CBS MOVIE 'THE REAGANS' DRAWS CRITICISM
Dr. Jai Maharaj
By Steve Gorman
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
dramatized portrait of the former president that has
drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
airs.
The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
what supporters regard as his key achievements.
Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are
concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James
Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand,
while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are
self-described liberals.
[...]
Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with
considerable sway over White House policies, even setting
her husband's schedule according to the advice of
astrologers.
CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized
biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books
written by his supporters. . . .
[...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031022/tv_nm/leisure_reagan_dc_1
The Clintons also consulted astrologers.
Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
Creator of newsgroups alt.jyotish, alt.language.hindi, alt.religion.hindu
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Panchaang for 1 Kartik 5104, Sunday, October 26, 2003:
Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jeevan Ritau
Tula Mase Shukl Pakshe Bhanu Vasara Yuktayam
Vaishakh Nakshatr Ayushman-Saubhagya Yog
Balav-Kaulav Karan Dvitiya Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
BillParcellsFan
> CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
This is Hilarious.
Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
"political agendas" are "harmless"?
Sorry. But if the MLB Hall of Fame(which, of course, is headed by a
former Reagan aide) cancelled the 15th anniversary of "Bull Durham"
for the SILLY reason that Sarandon/Robbins just happened to have
anti-war views, then 'ole Ronnie and Rush are fair game!
Mike1
moviema...@yahoo.com (BillParcellsFan) wrote:
Identifing conservatives who happen to be cretins is not a logically
valid defense of liberal-cretin CBS' reprehensible smear-job.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Virendra Verma
> use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
> > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
> <snip>
>
> This is Hilarious.
>
> Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
> the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
> word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
> same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
> "political agendas" are "harmless"?
>
Rebublican don't use logic. Some call it by other names such as
"polically correctness". In my view Republicans are mean-sprited
politicians when it comes to argument. Most of the time, republicans
succeed because Democrates are less aggressive and are kind of scared
of something (L word??). President Reagan was a disatrous president in
US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
greatest achievement.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
viren...@hotmail.com (Virendra Verma) posted:
> moviema...@yahoo.com (BillParcellsFan) wrote in message
> news:<b35b84fb.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
> > <snip>
> >
> > This is Hilarious.
> >
> > Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
> > the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
> > word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
> > same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
> > "political agendas" are "harmless"?
> Rebublican don't use logic. Some call it by other names such as
> "polically correctness". In my view Republicans are mean-sprited
> politicians when it comes to argument. Most of the time, republicans
> succeed because Democrates are less aggressive and are kind of scared
> of something (L word??). President Reagan was a disatrous president in
> US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
> fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
> greatest achievement.
Perhaps that ought to be considered an achievement of the people, instead.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Mike1
From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
(Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
Mitchell Holman
A7C90D.182...@phswest.com:
>
> From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>
>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>
>
> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
There are 247 that came home in body
bags from Beirut.
deeringm...@mindspring.com
Virendra Verma wrote:
>
> Rebublican don't use logic. Some call it by other names such as
> "polically correctness". In my view Republicans are mean-sprited
> politicians when it comes to argument.
It's part of their overall superiority complex--"Well, it's okay for
us to play dirty pool when it comes to debate, but how dare you give
us a taste of our own medicine."
> Most of the time, republicans
> succeed because Democrates are less aggressive and are kind of scared
> of something (L word??).
Because Republicans, having realized that they can't shove their
policies through in a fair way because the middle ground (And
progress. And history) are against them, choose to play dirty and
get personal, and that catches Democrats unawares. As well, it is a
prime example of the "worst being filled with passionate intensity."
These people honestly believe they are in a holy moral cause and
must get rid of any philosphies or people who don't think like
them; whereas the vast majority of people are either just living
their lives or trying to survive.
> President Reagan was a disatrous president in
> US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
> fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
> greatest achievement.
Now, if you were a rich person or wanted to be one, he was a
terrific president. And since those are the _only_ people the GOP
think count for something . . .g!
C.'
**
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> posted:
> From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>
>> President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
Now if Virendra says "I can't remember" then I would comment
that two can play the same game.
Mike1
Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can
hardly notice.
(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous President;
care to try to get a couple more wrong before I give you some really
good ones?)
leto...@nospam.net
>In article <Xns9421BB3A0...@204.127.204.17>,
> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>A7C90D.182...@phswest.com:
>>
>>>
>>> From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>
>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>
>>
>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>notice.
Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
all Vietnam casualties -- and which would have continued unabated except for
the fact that Congress cut off funds for the war, thus forcing Nixon to accept
the peace agreement that LBJ offered before leaving office -- and which was
rejected by Nixon and Henry the war criminal.
>(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous President; care
>to try to get a couple more wrong before I give you some really good ones?)
You guys on the far right are the ones who get it wrong. You always have, you
always will.
Mike1
>>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>>>
>>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>>
>>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>
>>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>>notice.
>
>Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh?
I'm only having fun in this thread trouncing loopybrained hypocrisy.
...and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a Republican...
snip
>You guys on the far right...
Wow. Wotta a guess.
Another fuckin' shrieking dumbass straight oughta False-Dichotomy
Flatland. Lemme make another guess: Of the groups listed upstairs,
you're posting out of alt.politics.bush, where your little hamster legs
are beating the metal wheel at light speed.
leto...@nospam.net
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@www.phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
>> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>>>
>>>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>>>
>>>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>>
>>>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>>>notice.
>>
>>Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh?
>I'm only having fun in this thread trouncing loopybrained hypocrisy.
>....and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a Republican...
>snip
>>You guys on the far right...
>Wow. Wotta a guess.
>Another fuckin' shrieking dumbass straight oughta False-Dichotomy Flatland.
>Lemme make another guess: Of the groups listed upstairs, you're posting out
>of alt.politics.bush, where your little hamster legs are beating the metal
>wheel at light speed.
Lets see; As the the old saying goes -- If it looks like a duck, talks like a
duck, walks like a duck, its not my fault if I think its a duck. If you don't
want to be seen as a rightwing asshole -- don't act like one.
Also, your guess of where I'm posting from is wrong -- And perhaps your claim
that you're not a rightwing idiot, is related to you mixing your meds...
Mitchell Holman
C9FBD7.002...@www.phswest.com:
> In article <Xns9421BB3A0...@204.127.204.17>,
> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>A7C90D.182...@phswest.com:
>>
>>>
>>> From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>
>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>
>>
>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>
>
> That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can
> hardly notice.
>
Excuse me? I thought we discussing Reagan.
Oh, excuse me - you are just trying to change
the subject when a rightwing icon is undefendable,
in true conservative fashion.
Well, it beats the usual diversion of "well,
what about Clinton" you guys normally indulge in....
Zach
Reagans." In the screenplay, President Ronald Reagan is quoted as
saying "they that live in sin shall die in sin" regarding AIDS
patients. Reagan, however, never said such a thing.
In an attempt to allay criticism, CBS's Ed Bradley scored an exclusive
interview with the former president. While it is set to air right
before the first installment of the mini-series, I have obtained a
transcript of it.
http://www.zacheverson.com/Humor/News_satire/CBS_Reagan_Reagans_mini.htm
-----
Read www.zacheverson.com
Subscribe www.groups.yahoo.com/group/ZachEverson/
Op-ed articles, humor columns, true stories of zany exploits, and a
business dictionary.
Topics include news, sports, business, life, arts and entertainment,
sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.
Hank
<ta2eene...@comcast.com> enlightened me with:
Wouldn't that be a UN reason? They're the ones who didn't
want the situation 'inflamed' by armed American troops being present.
H
Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!
Mike1
>in true conservative fashion....
Guess the last "conservative" I voted for, you leaking ass.
$1000 says you can't do it.
Mike1
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
> at 04:35 AM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> said:
>
>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@www.phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
>>> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>>>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
snip
>Lets see; As the the old saying goes -- If it looks like a duck, talks like a
>duck, walks like a duck, its not my fault if I think its a duck. If you don't
>want to be seen as a rightwing asshole -- don't act like one.
Hey stoopid: I've snipped all the bullshit in between you're latest
weezil and my original retort. Take a look at that remark; notice how it
*does NOT* preclude there actually being *correct* reasons why Reagon
was a disasterous president? Yessirree, Jethro.
I just wanted to see if you actually knew any of them, or were just
another troll shilling Dems as if they amounted to a damn bit of
substantive difference when it came down to, say, approprations bills,
not a single socialist one of which you'll observe Reagan ever vetoed.
Eagle Eye
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@phswest.com>, on
>10/28/03 at 04:35 AM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net>
>said:
>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@www.phswest.com>,
>>>on 10/28/03
>>>>Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>>>>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body
>>>>count...you can hardly notice.
>>>Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh?
>>I'm only having fun in this thread trouncing loopybrained
>>hypocrisy.
>
>>....and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a
>>Republican...
>>>You guys on the far right...
>>Wow. Wotta a guess.
>
>>Another fuckin' shrieking dumbass straight oughta
>>False-Dichotomy Flatland. Lemme make another guess: Of the
>>groups listed upstairs, you're posting out of alt.politics.bush,
>>where your little hamster legs are beating the metal wheel at
>>light speed.
>Lets see; As the the old saying goes -- If it looks like a duck,
>talks like a duck, walks like a duck, its not my fault if I think
>its a duck.
It is your fault that you don't bother to get your facts straight.
>If you don't want to be seen as a rightwing asshole
>-- don't act like one.
He doesn't.
>Also, your guess of where I'm posting from is wrong -- And perhaps
>your claim that you're not a rightwing idiot, is related to you
>mixing your meds...
It's based upon the fact that he isn't "rightwing."
Medication can treat many things, but I've never heard of any
pharmaceuticals which could counteract your "malady": deliberate
refusal to apply reason which you're displaying.
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
Mitchell Holman
news:cfhtpv0hudqt4alm6...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:20:19 GMT, Mitchell Holman
> <ta2eene...@comcast.com> enlightened me with:
>
>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>A7C90D.182...@phswest.com:
>>
>>>
>>> From the bowels of Planet False-Dichotomy, viren...@hotmail.com
>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>
>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>
>>
>> There are 247 that came home in body
>>bags from Beirut.
>>
>
> Wouldn't that be a UN reason?
Nope. It wasn't the UN who sent in the
marines, but Reagan.
leto...@nospam.net
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
>> at 04:35 AM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> said:
>>
>>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@www.phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
>>>> Mitchell Holman <ta2eene...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in news:mike1_junktodelete-
>>>>>>> (Virendra Verma) beseeched:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>snip
>>Lets see; As the the old saying goes -- If it looks like a duck, talks like a
>>duck, walks like a duck, its not my fault if I think its a duck. If you don't
>>want to be seen as a rightwing asshole -- don't act like one.
>Hey stoopid: I've snipped all the bullshit in between you're latest weezil
>and my original retort. Take a look at that remark; notice how it *does NOT*
>preclude there actually being *correct* reasons why Reagon was a disasterous
>president? Yessirree, Jethro.
You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here. Now
what you snipped was this;
>>>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in US history
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.
>>
>>
>>There are 247 that came home in body bags from Beirut.
>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>notice.
"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
all Vietnam casualties -- and which would have continued unabated except for
the fact that Congress cut off funds for the war, thus forcing Nixon to accept
the peace agreement that LBJ offered before leaving office -- and which was
rejected by Nixon and Henry the war criminal."
>(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous President; care
>to try to get a couple more wrong before I give you some really good ones?)
"You guys on the far right are the ones who get it wrong. You always have,
you always will. "
>I just wanted to see if you actually knew any of them, or were just another
>troll shilling Dems as if they amounted to a damn bit of substantive
>difference when it came down to, say, approprations bills, not a single
>socialist one of which you'll observe Reagan ever vetoed.
Really? Try keeping up mikie. LBJ's body count -- which is where I came in
-- has nothing to do with appropriations bills, vetoed or not by raygun ronny.
Now, when and if you stop foaming at the mouth maybe you can take a deep
breath, and then visit the bathroom to let it all out in private.
leto...@nospam.net
>He doesn't.
Really? Explain for us why he is foaming at the mouth like a rightwing idiot;
complaining about democrats and making statements that support old raygun
ronny!
>Medication can treat many things, but I've never heard of any
>pharmaceuticals which could counteract your "malady": deliberate refusal to
>apply reason which you're displaying.
Really? What reason has I misapplied? He is here supporting raygun ronny,
and attacking democrats -- what the hell do you think is behind that!
Eagle Eye
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <2003102822471...@nym.alias.net>, on 10/28/03
>at 10:47 PM, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>said:
>>In article <3f9e42e3$3$ryrgbhearnh$mr2...@news.verizon.net>
>><leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>Also, your guess of where I'm posting from is wrong -- And
>>>perhaps your claim that you're not a rightwing idiot, is related
>>>to you mixing your meds...
>>It's based upon the fact that he isn't "rightwing."
>Really? Explain for us why he is foaming at the mouth like a
>rightwing idiot; complaining about democrats and making statements
>that support old raygun ronny!
I can't explain your fantasies.
Look here:
(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous
President; care to try to get a couple more wrong before I give
you some really good ones?)
-- Mike 10/27/2003 http://tinyurl.com/srze
Does a foaming-at-the-mouth rightwing Reagan supporter have "some
really good" reasons "why Reagan was a disasterous President"?
This should have given you a clue:
...and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a Republican...
snip
>You guys on the far right...
Wow. Wotta a guess.
Another fuckin' shrieking dumbass straight oughta False-Dichotomy
Flatland.
-- Mike 10/28/2003 http://tinyurl.com/ss1x
In case you STILL don't know what he's talking about, check this out:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False+dichotomy
[snip]
Eagle Eye
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@news.usfamily.net>,
>on 10/28/03 at 03:53 PM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net>
>said:
>>Hey stoopid: I've snipped all the bullshit in between you're
>>latest weezil and my original retort. Take a look at that
>>remark; notice how it *does NOT* preclude there actually being
>>*correct* reasons why Reagon was a disasterous president?
>>Yessirree, Jethro.
>You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole
>here.
>LBJ's body count -- which is where I came in -- has nothing to do
>with appropriations bills, vetoed or not by raygun ronny.
I think the guy ignoring context is the one who looks like an
asshole.
Mike1
>You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here.
You *are* an illiterate boob unable to devise original insults.
Elena Nakashima
> > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
> <snip>
>
> This is Hilarious.
>
> Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
> the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
> word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
> same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
> "political agendas" are "harmless"?
>
There's a difference. Conservatives are not saying it's okay or good
to use the term 'nigger'. Rather, they are arguing one has the right
to say offensive things. Conservatives are not proposing that the
Reagans be censored as politically correct liberals are trying to
actually restrict free speech. Rather, conservatives are arguing that
this TV show is misguided and wrong.
Elena Nakashima
I can't think of politicians more meanspirited than Al Sharpton.
Elena Nakashima
> CBS has drawn sharp criticism for its upcoming mini-series, "The
> Reagans." In the screenplay, President Ronald Reagan is quoted as
> saying "they that live in sin shall die in sin" regarding AIDS
> patients. Reagan, however, never said such a thing.
>
> In an attempt to allay criticism, CBS's Ed Bradley scored an exclusive
> interview with the former president. While it is set to air right
> before the first installment of the mini-series, I have obtained a
> transcript of it.
>
Exclusive interview with Reagan? Some good that will do.
Elena Nakashima
different. But, it's hardly surprising that liberals are playing the
Reagans since most actors are liberals. Carroll O'Connor and Michael
J. Fox have also been liberals. If conservatives want more
conservative actors they should get into the business of acting. As of
now, with Schwarzeneggar preparing to take the governor's seat,
there's what conservative actor up for the job?
use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
> CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
>
> By Steve Gorman
> Tuesday, October 21, 2003
>
> Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
> firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
> dramatized portrait of the former president that has
> drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
> airs.
>
> The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
> final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
> part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
> in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
> what supporters regard as his key achievements.
>
> Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are
> concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James
> Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand,
> while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are
> self-described liberals.
> [...]
> Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with
> considerable sway over White House policies, even setting
> her husband's schedule according to the advice of
> astrologers.
>
> CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized
> biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books
> written by his supporters. . . .
> [...]
> This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031022/tv_nm/leisure_reagan_dc_1
>
> The Clintons also consulted astrologers.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
> Creator of newsgroups alt.jyotish, alt.language.hindi, alt.religion.hindu
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> Panchaang for 1 Kartik 5104, Sunday, October 26, 2003:
>
> Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jeevan Ritau
> Tula Mase Shukl Pakshe Bhanu Vasara Yuktayam
> Vaishakh Nakshatr Ayushman-Saubhagya Yog
> Balav-Kaulav Karan Dvitiya Yam Tithau
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
> this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
> the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
> and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> are not necessarily those of the poster.
leto...@nospam.net
In <2003102904514...@nym.alias.net>, on 10/29/03
Sorry asshole. I was the one who stayed on the topic. The guy who didn't was
the other one. -- Now, get your meds checked. They are not working for you.
leto...@nospam.net
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here.
>You *are* an illiterate boob unable to devise original insults.
Here is what you snipped mikie -- you did it because it makes an idiot out out
you -- which you clearly are:
>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>notice.
"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
all Vietnam casualties -- and which would have continued unabated except for
the fact that Congress cut off funds for the war, thus forcing Nixon to accept
the peace agreement that LBJ offered before leaving office -- and which was
rejected by Nixon and Henry the war criminal."
>(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous President; care
>to try to get a couple more wrong before I give you some really good ones?)
"You guys on the far right are the ones who get it wrong. You always have,
you always will. "
Now mikie, go check those meds -- and do stay out of newsgroups where there
are people smarter then you.
leto...@nospam.net
Hey eagle eye, you're not only chasing your own tail, but you're a flop as a
writer. Now go play in the sandbox. You can't keep up here.
In <200310290039...@nym.alias.net>, on 10/29/03
Elena Nakashima
> moviema...@yahoo.com (BillParcellsFan) wrote in message news:<b35b84fb.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
> >
> > This is Hilarious.
> >
> > Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
> > the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
> > word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
> > same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
> > "political agendas" are "harmless"?
> >
>
> Rebublican don't use logic. Some call it by other names such as
> "polically correctness". In my view Republicans are mean-sprited
> politicians when it comes to argument. Most of the time, republicans
> succeed because Democrates are less aggressive and are kind of scared
> of something (L word??). President Reagan was a disatrous president in
> US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
> fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
> greatest achievement.
Can you give us specific instances where Republicans intimidated or
defeated Democratic opponents thru mean-spirited bullying instead of
arguments?
I thought one of the reasons Al Gore lost to Bush was his
mean-spirited, aggressive manner during one of the debates; Bush,
while badly losing the debate, won alot of sympathy for looking so
helpless against big Al. Naomi Wolf's alpha male advice didn't go
over too well.
Eagle Eye
Mike1
leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>Hey eagle eye, you're not only chasing your own tail, but you're a flop as a
>writer. Now go play in the sandbox. You can't keep up here.
git.
posting
top-
a
not
he's
least
At
Mike1
leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
> at 10:16 PM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> said:
>
>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here.
>
>
>>You *are* an illiterate boob unable to devise original insults.
>
>
>Here is what you snipped mikie -- you did it because it makes an idiot out out
>you -- which you clearly are:
>
>>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>>notice.
>
>"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
>all Vietnam casualties
E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but
since Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and
the bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.
(I have plenty of reasons to dislike Nixon, not that an inveterate
False-Dichotomitarian like you would ever deign to hear them.)
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <abce8ddf.0310...@posting.google.com>,
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
Elena Nakashima
> Al Gore defeated Bush.
>
Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
mattered.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
>
> news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
> > Al Gore defeated Bush.
> Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
> meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
> mattered.
What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
to place their puppet in the White House?
Mike1
>Al Gore defeated Bush.
Until improperly-tossed military absentee ballots are counted.
But who cares? Nobody has right to swipe your property, no matter how
many drooling assholes voted for him.
RonB
> But who cares? Nobody has right to swipe your property, no matter how
> many drooling assholes voted for him.
I totally agree. But which herd of "drooling assholes" are you talking
about -- those who voted for Bush or those who voted for Gore?
And you're right, "who cares." We get screwed either way.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
leto...@nospam.net
>In article <3f9fa5ac$1$ryrgbhearnh$mr2...@news.verizon.net>,
> leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@phswest.com>, on 10/28/03
>> at 10:16 PM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> said:
>>
>>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>>>You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here.
>>
>>
>>>You *are* an illiterate boob unable to devise original insults.
>>
>>
>>Here is what you snipped mikie -- you did it because it makes an idiot out out
>>you -- which you clearly are:
>>
>>>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>>>notice.
>>
>>"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
>>all Vietnam casualties
>E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but since
>Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and the
>bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.
mikie, you're the stupidest kind of rightwing asshole. In this case you
snipped the part of my statement you didn't like -- because it tells a truth
you don't have the brains to deal with, and showed up your flawed thinking all
at the same time;
If we take your logic, that tricky dicky nixon cleaned up what LBJ started,
then you have to accept and apply the same logic to facts and realize that LBJ
picked up the Vietnam mess that IKE, tricky-dickie and the rightwing made in
the first place.
And going further, nixon didn't clean up the LBJ mess -- he (and who was the
idiot that pardoned him?) continued it for 6 more years. He ended up with the
same peace agreement that LBJ put on the table before he left office, and
nixon could have had that settlement on day one in office -- but not only
didn't agree to, but he never would have accepted it if Congress hadn't cut
off funds for continueing the war.
That was made clear in my original post;
>That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can hardly
>notice.
"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
all Vietnam casualties -- and which would have continued unabated except for
the fact that Congress cut off funds for the war, thus forcing Nixon to accept
the peace agreement that LBJ offered before leaving office -- and which was
rejected by Nixon and Henry the war criminal."
>(I have plenty of reasons to dislike Nixon, not that an inveterate
>False-Dichotomitarian like you would ever deign to hear them.)
You keep defending him mikie. Whether you know it or not, you're are rightwing
asshole without a clue. You are so screwed up that you don't even know what in
the hell you are. -- You need to seek professional treatment, or at least stop
mixing your meds.
leto...@nospam.net
What matters are the facts presented here in language. If you talk like
rightwing idiot -- then you are a rightwing idiot. End of story.
HAIRY ASSHOLE
> CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
>
Ronald Reagan was the greatest world leader of the 20th century. This
film should be stopped! It is all lies!
Tom
"HAIRY ASSHOLE" <hair...@cairoo.com> wrote in message
news:1664ff03.03103...@posting.google.com...
> use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
> > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
Does anyone know who the sponsors are that CBS has lined up for this movie?
Tom
NJH
>
> Ronald Reagan was the greatest world leader of the 20th century. This
> film should be stopped! It is all lies!
I fully agree. At least one of the writers has even admitted to inventing
Reagan dialogue out of thin air, dialogue which has absolutely no basis in
fact and is contrary to what Reagan felt and believed. The entire thing is
being put together by Reagan-haters who (now that Reagan is helpless and
dying) see their chance to get in their most vicious, slanderous attacks.
Neil
NJH
"Tom" <seaska...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ug8ob.61615$HS4.543746@attbi_s01...
No, but I have e-mailed a complaint to CBS about it *and* mentioned that I
will join a boycott of any sponsor *and* that I will be sure to let every
sponsor know why I am boycotting them.
If enough people do this, it will give CBS some second thoughts about the
project.
Neil
Elena Nakashima
> In article <abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> >
> > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
> > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
>
> > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
> > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
> > mattered.
>
> What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
> to place their puppet in the White House?
>
Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. If you mean Gore won by
popular vote, you're right. But American electoral process doesn't
work that way.
As for the crisis in Florida, I suppose it's conceivable that Gore
could have won if we went into the business of counting every ballot
and examining chads and etc, but such nitpicking only would invite
more nitpicking(which can spill over into endless recounts in other
states). The fact is had the result been reversed, with Gore ahead by
a slim margin, he would have called for a halt to recounts and Bush
would have called for endless recounts until result went in his favor.
It was all about political opportunism but I think it was resolved the
only way it could have been. There would have been a bigger scandal
had the result been reversed after what were several recounts.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>...
> > In article <abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> > nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> > >
> > > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
> > > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
> >
> > > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
> > > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
> > > mattered.
> > What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
> > to place their puppet in the White House?
> Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. If you mean Gore won by
> popular vote, you're right. But American electoral process doesn't
> work that way. As for the crisis in Florida, I suppose it's conceivable
> that Gore could have won . . .
No, Gore did win Florida -- please visit:
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
Jenn
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) wrote:
> use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
> news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>...
> > In article <abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> > nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> > >
> > > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
> > > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
> >
> > > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
> > > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
> > > mattered.
> >
> > What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
> > to place their puppet in the White House?
> >
>
> Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. If you mean Gore won by
> popular vote, you're right. But American electoral process doesn't
> work that way.
ahh but this is the question many people believe Gore won Florida
> As for the crisis in Florida, I suppose it's conceivable that Gore
> could have won if we went into the business of counting every ballot
> and examining chads and etc, but such nitpicking only would invite
> more nitpicking(which can spill over into endless recounts in other
> states). The fact is had the result been reversed, with Gore ahead by
> a slim margin, he would have called for a halt to recounts and Bush
> would have called for endless recounts until result went in his favor.
> It was all about political opportunism but I think it was resolved the
> only way it could have been. There would have been a bigger scandal
> had the result been reversed after what were several recounts.
all they needed to do was count every ballot -- heck even the guy who
designed the voting system and was a GOP 'witness' iin the court case
said his machine's error rate was higher than the difference and that
only a hand count could resolve things
just count every ballot -- there was plenty of time to do so -- the
electoral college wasn't meeting for many weeks.
Mike1
>No, Gore did win Florida -- please visit:
>
>http://lies.com/display.cfm?id=181
Not Found
The requested URL /display.cfm was not found on this server.
Mike1
>>E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but since
>>Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and the
>>bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.
>
>If we take your logic, that tricky dicky nixon cleaned up what LBJ started,
>then you have to accept and apply the same logic to facts and realize that LBJ
>picked up the Vietnam mess that IKE, tricky-dickie
Since you would defend LBJ for exactly what you'd chastise Ike or Nizon
over, rational minds can only conclude that you're a hypocrite.
>....and the rightwing made in the first place.
Could you please define "rightwing" in non-arbitrary terms?
(And please don't say "Republican", because they're so indistinguisable
from Democrats.)
Elena Nakashima
Uh, that's a partisan site by and for Democrats, hardly an objective
source. The consensus by most Newspapers and magazines is that one
can't tell for sure even if every vote was counted as on a micro level
there will always be too many discrepancies. For example, some
Democrats complained that many voters accidentally voted for Pat
Buchanan instead of Al Gore and should be given another chance to cast
their ballot. Look, you can wrangle over the past. I don't much care
and at any rate, don't believe in changing the outcome by examining
chads and other such things.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:<USA-19x65...@news.mantra.com>...
> > In article <abce8ddf.03103...@posting.google.com>,
> > nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> >
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > > news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > > In article <abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:
> > > > >
> > > > > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
> > > > > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
> > > > > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
> >
> > > > > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
> > > > > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
> > > > > mattered.
> >
> > > > What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
> > > > to place their puppet in the White House?
> >
> > > Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. If you mean Gore won by
> > > popular vote, you're right. But American electoral process doesn't
> > > work that way. As for the crisis in Florida, I suppose it's conceivable
> > > that Gore could have won . . .
> >
> > No, Gore did win Florida -- please visit:
> >
> > http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
The information is correct, no matter what bias you claim.
leto...@nospam.net
Deal with reality here; duba was not elected. He was appointed by 5 republican
members of the supreme court -- who stopped a recount that would have answered
the question.
leto...@nospam.net
>use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>... > In article
><abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>, > nicoci...@yahoo.com
>(Elena Nakashima) posted:
>> >
>> > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>> > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
>> > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
>>
>> > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
>> > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
>> > mattered.
>>
>> What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
>> to place their puppet in the White House?
>>
>Bush won the majority of the electoral votes.
No he didn't. He was handed a majority by 5 republican members of the court --
who stopped a recount that would have answered the question correctly.
leto...@nospam.net
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but since
>>>Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and the
>>>bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.
>>
>>If we take your logic, that tricky dicky nixon cleaned up what LBJ started,
>>then you have to accept and apply the same logic to facts and realize that LBJ
>>picked up the Vietnam mess that IKE, tricky-dickie
>Since you would defend LBJ for exactly what you'd chastise Ike or Nizon
>over, rational minds can only conclude that you're a hypocrite.
Here you are again, showing us more stupid, twisting thinking from the
rightwing. LBJ tried to end the war. He effectively resigned from office in an
effort to open the door to ending the war. nixon was just the opposite. He
spread the war and stated both publicly and privately he was not going to be
the first president to lose a war.
Now take your rightwing drivel and stop cross-posting.
>>....and the rightwing made in the first place.
>Could you please define "rightwing" in non-arbitrary terms?
If you need a definition of rightwing, you're to dumb to understand the
answer!
>(And please don't say "Republican", because they're so indistinguisable from
>Democrats.)
Spare us the nonsense. In the context of the Vietnam war and nixon, it was
clear who wanted war, fighting the commies and who didn't.
Elena Nakashima
There were recounts which put Bush ahead. Then a recount of each
ballot by hand was called for and it raised more problems than solving
existing ones, what with checkers arguing over chads and so on. And,
if Gore came out ahead, then there would have been no stopping for the
Bush team to call for hand recounts in every state that was close
because there's bound to irregularities in every state. There would
have been no end to this madness.
The fact is in 49 states, the vote counts by conventional methods was
accepted. By same methods Bush won in Florida.
Of course, I'm sure had the reverse been the case with Gore winning by
a slim margin by machine count, Republicans would probably would have
made your argument while Democrats would have made the Republican
argument.
Elena Nakashima
No it isn't. The consensus in the media is we'll never know. And, I
don't have much respect for a site that promotes Michael Moore as the
paragon of truth.
Elena Nakashima
The problem is I can find sites opposing your 'facts' such as
http://www.florida2000election.com/facts.htm
though I suspect the above site is no more or less partisan than the
one you mentioned.
WareWolf
>
> There were recounts which put Bush ahead. Then a recount of each
> ballot by hand was called for and it raised more problems than solving
> existing ones, what with checkers arguing over chads and so on. And,
> if Gore came out ahead, then there would have been no stopping for the
> Bush team to call for hand recounts in every state that was close
> because there's bound to irregularities in every state. There would
> have been no end to this madness.
> The fact is in 49 states, the vote counts by conventional methods was
> accepted. By same methods Bush won in Florida.
> Of course, I'm sure had the reverse been the case with Gore winning by
> a slim margin by machine count, Republicans would probably would have
> made your argument while Democrats would have made the Republican
> argument.
>
>
Exactly. There really is no way to know who "actually" won, becuase the margin was so thin
as to be within the margin of error. That razor-thin margin of victory, combined with the
fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to be a damn
sight less smug and condescending.
Dusty
--
This Week's column: ENOUGH ALREADY! http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_
1026.html
Eagle Eye
WareWolf <dus...@NONONOnc.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
>There really is no way to know who "actually" won, becuase the
>margin was so thin
>as to be within the margin of error.
A "margin of error" is a statistical term which describes the
confidence that a particular SAMPLE reflects the actual numbers.
The ballots in Florida were not SAMPLED, but COUNTED.
Bush had more votes, so he won Florida. As a consequence, he
won the electoral college.
>That razor-thin margin of victory, combined with the fact that
>Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought
>to be a damn sight less smug and condescending.
The fact that the makeup of the government hinged on a "razor-thin
margin of victory" demonstrates that platitudes about the
"will of the people" are a crock. The tens of millions of voters
who didn't vote for Bush don't have their will represented. Had
Florida swung the other way, then the same would be true of those
people who didn't vote for Gore. Also, consider that vast
numbers of people didn't even vote at all.
So, when the government takes away our money and the elected
officials decide for us how to spend it, based upon the premise
that we as a collective gave them permission, remember all the
people who didn't vote for those clowns. They didn't give
their permission and they shouldn't be coerced to pay for all
that rot.
Winston Churchill said, "A democracy is the worst form of government
except for all the others." If I had to pick between living here
or living under a dictator, I'd stay here. But just because I
prefer the lesser of many evils doesn't mean I'm going to deny
reality and pretend that coercion is "the will of the people."
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
> No it isn't. . . .
The information at the URL above is correct.
> The consensus in the media is we'll never know. . . .
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be justifying
Bush's residency in the White House.
Eagle Eye
Mike wasn't talking like a "rightwing idiot." A "righting idiot"
isn't going to offer "some really good" reasons "why Reagan was a
disasterous President."
I've been reading Mike for years and I know he isn't "rightwing."
Something else for you to consider: this "left" and "right" nonsense
is an archaic reference to the French parliament, two centuries ago.
Instead of trying to fit everyone on a one-dimensional line, the
practice of which is plagued by all manner of faulty assumptions,
why don't you consider attributes which really matter? For example:
how much does the person respect liberty? Does he want to leave
people alone who aren't hurting anyone, or does he want the government
making his decisions for him? Mike gave you the example of the
socialist appropriations bills which Reagan signed. Since those
programs deny people the liberty to choose how to spend their money,
I'd say that put Mike on the side of respecting liberty.
Thom
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@news.usfamily.net>, on 10/30/03
> at 08:38 PM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> said:
>
>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>>>E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but since
>>>>Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and the
>>>>bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.
>>>
>>>If we take your logic, that tricky dicky nixon cleaned up what LBJ started,
>>>then you have to accept and apply the same logic to facts and realize that LBJ
>>>picked up the Vietnam mess that IKE, tricky-dickie
>
>
>>Since you would defend LBJ for exactly what you'd chastise Ike or Nizon
>>over, rational minds can only conclude that you're a hypocrite.
>
>Here you are again, showing us more stupid, twisting thinking from the
>rightwing. LBJ tried to end the war. He effectively resigned from office in an
>effort to open the door to ending the war. nixon was just the opposite. He
>spread the war and stated both publicly and privately he was not going to be
>the first president to lose a war.
>
>Now take your rightwing drivel and stop cross-posting.
you really have to stop telling the turth about such things, it only
confuses the conservitive mind (as small as it is).
LBJ made a lot of money off the war but he was also a very tortured
man. Many say he was going off the deep end because of Kennedy and
the war wasn't helping.
I do remember him stopping the bombing at least twice and I do
remember Nixon the Invader (Why is it that every time a republican
gets in office theres a war?) invaded Cambodia which set off a chain
of events that ended up with the Lilling Fields and then the communist
invasion of Cambodia (by the Vietnamese).
THOM
Mike1
leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>In <abce8ddf.03103...@posting.google.com>, on 10/30/03
> at 09:38 AM, nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) said:
>
>>use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>>news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>... > In article
>><abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>, > nicoci...@yahoo.com
>>(Elena Nakashima) posted:
>>> >
>>> > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>>> > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
>>> > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
>>>
>>> > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
>>> > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
>>> > mattered.
>>>
>>> What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
>>> to place their puppet in the White House?
>>>
>
>>Bush won the majority of the electoral votes.
>
>No he didn't. He was handed a majority by 5 republican members of the court --
>who stopped a recount that would have answered the question correctly.
They stopped the recount because it was being rigged to not count
overseas military ballots (90% for Bush) which not only outnumbered
"chad" votes, but were originally and improperly rejected.
Mike1
That razor-thin margin of victory,
>combined with the
>fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to
>be a damn
>sight less smug and condescending.
It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
is spread around.
Mike1
Mike1
>LBJ made a lot of money off the war but he was also a very tortured man.
Oh, the poor "tortured" LBJ, suffering every day while commanding pretty
young thing interns to take notes while he sat on the White House
commode with his legs spread like Clinton's on the cover of Esquire.
Your hero-worshipping is positively.....fascist.
Thom
<mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote:
>
>>LBJ made a lot of money off the war but he was also a very tortured man.
>
>
>Oh, the poor "tortured" LBJ, suffering every day while commanding pretty
>young thing interns to take notes while he sat on the White House
>commode with his legs spread like Clinton's on the cover of Esquire.
>
>
>Your hero-worshipping is positively.....fascist.
excuse me moron but I wasn' worshiping him, in fact I believe he had
something to do with the Kennedy assination. I was statinmg facts, he
got rich from the war and he was a tortured person internially.
That's not worship.
Your outburst indicates you are either drunk, stoned or stupid.
THOM
Thom
<mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>LBJ tried to end the war.
>
>
>That's a lie.
so he stopped the bombing and called for peace talks at least twice
cause he wanted to take a vacation on the Bush ranch???
THOM
Thom
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
here here Eagle Eye!!! The very idea that every person is totally
polarized at the same level in everything they do is just plain silly.
In Europe they don't use a left right line but a + sign with left/
right and authoritarian/libertarian (thats the up down part.
I for instance am a GREEN but I'm also a gun owner and shooter. Many
of the people at the Los Alamos Sportsman's Club that I shot with (Los
Alamos NM) were democrats! The left and right are guilty of trying to
cubby hole people so they can deal with them easier, the right is ther
worst though.
THOM
Thom
<mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>WareWolf <dus...@NONONOnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>That razor-thin margin of victory,
>>combined with the
>>fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to
>>be a damn
>>sight less smug and condescending.
>
>
>It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
>theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
>a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
>comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
>is spread around.
to a few companies like Haliburton without competitive bids?
THOM
Thom
<mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>In article <3fa23d6f$2$ryrgbhearnh$mr2...@news.verizon.net>,
> leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>In <abce8ddf.03103...@posting.google.com>, on 10/30/03
>> at 09:38 AM, nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) said:
>>
>>>use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>>>news:<writing-19bn9...@news.mantra.com>... > In article
>>><abce8ddf.03102...@posting.google.com>, > nicoci...@yahoo.com
>>>(Elena Nakashima) posted:
>>>> >
>>>> > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
>>>> > news:<USA-19u824...@news.mantra.com>...
>>>> > > Al Gore defeated Bush.
>>>>
>>>> > Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
>>>> > meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
>>>> > mattered.
>>>>
>>>> What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
>>>> to place their puppet in the White House?
>>>>
>>
>>>Bush won the majority of the electoral votes.
>>
>>No he didn't. He was handed a majority by 5 republican members of the court --
>>who stopped a recount that would have answered the question correctly.
>
>
>They stopped the recount because it was being rigged to not count
>overseas military ballots (90% for Bush) which not only outnumbered
>"chad" votes, but were originally and improperly rejected.
doesn't matter, the COLLEGE elects the president, not the people.
THOM
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> posted:
> WareWolf <dus...@NONONOnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> That razor-thin margin of victory,
> >combined with the
> >fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to
>
> >be a damn
> >sight less smug and condescending.
>
>
> It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
> theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
> a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
> comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
> is spread around.
As I have written before, Democrats and Republicans
are two parts of the same team.
Elena Nakashima
> WareWolf <dus...@NONONOnc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> That razor-thin margin of victory,
> >combined with the
> >fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to
> >be a damn
> >sight less smug and condescending.
>
>
> It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
> theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
> a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
> comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
> is spread around.
Are you just against welfare or against social security, public
spending for libraries, schools, etc?
Frank Pittel
: "Tom" <seaska...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:Ug8ob.61615$HS4.543746@attbi_s01...
: >
: > "HAIRY ASSHOLE" <hair...@cairoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1664ff03.03103...@posting.google.com...
: > > use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
: > news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
: > > > CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
: >
: >
: > Does anyone know who the sponsors are that CBS has lined up for this
: movie?
: >
: > Tom
: No, but I have e-mailed a complaint to CBS about it *and* mentioned that I
: will join a boycott of any sponsor *and* that I will be sure to let every
: sponsor know why I am boycotting them.
: If enough people do this, it will give CBS some second thoughts about the
: project.
I was thinking of writing to CBS and threaten to stop watching CBS. Then I
realized that all I watch on CBS is football.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishit" Maharaj wrote:
> In article <30ee7e04.03102...@posting.google.com>,
> viren...@hotmail.com (Virendra Verma) posted:
>
>
>>President Reagan was a disatrous president in
>>US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
>>fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
>>greatest achievement.
>
>
> Perhaps that ought to be considered an achievement of the people, instead.
So perhaps one should look at the British colonial occupation of India
as an achievement of the Indian people, eh, Johnny boya?
Got mangoes, you retarded jyotishithead?
Mike1
>Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
>> It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
>> theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
>> a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
>> comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
>> is spread around.
>
>Are you just against welfare or against social security, public
>spending for libraries, schools, etc?
"Public spending" is a euphemism for "spending stolen loot".
As far as I am concerned, you can go out and buy every kid in Africa a
flush-toilet and a Cadillac, provided you do it with *your* money.
Mike1
>>It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
>>theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
>>a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
>>comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
>>is spread around.
>
>to a few companies like Haliburton without competitive bids?
Yes! Yes. That's it, lad. Come...into...the...light.
Mike1
thoma...@yahoo.com.au (Thom) wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:46:38 -0600, Mike1
><mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>>leto...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>>LBJ tried to end the war.
>>That's a lie.
>so he stopped the bombing and called for peace talks at least twice
>cause he wanted to take a vacation on the Bush ranch???
Entreating the enemy as to their answer to your suggestion that they
retreat from the field of battle when they think they're winning is
construed by rational minds to amount to "trying to end a war".
The most practical way to "end a war" is to quickly *win it*.
WareWolf
>
Not since Jesse Helms retired, no.
Rafe B.
wrote:
>use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
>> CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
>>
>> By Steve Gorman
>> Tuesday, October 21, 2003
>>
>> Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
>> firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
>> dramatized portrait of the former president that has
>> drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
>> airs.
>>
>> The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
>> final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
>> part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
>> in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
>> what supporters regard as his key achievements.
So much for the liberal-dominated media. Under pressure
from Republicans (eg., Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC)
CBS is about to withdraw the mini-series and move it to their
cable channel, Showtime.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/business/media/04film.html?hp>
(NY Times online, 11/4/03.)
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/03/reagans.series.reut/index.html>
(CNN online, reported by Reuters)
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Joe Myers
> So much for the liberal-dominated media. Under pressure
> from Republicans (eg., Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC)
> CBS is about to withdraw the mini-series and move it to their
> cable channel, Showtime.
>
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/business/media/04film.html?hp>
> (NY Times online, 11/4/03.)
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/03/reagans.series.reut/index.html>
> (CNN online, reported by Reuters)
Yup. Where was the GOP when "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" pulled all sorts of
Mosaic pontifications out of their propagandist asses and planted them in
the lips of Timothy Bottoms as George Dumbya Bush?
They've succeeded in censoring a film no one has seen.
Joe Myers
"Are *your* books flammable?"
NJH
> On 30 Oct 2003 03:36:58 -0800, hair...@cairoo.com (HAIRY ASSHOLE)
> wrote:
>
> >use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message
news:<writing-18...@news.mantra.com>...
> >> CBS Movie 'The Reagans' Draws Criticism
> >>
> >> By Steve Gorman
> >> Tuesday, October 21, 2003
> >>
> >> Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
> >> firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
> >> dramatized portrait of the former president that has
> >> drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
> >> airs.
> >>
> >> The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
> >> final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
> >> part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
> >> in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
> >> what supporters regard as his key achievements.
>
>
> So much for the liberal-dominated media. Under pressure
> from Republicans (eg., Ed Gillespie, chairman of the RNC)
> CBS is about to withdraw the mini-series and move it to their
> cable channel, Showtime.
Gosh, Babs Streisand must be furious!
<guffaw!>
A few days ago in this thread I wrote:
>>>
[ . . . ] I have e-mailed a complaint to CBS about it *and* mentioned that I
will join a boycott of any sponsor *and* that I will be sure to let every
sponsor know why I am boycotting them.
If enough people do this, it will give CBS some second thoughts about the
project.
<<<
To which Vince replied:
>>>
Yeah in your dreams pal. [ . . . ]
<<<
In my dreams, huh, Vince?
Neil
Rafe B.
Yes, and you must be awfully proud.
Is this the Republican idea of "free speech" ?
Can't stand to have your idols questioned?
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
eleto...@nospam.net
><guffaw!>
>To which Vince replied:
Its okay. History will still record the truth about raygun ronny (and the
clueless idiots who love the man with the most convicted criminals and
traitors in his administration then any other in history).
>Neil
Giftzwerg
says...
> CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> well-documented
...which is an astounding statement, given that they just shitcanned
this wretchedly dishonest crock of shit.
<laughter>
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[A] coalition of nations--including France, Germany and Canada--
mounted a massive air war against Serbia a few years ago without
Security Council authorization, under President Clinton's leadership.
There was no 'imminence' of attack on any allied nation, nor did Serbia
represent a threat to anyone outside her own borders. Why the reversal
of policy when Iraq was involved, with the same nations piously
insisting that Security Council approval had to be obtained before
any military action could be initiated--and that the absence of any
such approval had rendered illegitimate any military action against
Saddam Hussein?"
- Brian Mulroney
Virendra Verma
> In article <writing-18...@news.mantra.com>, use...@mantra.com
> says...
>
> > CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> > well-documented
>
> ...which is an astounding statement, given that they just shitcanned
> this wretchedly dishonest crock of shit.
>
call this free speech in these United States of America? The day is
not far when this country will be ruled by a dictator. Bush has
already set the stage for a hitler-like dictatorship.
James Monroe
<gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote:
>In article <writing-18...@news.mantra.com>, use...@mantra.com
>says...
>
>> CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
>> well-documented
>
>...which is an astounding statement, given that they just shitcanned
>this wretchedly dishonest crock of shit.
>
><laughter>
Where were you able to see the movie or read the script?
Tom
> >
> >Gosh, Babs Streisand must be furious!
>
>
> Yes, and you must be awfully proud.
>
> Is this the Republican idea of "free speech" ?
>
> Can't stand to have your idols questioned?
>
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Ah, yes, another moron who does not know what "free speech" means in any
sort of applicable context. Are you really so dim as to believe this was a
"free speech" issue?
Before getting your panties in a wad and stomping your little foot about
"free speech" being quelled in this case, please have one of your more
literate acquaintances explain to you what the term "free speech" means in
the US. You DO know someone that can read, eh?
As to questioning "idols", I'll leave that to idol worshipers.
If instead, you mean questioning authority or authority figures, then by all
means... question away. But that is not applicable in this case.
According to specific storyline material released (and even statements by
the creators) about this movie, this was not a case of "questioning" anyone,
it was a case of "fabricating" a story of lies specifically to denigrate and
demean.
Mere prevarication.
Of course, you and your ilk lapped it all up like a sick dog eats its own
vomit.
You are incensed because now your small, myopic, view of someone you hate
has been shown for what it is. Pathetic, unsupportable rubbish.
Least you think I abide by my own moral compass only in the case of
conservative defense I will state unequivocally that even a degenerate like
Bill Clinton should not be savaged with lies of the magnitude of those
proposed here, let alone a real American patriot.
Don't take this setback to your demagoguery too hard. I'm sure CBS, PBS, or
another major network will soon come up with something that will please you
almost as much anyway. Given their left wing editorial bent, they could
hardly do otherwise.
Tom
Mike1
viren...@hotmail.com (Virendra Verma) wrote:
>Do you call this free speech in these United States of America?
Virendra? Pay attention to this:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
Nov 05, 03 | 12:56 am
What It Is, And Isn't
"Conservatives always portray themselves in favor of free speech. Now
we're finding out that they only favor free speech as long as it's their
free spech."
(Carl Jeffers, gibbering about the CBS/Reagan movie flap)
That little freak is moaning one of the most pernicious misgrapplings in
the entire culture, today.
It really goes to what "freedom" actually is... which means this is
about definitions, which is about grasping reality. In a time when
reality itself is something in widespread doubt, nothing about any of
this is terribly shocking. It's simply disgusting. You can bet on this:
nothing on earth could get Jeffers to admit that CBS was perfectly
"free" to go ahead and air that film, and take their chances with all
the possible market responses.
CBS made their free choice. That's the fact of the thing, but facts
don't matter to idiots like him.
- - -
Now tell the nice audience that you know the difference between a
boycott and censorship.
Mike1
>They've succeeded in censoring a film no one has seen.
How did they manage that?
How is it that you don't know the difference between a boycott and
censorship?
Giftzwerg
viren...@hotmail.com says...
> > > CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> > > well-documented
> >
> > ...which is an astounding statement, given that they just shitcanned
> > this wretchedly dishonest crock of shit.
> >
> It is because of the pressure of demonic natured-republicans. Do you
> call this free speech in these United States of America?
A delightful example of freedom of speech, in fact. People were rightly
incensed at the partisan hack-job inflicted on Mr. Reagan, and they
Freely Spoke Out. Alarmed at the clout of the freely-speaking masses,
the scumbags at CBS wisely decided that their hit-piece wasn't worth the
drubbing they were about to receive.
[Isn't it fascinating how lefties are always boycotting this and that -
but they wet themselves in fury when the tables are turned?]
leto...@nospam.net
11/05/2003
>viren...@hotmail.com (Virendra Verma) wrote:
>>Do you call this free speech in these United States of America?
> Virendra? Pay attention to this:
>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
>Nov 05, 03 | 12:56 am
>What It Is, And Isn't
>"Conservatives always portray themselves in favor of free speech. Now
>we're finding out that they only favor free speech as long as it's their
>free spech."
>(Carl Jeffers, gibbering about the CBS/Reagan movie flap)
>That little freak is moaning one of the most pernicious misgrapplings in
>the entire culture, today.
Actually mikie, he is telling a truth that you don't like. Check you
meds, or stop mixing them. It might help control your trolling and
constant driveling.
Giftzwerg
mike1_jun...@usfamily.net says...
> You can bet on this:
> nothing on earth could get Jeffers to admit that CBS was perfectly
> "free" to go ahead and air that film, and take their chances with all
> the possible market responses.
Precisely. This is an important point to keep in mind, given all the
hysterical puffing and blowing we're about to hear from the frustrated
left about "censorship," and "McCarthyism," and "The New Blacklist(tm)."
Giftzwerg
> How is it that you don't know the difference between a boycott and
> censorship?
Hey, get your definitions straight, eh?
Boycott == "When the left wants something to go away."
Censorship == "When the right wants the same thing."
NJH
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:19:11 GMT, "NJH" <noj...@all.thanks> wrote:
> >
> >Gosh, Babs Streisand must be furious!
>
>
> Yes, and you must be awfully proud.
I'm delighted, yes.
Welcome to the 21st century, bucky. The pampered limousine liberals and
their lockstep-marching, politically correct, chronically carping media no
longer tightly control what the people will get to see and hear.
We're in the time of the Internet now. The controls are off. The people can
get whatever information they want and need, not just what's spoon-fed them
by the major media.
>
> Is this the Republican idea of "free speech" ?
You bet it is. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of ideas,
freedom to get the truth, freedom from being lied to over and over, freedom
from leftist indoctrination. Don't you love it? (No, I guess you don't at
that. Heh. Tough tamales.)
You leftists do have a curious notion of what "free speech" means, don't
you? You think it means *you* have the freedom to cram your falsehoods down
other people's throats, but *they* have no right to complain about it. Well,
those days are gone and you'd better adjust to it as best you can.
Neil
Eagle Eye
<leto...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <mike1_junktodelete_-...@www.phswest.com>, on
>11/05/2003 at 04:51 AM, Mike1 <mike1_jun...@usfamily.net>
>said:
>>viren...@hotmail.com (Virendra Verma) wrote:
>>>Do you call this free speech in these United States of America?
>> Virendra? Pay attention to this:
>
>>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
>
>>Nov 05, 03 | 12:56 am
>
>>What It Is, And Isn't
>
>>"Conservatives always portray themselves in favor of free speech.
>>Now we're finding out that they only favor free speech as long as
>>it's their free spech."
>
>>(Carl Jeffers, gibbering about the CBS/Reagan movie flap)
>
>>That little freak is moaning one of the most pernicious
>>misgrapplings in the entire culture, today.
>Actually mikie, he is telling a truth that you don't like.
I notice you don't actually address the argument which refutes that
assertion. Instead, you sling out your usual, lame quip about
taking medicine, here:
>Check you meds, or stop mixing them. It might help control your
>trolling and constant driveling.
Do you have anything else to offer, or are you just a one-trick
pony?
>>It really goes to what "freedom" actually is... which means this
>>is about definitions, which is about grasping reality. In a time
>>when reality itself is something in widespread doubt, nothing
>>about any of this is terribly shocking. It's simply disgusting.
>>You can bet on this: nothing on earth could get Jeffers to admit
>>that CBS was perfectly "free" to go ahead and air that film, and
>>take their chances with all the possible market responses.
>
>>CBS made their free choice. That's the fact of the thing, but
>>facts don't matter to idiots like him.
>> - - -
Billy is exactly right. The fact that CBS could have aired the
movie means they weren't censored.
>> Now tell the nice audience that you know the difference
>>between a boycott and censorship.
Apparently, he just doesn't care.
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
Eagle Eye
<noj...@all.thanks> wrote:
>"Rafe B." <rafe....@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:8vbfqv89dfg21vhjv...@4ax.com...
>> Is this the Republican idea of "free speech" ?
>You bet it is. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of
>ideas, freedom to get the truth, freedom from being lied to over
>and over, freedom from leftist indoctrination.
You're mixing apples and oranges. "Freedom of" something, as
you're using the term above, falls under the right to liberty.
"Freedom from" something implies an obligation on the part of
others. The collectivists do have the right to use the networks
they own to broadcast propaganda. You have a right to change the
channel or simply turn off the television and do something else,
like read a book.
This sort of equivocation was used by FDR in his "Four Freedoms"
speech. You should be more careful in your use language.
[snip]