The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    Turn off your VPN to register and your email must be a working email to join and login.

Why Does Disney/ABC Hate America?

J

jkirk3000

Sex God
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Posts
538
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Boston area
Well isn't this odd...usually it's the Republicans complaining about bias in the media. Another excercise in the abuse of freedom of the press (kinda like the now discredited Valerie Plame scandal)?

The question becomes, how much in the docu-drama is fact and how much is fiction. And besides that, we know that obviously many people screwed up...what is the point after the fact of assigning blame? Shouldn't we instead try and fix the faults in our systems to ensure this doesn't happen again?

Well, I won't be watching anyway...from now until February 3, it's 24/7 football!
 
I think the country is doing just fine, and will continue to do fine, without you emailing Disney...but go right ahead.

I think that General Alfie is correct in his condemnation if he can show me that
Disney/ABC claims that this drama is a historial presentation, rather than a dramatization. I don't subscribe to the "fake, but accurate" angle for Disney/ABC any more than I do for CBS/Mapes/Rather.

Quite frankly, I don't see any need to dramatize facts with regards to the Clinton Administration on terrorism. It is a pathetic record. I remember the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and NOTHING WAS DONE. I remember the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, and NOTHING WAS DONE. I remember the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the response of the Clinton administration was to launch some cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical factory which had ties to chemical weapons (better than nothing?). I remember when the USS Cole was bombed in 2000, and NOTHING WAS DONE. I fully believe that it was this lack of response that so emboldened Al Quaeda to undertake the September 11, 2001 attacks.

And it doesn't surprise me that his administrations' officials are crying foul...it is they who are being criticized.

On the other hand, the Bush administration's record was not stellar either in its first ten months in terms of addressing the threat, UNTIL 9/11. This is a key difference between the two administrations. And since this thread is just a premise to bash President Bush, I will say this: Bush acted after 9/11. He has been resolute. He has not wavered.
 
It's really a hoot that the goofy left has their panties all up in a bunch over this program. Forget for a moment whether or not Sandy Berger (the document thief) pulled the plug on a Bin Laden hit or Madeline Albright (who the N. Koreans got over on nicely) said this or did that.

The fact is Bill "BJ" Clinton had eight full years to respond to numerous attacks by terrorists on the WTC in '93, The Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, and the USS Kohl (sp?). He didn't do shit! He blew up an aspirin factory and sent a couple of Cruise missles into a building in Iraq when only the cleaning crew was there. Forget the minutia, the fact is that BJ was more interested in getting his pipes cleaned than in protecting us from these assholes.

He treated terrorist attacks as police matters instead of attacks against us as a nation. We now that this was an ineffective plan of action. The Clintonistas are all in a tizzy over this production. The question should be why did they hate America enough to allow all of these attacks?
 
jackoroe said:
It's really a hoot that the goofy left has their panties all up in a bunch over this program. Forget for a moment whether or not Sandy Berger (the document thief) pulled the plug on a Bin Laden hit or Madeline Albright (who the N. Koreans got over on nicely) said this or did that.

The fact is Bill "BJ" Clinton had eight full years to respond to numerous attacks by terrorists on the WTC in '93, The Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, and the USS Kohl (sp?). He didn't do shit! He blew up an aspirin factory and sent a couple of Cruise missles into a building in Iraq when only the cleaning crew was there. Forget the minutia, the fact is that BJ was more interested in getting his pipes cleaned than in protecting us from these assholes.

He treated terrorist attacks as police matters instead of attacks against us as a nation. We now that this was an ineffective plan of action. The Clintonistas are all in a tizzy over this production. The question should be why did they hate America enough to allow all of these attacks?
Click to expand...

Yep, that appears to be how history is being rewritten isn't it?

It doesn't take much to actually search the internet (of all places) to find news stories waaaay back when Clinton was President.

CLINTON DECLARES HIS WAR ON OSAMA BIN LADEN

But of course hindsight is always 20/20, and heaven knows that the Republicans during the "Clinton Era" were more concerned about Clinton getting a Blow Job than thwarting terrorism.

*cough* A matter of historical record, by the way. Uh, who was controlling congress from 1992 to the present? Can you say Republicans?

I'm sure that revisionist history will help everyone on the right sleep so much better.

Who knows, it might even assuage some of thier guilt for having done nothing at the time! ..|

I think that would be a real bonus don't you?

It's been suggested that we shouldn't play the blame game, so why imply it?

Even if is a just a "docudrama" to fill space until Desperate Housewives begins it's new season.



:rolleyes:
 
do I sense a double standard at work here?

is this censorship we are espousing?

nah

this is to quote a famous commercial "priceless"

the irony is thick

oh so thick

sorry for piling on - but it's so rare I get a chance to
 
All I know is is that I'm not watching that piece of garbage. Clinton was not president when 9/11 happened, Bush was. And what was Bush doing, reading a damn book to a bunch of kids even after he was told of what was happening.

Not to mention that the movie's director, David Cunningham is the son of Loren Cunnigham of Youth With A Mission (yep a Chirstian right-wing group).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_With_A_Mission
and that gorup has ties to other groups like Promise Keepers, Campus Crusaders and Benny Hinn (google them).

It's just yet another bashing on Clinton by sore right-wing theocrats. Surprise surprise.
 
jackoroe said:
It's really a hoot that the goofy left has their panties all up in a bunch over this program. Forget for a moment whether or not Sandy Berger (the document thief) pulled the plug on a Bin Laden hit or Madeline Albright (who the N. Koreans got over on nicely) said this or did that.

The fact is Bill "BJ" Clinton had eight full years to respond to numerous attacks by terrorists on the WTC in '93, The Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, and the USS Kohl (sp?). He didn't do shit! He blew up an aspirin factory and sent a couple of Cruise missles into a building in Iraq when only the cleaning crew was there. Forget the minutia, the fact is that BJ was more interested in getting his pipes cleaned than in protecting us from these assholes.

He treated terrorist attacks as police matters instead of attacks against us as a nation. We now that this was an ineffective plan of action. The Clintonistas are all in a tizzy over this production. The question should be why did they hate America enough to allow all of these attacks?
Click to expand...

Touche

Sandy needs a new briefcase - he is so easily confused

Personally I think the concept that Bill was pre-occupied with the Monica Lewinsky thing is pretty plausible but that's me. Figuring out so many ways to deny it can be taxing.

Don't discredit the Clintons - god forbid

Next we'll have Barbara Streisand doing another comeback tour to finance the legal action against ABC which is being suggested here is a Republican mouthpiece - that's rich. Does anyone remember Peter Jennings and his "reporting"

This is exclusively a Bush bashing forum

Maybe Bob Iger should be placed in Guantanamo

Now, it you have some good Bush bites bring them on. Otherwise, keep it closed
 
What a shit show

This is hilarious

Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer have so much time on their hands? that's scary

I love it
 
Whoa, everyone, remember the mini-series is a docu-drama; emphasis on both "mini-series" and "drama". After all, most of those in the media who are upset over this 9-11 docu-drama, were probably the same ones who were silent when President Ronald Reagan's docu-drama was about to air on CBS. That docu-drama was eventually aired on Showtime. Peace. pride:
 
Well,the left did not get their panties in a bunch when Reagan was the subject of telemovies with some questionable characterizations appearing fictitious.But still,for the sake of honor and truth,dramatizations should never mix up or distort facts for any historical event,saying A authorized this ,not B,or someone was totally unengaged when they were,like the Clinton Administration.There are several times other than the attack on the Afghanistan camp they could have had Bin Laden-the 911 Commission did not say the Clinton Administration did not make a number of mistakes as well as the Bush Administration-and Clinton surely wasn't able to get to bin Laden,though Tenet should have been fired for going against an Administration directive.Fair is fair though,and Clinton shouldn't be condemned in the Afghani camp attack debacle-but as our favorite self-serving,public image ex-president,he was far from pristine and outstanding in his al-qaeda hunting performance.
 
General_Alfie said:
Interesting information on that cite you provided, centex. The site sets the record straight, for those interested in the truth.
And what an interesting title of the article:

CLINTON DECLARES HIS WAR ON OSAMA BIN LADEN; Polls Declare Americans are Willing to Let Him Do It

And Clinton had strong support in general terms, too, riding as he was at that time at 70% approval (which, as an aside, is nearly double Bush's current approval). Clinton had the support of the people to wage war on bin-Laden, he was highly popular, and yet the Republicans in Congress waged their own war, a war on Clinton, and they blocked him at every turn. Seems the GOP hated Clinton more than they hated bin-Laden, doesn't it?

Seems like the Republicans wanted America to fail, seems clear the GOP wanted America to lose this war on terror, it's obvious the Republicans wanted America to be attacked, and why? To hurt Clinton. That's how the GOP operates. The Republicans waged war on the war on terror, and it was all about the GOP's hatred for America.

And still, up to this very day, the Republicans want America to be attacked -- it keeps their game alive. You see, in the five years since "9/11," which also occurred under GOP rule, we are less safe, we are more insecure.; Why? Because the GOP has yet again stymied Democratic efforts to harden the nation, and because Bush went to war in Iraq and created even more terrorists. While that's very bad for America, the GOP loves terrorism -- they love bin-Laden, and they think it's just great -- that's the result they were hoping for. I didn't know it was possible to hate America so much. And isn't it a shame the GOP lost the War on Christmas We can't be surprised they're losing the War on Terror, too.



161462.jpg
Click to expand...

Well, General_Alfie, I'm not sure that I would take things that far.

What I am sure of, is that when it comes to National Security, the topic is only valid when it comes to "political rhetoric," grand-standing, and rewriting history.

Anything to further the cause of the party over the Nation.

One party state (Republicans hold a majority in all branches of government), and I'm obviously just a "Bush hater," and an "appeaser of terrorists."

So what do I know?

:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by QUESTION FOR JACKOROE

AGITATED PRESS (AP)

QUESTION: General Jackoroe, given that Clinton apprehended the perps of the first WTC attack, they were tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives, how can you claim that Clinton "did nothing?"

Answer: As you'll recall, these rocket scientists attempted to get their deposit back for the truck used to blow up the Trade Center back in Jersey. No real police work here on BJ Bill's part. We got attacked again, he did nothing. NEXT!

Further, General Jackoroe, these terrorists were successfully charged and convicted of terrorist acts by the FBI, a law enforcement agency, yet you dismiss law enforcement as being "an ineffective plan of action." With what facts do you support your claim, especially in light of this success?

Answer: If it was an effective plan of action, we would not have been attacked repeatedly, as we were. Compare and contrast this impotent strategy with our current policy of chasing these scumbags all over the earth and killing them or sending them to Club Gitmo. We don't seem to get attcked like we used to. Why do you suppose that is? Answer, it's war sweetheart!

And, Sir, how do you reconcile the fact that in both WTC attacks, where both of the terrorist perps were state-less and nation-less, only the first WTC bombers were caught (using law enforcement) under Clinton, yet bin-Laden (using the military) hasn't even been found, let alone arrrested, brought to the US and tried under Bush?

Answer: The first bombers were morons. They essentally gave themselves up. Clinton managed to catch some guy who looked like Santa Claus and was blind to boot. Nice job, BJ! Yep, Osama is still out there. Of course Old BJ had a bunch of opportunites to take him out. Because he was busy with the portly unattractive intern smoking his fuckpole, he failed to act. Think Bush wouldn't clip Osama given the chance? Osama carry out any attacks recently? Is he effectively running his organization, living somewhere in Afganistan in a cave? Of course not! I'd still like to see Osama's head impaled on a stick in front of the White House, but that's just me.
 
Great posts by jackoroe...you go boy! ..|
 
^ So the first bombers were morons, but the 9/11 bombers that came here and enrolled in flight schools and told there instructors that they wanted to learn how to fly 757's were geniuses? The real morons were in the CIA and FBI in both administrations.
 
God forbid that anyone other than Bush be blamed for anything at all. We all know he's responsible for everything bad that's ever happened during his watch. He's blamed for jiggering the intellligence to support the view of Iraq he expresses. Oh, by the way Alfie, you never did explain how he accomplished that while Clinton was in office and expressed the same concerns about Saddam and decided that regime change was desirable. Some of these postings seem a bit frantic, which is not expressive of the claimed confidence in the outcome of the electoral battle currently raging.
 
Broke Straight Boys
The title of this thread should be "ABC gives in as ex President and lead Dems show their true colors"

Stop the movie - even before they got to see it

Change the movie - I insist you change the movie. Because we live in Iran - no we don't - we live in America

Change the movie anyway because the public doesn't know any better. They think everything in the movies is real. The public is stupid. Really they aren't and portraying Clinton or Berger or Madeline Albright in a particular way doesn't mean it's true and doesn't mean it should be censored - WHICH IT HAS BEEN.

But Michael Moore can produce his drivel

I love it

It's out there for all the world to see - except those who don't want to

This is one of my favorite threads of all time - as it has exposed the hypocrisy that exists every single day on this board

I'll bet George Bush financed the movie - or that will be the title of the next thread. With all the stuff Bush is accused of, he'd have to be like 3-4 people.
 
Sadly, the posturing and standing the party ground seems to leave some people oblivious to some key points, in my mind.

ABC is held to a higher degree of professionalism than, say, Michael Moore, in that people had to make the choice to go to a theater and pay to see the movie. The various ABC affiliates across the country are stewerds of the public airwaves; they must be held to a higher degree of professionalism.

When ABC produced the Reagon drama purported to contain so many inaccuracies it was right for the movie to be shoveled off to Showtime - or whatever pay channel it landed on. Subscribing to Showtime is a voluntary act, and they are not stewerds of the public airwaves.

And the same applies here. If some cable channel wants to telecast a program that is in bad taste then so be it. But the various network affiliates hold their broadcast license at the pleasure of the people. And when broadcasting a movie about 9/11 on the 5 year anniversary of 9/11, they should be accurate in their facts.

What I haven't seen touched upon nearly enough is the sheer bad taste that is present in the lurid and blatent marketing and pandering the various networks are engaging in with the various 9/11 projects coming up. Would anyone want to venture a guess at how many advertising dollars the various networks will be pocketing from commercials broadcast during these shows.

I was no big fan of the recent Flight 93 movie or the Oliver Stone movie World Trade Center. And no one forced me to go to the theater and pay to see them.

There are many areas in this country where not all networks have affiliates. For instance, in my hometown in Mississippi you have an ABC affiliate and a CBS affiliate. No Fox. No NBC. No WB. No UPN. No CW. Just ABC and CBS. It's a heavy responsibility to be a broadcast television station. And the standards are higher for those station.

Blurring the lines of history, fact and fiction by using the term "docu-drama" is misleading. Call it a fictionalized drama if it is one. Then explain to your audience just why the truth wasn't aired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top