraqOriginally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Good god, our boys are dying over in Iraq and you people on the right are cheering about a freakin made for tv Reagan mini series being pulled?
How about those Right complain about our pulling our boys DYING in Iraq back? I dont hear too much of that now.
Do they complain about the following....
Rising deficit to historical levels? Nope.
Or the millions of unemployed? Nope.
The families without healthcare? Nope
The fact they put out Southern California fire? Nope
The fact that we were blatently lied to about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, links Al-Qaida and everything else by our current administration. Hell no.
I could go on.
They continue to bitch about taxes and the ten commandments outside judge moore's building. Jeez, I would love being a conservative, it would make dangerous ignorance seem like complete bliss.
YeahThe only fscking news anyone can bring up is Iraq stuff
Get a clue - things don't just stop because we are at war and YOU don't get to choose which topics can and can't be discussed. If you wish to discuss the war or about bringing out troops back - there are plenty of threads for you to whine in. Likewise with the other things you bleated about.
Now run along if you don't have anything to add to this discussion...and take your attitude with you. Make sure you don't run into the wall - I imagine it's hard to see with your nose so high in the air.
CkG
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yes please remember that it is more important to these Neo Cons to keep the ficticious image of Ronald Waxhead as a great leader than it is discuss the lives of American Soldiers in Iraq
Originally posted by: Drensch
http://www.house.gov/dingell/Reagan.pdf
"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why does it have to be accurate? Well for starters because lying is supposed to be a bad thing. Remember? Secondly the problem with "historical" mini-series is that most of the uneducated slack jawed yokels in this country take what they see on TV as the gospel and have never bothered to read a newspaper let alone a real history book in their lives. I can't tell you how many times I've heard some dimwitted slug at work tell me they saw some movie, etc...that was "based on a true story" and thought everything in it was 100% accurate. Hell, show the great troglodyte masses of this country a "based on a true story" movie about why the Columbia blew up and have a gremlin on the wing ripping it apart and they would probably believe it. Especially if they had Shatner looking out the window at it and freaking out.
Bottom line? TV is a huge influence, wrongly so, on the majority of people in this country. Show them a movie about how an "evil" Ronald Reagan didn't care about AIDS patients and the next thing you know they will be marching through the streets with pictures of him dressed as Hitler. I'm not just talking about the Berkley whackos here, I'm talking about your ordinary, every day, Wal-Mart shopping, McDonald's eating, mini-van driving, Survivor watching Joe.
Originally posted by: cumhail
No, the real question is: If, at some point in the future, Fox or some other media outlet does decide to run such a movie/mini-series about Clinton and/or some other high-ranking national leader whose politics you disagree with, will those who objected so strongly to this one be consistent and try to stop that, as well?
cumhail
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: smashp
Reguardless of your perception of reagan, they should wait till he is pushing daisies.
The real question is would Fox run "The Clinton years" in response?
Originally posted by: cumhail
Accurate portrayal? Have you seen it? I haven't... As such, I don't know if it is an accurate portrayal or not. I do know, however, that including fictionalized scenes in a historical film does not precluding it from presenting an "accurate portrayal." All biographical and historical films include scenes and selections that come as the result of author's attempt to "fill in the gaps." And all such films, books, stories, poems, etc. reflect the biases of the author, the subject, and the intended audience.
All that said, this film may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Ronald Reagan... and it may or may not be intended to be. All I know of it, so far, is that a bunch of fans of the former president who have not seen it nor read more than a few excerpts of the script have decided that should be stopped because some of the scenes present him in an unflattering light. As such, I was thinking that if I cared enough about it to want to know how accurate it seemed to be, I'd perhaps actually watch the mini-series (or at least part of it) and then form my perceptions of it; a radical approach, I know.
But at the end of the day, Nitemare, you know as well as I do that those who oppose the CBS mini-series would oppose any such project that was in any way critical of the former president and/or his administration, regardless of whether or not it could be supported as being historically accurate. If, for example, a film came out that specifically addressed Reagan and the elder Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, the same people would be up in arms without having seen a single word of the script nor a single scene of the movie.
Well since the writer made no attempt of any kind to speak with reagans family members Iwould have to say that she did a lot of filling in the gaps. that much gap filling is commonly known as fiction.
This has to do with politics, nothing else. The overwhelming majority of those who have been so vehemently against OR for this mini-series have based their positions on their preconceived notions of the man, the party, and the ideologies he represents. To claim that this has anything at all to do with historical accuracy or accurate portrayal is to kid oneself (and not many others).
cumhail
Originally posted by: Nitemare
cumhail, if it was an accurate portrayal then fine. However, it's more Bowling for Columbinish then it is accurate
I can't take anyone serious who uses the phrase "historical fiction." Whatever the hell that is.....Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why does it have to be accurate? Well for starters because lying is supposed to be a bad thing. Remember? Secondly the problem with "historical" mini-series is that most of the uneducated slack jawed yokels in this country take what they see on TV as the gospel and have never bothered to read a newspaper let alone a real history book in their lives. I can't tell you how many times I've heard some dimwitted slug at work tell me they saw some movie, etc...that was "based on a true story" and thought everything in it was 100% accurate. Hell, show the great troglodyte masses of this country a "based on a true story" movie about why the Columbia blew up and have a gremlin on the wing ripping it apart and they would probably believe it. Especially if they had Shatner looking out the window at it and freaking out.
It's not Hollywood's duty to teach America. If you get your history from a TV miniseries, or you obtain your political news from late-night talk shows, that's YOUR problem, not Hollywood's problem. If everyone was really interested in the historical "facts" of Reagan's administration, they could very easily go read some books on the subject.
Bottom line? TV is a huge influence, wrongly so, on the majority of people in this country. Show them a movie about how an "evil" Ronald Reagan didn't care about AIDS patients and the next thing you know they will be marching through the streets with pictures of him dressed as Hitler. I'm not just talking about the Berkley whackos here, I'm talking about your ordinary, every day, Wal-Mart shopping, McDonald's eating, mini-van driving, Survivor watching Joe.
Again - because half of all Americans are slack-jawed functional illiterates, somehow that bestows the responsiblity on TV to teach these morons? Afraid not. TV is entertainment. Movies are entertainment. If you want historical facts, go read a book or take a class. The networks and entertainment companies should be free to make historical fiction if they want.
"It just doesn't work," Moonves told staffers in a bold move of conscience. "Listen, we are not afraid of controversy, we'd go out there if it came in at 50-50, pro and con, but it simply isn't working. It's biased."
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hell they might have a bit part for Crimson as John Hinkley
I think he was just pointing out how screwed up some people's priorities are. They don't seem to care about:Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yes please remember that it is more important to these Neo Cons to keep the ficticious image of Ronald Waxhead as a great leader than it is discuss the lives of American Soldiers in Iraq
No, it's just that there are plenty of places that it is already being discussed - to come in here and make absurd comments like he(and now you) made is just trolling and definately not on-topic. Are there not threads discussing these very subjects he brought up? (yes) Then WTF come in here and bleat on and on about something not related to the topic?
CkG
Grow up. It's called sex. Billions of healthy adults do it. Yes, even the ones who pretend it's evil. You'll understand when you're older.Originally posted by: NesuD
Well clinton provided more than enough documented materiel that it surely wouldn't be necessary to fabricate stuff to make it interesting as the Lib scriptwriter did with the reagan mini series.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think he was just pointing out how screwed up some people's priorities are. They don't seem to care about:Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yes please remember that it is more important to these Neo Cons to keep the ficticious image of Ronald Waxhead as a great leader than it is discuss the lives of American Soldiers in Iraq
No, it's just that there are plenty of places that it is already being discussed - to come in here and make absurd comments like he(and now you) made is just trolling and definately not on-topic. Are there not threads discussing these very subjects he brought up? (yes) Then WTF come in here and bleat on and on about something not related to the topic?
CkGLet someone make an entertainment piece that they don't like, however, and the sky is falling.
- Hundreds of dead American soldiers
- Record deficits
- Corporate scandals
- Trampled civil liberties
- The treasonous outing of a CIA operative -- specializing in WMDs, no less
- The refusal of the Bush administration to cooperate with the 9/11 investigation
- The refusal of the Bush administration to disclose its activities on matters of public interest -- e.g., Cheney's energy meetings
- Dishonesty from a Republican White House
- Any other vital matters that affect America and Americans
You have to wonder about people who put entertainment at the center of their universe. Left unchecked, it could lead to taking info-tainment like Limbaugh and Faux News seriously.
Sorry, forgot about that reading comprehension issue. I am questioning the priorities -- and the morality -- of the people screeching about a movie in this thread while they either ignore or dismiss real world tragedies/problems/etc. in other threads. I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And you are just trying to reiterate his absurd "point". Do you not see plenty of talk about all those subjects he brought up? Now if that is ALL that was talked about then sure - you two might have a point but when you try to quash one subject point by saying that people should be talking about "more important" ones is absurd when they are already talking about those other subjects.
Your implication that the "other" issues aren't "cared about" is quite asinine.
CkG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry, forgot about that reading comprehension issue. I am questioning the priorities -- and the morality -- of the people screeching about a movie in this thread while they either ignore or dismiss real world tragedies/problems/etc. in other threads. I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And you are just trying to reiterate his absurd "point". Do you not see plenty of talk about all those subjects he brought up? Now if that is ALL that was talked about then sure - you two might have a point but when you try to quash one subject point by saying that people should be talking about "more important" ones is absurd when they are already talking about those other subjects.
Your implication that the "other" issues aren't "cared about" is quite asinine.
CkG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry, it's my country too. We have a constitutional right to express our concerns and disagreement with any public officials. Don't like it, give Comrade Crimson a call, see if he can set you up with a more suitable country.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Sorry, forgot about that reading comprehension issue. I am questioning the priorities -- and the morality -- of the people screeching about a movie in this thread while they either ignore or dismiss real world tragedies/problems/etc. in other threads. I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
And you are just trying to reiterate his absurd "point". Do you not see plenty of talk about all those subjects he brought up? Now if that is ALL that was talked about then sure - you two might have a point but when you try to quash one subject point by saying that people should be talking about "more important" ones is absurd when they are already talking about those other subjects.
Your implication that the "other" issues aren't "cared about" is quite asinine.
CkG
Yeah, and I'm saying that those issues are being discussed, but yeah I forgot about those little "facts" that get in the way.
Who exactly do you think isn't and hasn't been involved in any of those other threads but is "screeching" in this one?
Infact I think that if you re-read this thread you'll see alot of your buddies spending alot of time in here...wonder why that is
Also - who made your the arbitor of what is a "real world issue"? Do you not care about revisionist history? You don't mind things and people being LIED about?
Note that I didn't say a word about Conservatives. I am commenting about individual would-be movie critics who are apparently prescient since they're trashing a movie they haven't seen.Nice try Bow - but again your little attempt at demonizing Conservatives has failed - go whine in a different thread.
CkG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And you again manage to miss (or ignore) what I wrote.
"I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads."
"I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads."
"I did not suggest that these issues are not discussed in other threads. I am pointing out the inconsistency in level of concern by certain people in this thread compared to their level of concern in other threads.'"
Note that I didn't say a word about Conservatives. I am commenting about individual would-be movie critics who are apparently prescient since they're trashing a movie they haven't seen.Nice try Bow - but again your little attempt at demonizing Conservatives has failed - go whine in a different thread.
CkG
Nice try Sir Cad, but your little attempt to excuse the abhorrent hypocrisy and immorality of certain individuals has failed - go blow smoke in a different thread.