RE: "Death of a President"

RE: "Death of a President" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

peterK50 -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 12:37:33 PM)
I saw a movie called "A Killing For Christ" where a Pope was assassinated. I think I knew it was a movie & I don't recall Catholics in an uproar. I also remember a movie after 9/11 where Bush was on Air Force one & said "Take this plane to Washington, if any tin-horn terrorist wants me he'll know where to find me!" I sorta figured that was fiction too, unless during Vietnam he said "Take me to Texas, if any tin-horn Viet-Cong wants me he'll know where to find me, holding down a barstool!"

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 12:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peterK50 "Take me to Texas, if any tin-horn Viet-Cong wants me he'll know where to find me, holding down a barstool!" There was a skit that Bill Maher has on his DVD called "New Rules", it has "letters to home" from Bush's stint in the Alabama National Guard.. it was hilarious!

Estring -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 4:49:31 PM)
Is the Sandy Berger who professed outrage at his depiction in this movie, the same Sandy Berger who got caught smuggling classified documents out of the White House in his pants? And then claimed it was an accident? I doubt that anyone could make him look worse than he has done to himself. It is interesting that the implicit threat made to ABC by Clinton and some of his Democratic cronies over this movie is not disturbing to those who are screaming about all the rights we are losing, and how this president is a dictator. Threatening the license of a television network because you don't like the way you are depicted in a movie they are broadcasting sounds like censorship to me. I haven't heard a peep from the President about how he is depicted in this film. So who exactly is curtailing our rights?

peterK50 -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 5:06:07 PM)
It's a film, made by a British company. There is such a thing as "prior restraint", Bush could sue I suppose but he'd have to show damages. As he's self- inflicted so many that would be a tall order.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 5:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring Is the Sandy Berger who professed outrage at his depiction in this movie, the same Sandy Berger who got caught smuggling classified documents out of the White House in his pants? And then claimed it was an accident? I doubt that anyone could make him look worse than he has done to himself. It is interesting that the implicit threat made to ABC by Clinton and some of his Democratic cronies over this movie is not disturbing to those who are screaming about all the rights we are losing, and how this president is a dictator. Threatening the license of a television network because you don't like the way you are depicted in a movie they are broadcasting sounds like censorship to me. I haven't heard a peep from the President about how he is depicted in this film. So who exactly is curtailing our rights? I stand by what I said, if someone put words into my mouth about something like 9-11 I would raise hell, perhaps you would not care? I would, and I bet many others would too. I do not care about the history of Bill Clinton's staffers... that is another thread, and not one I would care to post on.

MistressWolfen -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 7:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth There are websites based on Elvis being alive. whoaaa...back up here....are you insinuating Elivis isn't alive? colour me shocked..what about the sightings?...the documentaries?...the "learned" discourse?...my god...this kind of radical thinking could extend to party politics Mercnbeth...people will start to question what they watch on the telly...and doubt tabloid reporters...and god forbid think for themselves...dangerous dangerous practises this whole free thinking stuff

Estring -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 8:22:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Estring Is the Sandy Berger who professed outrage at his depiction in this movie, the same Sandy Berger who got caught smuggling classified documents out of the White House in his pants? And then claimed it was an accident? I doubt that anyone could make him look worse than he has done to himself. It is interesting that the implicit threat made to ABC by Clinton and some of his Democratic cronies over this movie is not disturbing to those who are screaming about all the rights we are losing, and how this president is a dictator. Threatening the license of a television network because you don't like the way you are depicted in a movie they are broadcasting sounds like censorship to me. I haven't heard a peep from the President about how he is depicted in this film. So who exactly is curtailing our rights? I stand by what I said, if someone put words into my mouth about something like 9-11 I would raise hell, perhaps you would not care? I would, and I bet many others would too. I do not care about the history of Bill Clinton's staffers... that is another thread, and not one I would care to post on. How about letting the public decide? Telling people that there are factual inacuracies is fine. But threatening a network because of it is censorship. And for your information, many people back up the depictions of Clinton and his staff, including Dick Morris, who worked for Clinton. I am amused at the lack of alarm about the censorship issue when it comes to a view you don't agree with. Freedom of speech should be for everyone, shouldn't it?

Estring -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 8:24:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Oh and just to add, it would really piss me off if some idiot wacked Bush as I can't wait to see him hung for treason against America and for the warcrimes he has committed against Iraq and others. Lol. There's some deep thinking there.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 8:37:10 PM)
The movie was billed as based on the 9-11 report. If they had said it was all a work of fiction from the start then my opinion would not be as adament. The fact they sold this as based on real events and then contradicted those events from the written documentation is very disturbing to me. I do not think that they should make such movies and I would not watch it with someone else's eyes. It is like having a movie about lets say Ronald Reagan, and then mixing a lot of historical information but including scenes of him beating Nancy in a drunken stupor after she finds him cheating on her with Margret Thatcher and then selling it as "based on actual events".. would you be upset by that? Would you consider it slanderous if that happened to you? I would consider it slanderous and I would sue if my life was misrepresented like that. There is a difference between suing people for lying about you in a way that defames you and arresting them and putting them on trial for their freedom for such things. One is a civil matter, another is a criminal matter. No one suggested arresting these producers and sending them to Siberia, they said they were goingto sue for deflamation... and you know what, I would too. We are not allowed to lie about people like this without expecting they cannot reclaim their character through a civil judgment.

Estring -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 8:57:42 PM)
The fact that you don't believe it is true, doesn't mean it isn't. There are many who believe that the movie was basically thruthful on the big points. So let us watch it. You don't have to if you don't want to. Freedom of choice, right? And threatening to pull ABC's broadcasting license is censorship. Did you read the letter that was sent to ABC? I doubt you did, and I doubt that you care. Because you believe that only one point of view needs to be aired. It's funny that you thought Bill Marr's dvd was so funny. I am sure it wasn't flattering to the President. But that is ok to air. Freedom of speech of course, but only for one side.

StrongButKind -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:09:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Its fiction Merc...although it seems some have difficulty telling fiction from reality. Us wacky liberals know that if a movie shows something happening tomorrow or with space ships...it isn't real. Like that moon landing they faked. quote: Oh and just to add, it would really piss me off if some idiot wacked Bush as I can't wait to see him hung for treason against America and for the warcrimes he has committed against Iraq and others. Don't hold your breath. On second thought...

EnglishDomNW -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:11:29 PM)
I can't imagine what possessed these people to create this. I'm certainly no fan of Bush but imagine his family's feelings towards this kind of thing being produced.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring The fact that you don't believe it is true, doesn't mean it isn't. There are many who believe that the movie was basically thruthful on the big points. So let us watch it. You don't have to if you don't want to. Freedom of choice, right? And threatening to pull ABC's broadcasting license is censorship. Did you read the letter that was sent to ABC? I doubt you did, and I doubt that you care. Because you believe that only one point of view needs to be aired. It's funny that you thought Bill Marr's dvd was so funny. I am sure it wasn't flattering to the President. But that is ok to air. Freedom of speech of course, but only for one side. It is not abridging someone's freedom to tell them if they lie about you and besmirch you that you will sue them if they do so. It is called access to the courts to protect oneself. If someone lied about you and ruined your reputation by lets say calling you a child molester, would you sue that person?

Estring -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:21:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Estring The fact that you don't believe it is true, doesn't mean it isn't. There are many who believe that the movie was basically thruthful on the big points. So let us watch it. You don't have to if you don't want to. Freedom of choice, right? And threatening to pull ABC's broadcasting license is censorship. Did you read the letter that was sent to ABC? I doubt you did, and I doubt that you care. Because you believe that only one point of view needs to be aired. It's funny that you thought Bill Marr's dvd was so funny. I am sure it wasn't flattering to the President. But that is ok to air. Freedom of speech of course, but only for one side. It is not abridging someone's freedom to tell them if they lie about you and besmirch you that you will sue them if they do so. It is called access to the courts to protect oneself. If someone lied about you and ruined your reputation by lets say calling you a child molester, would you sue that person? Yes, we have slander laws and libel laws. If they wanted to sue, go ahead. They did more. They threatened to make trouble for ABC in regards to their broadcast license. That is okay with you? Seems to be.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:27:39 PM)
I should address your other points which are not really about this thread, yes I like Bill Maher, he is a funny comedian. I do not like Bush and I make no secret about that. I do not like Bill Clinton either, I make no bones about that. I do not like the Democratic Party, and I do not like the Republican Party. Why are you throwing them in my face to say my opinion of selling lies as truth is wrong and defaming people is wrong. I am closest to a Naderite and a Greenie.... If there are mischaracterizations about Bush in that movie I would say that was wrong too, but no one has presented that information to me. I did not read the letter, as my opinion is not in support of Clinton or his staffers, it is about selling fiction as reality,... which is a prevalent theme in our society today and it really rankles me. I do not have a hero on either side of this debate and it seems to me that you would like to fit me into your partisan boxes where I do not belong.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:30:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: Estring The fact that you don't believe it is true, doesn't mean it isn't. There are many who believe that the movie was basically thruthful on the big points. So let us watch it. You don't have to if you don't want to. Freedom of choice, right? And threatening to pull ABC's broadcasting license is censorship. Did you read the letter that was sent to ABC? I doubt you did, and I doubt that you care. Because you believe that only one point of view needs to be aired. It's funny that you thought Bill Marr's dvd was so funny. I am sure it wasn't flattering to the President. But that is ok to air. Freedom of speech of course, but only for one side. It is not abridging someone's freedom to tell them if they lie about you and besmirch you that you will sue them if they do so. It is called access to the courts to protect oneself. If someone lied about you and ruined your reputation by lets say calling you a child molester, would you sue that person? Yes, we have slander laws and libel laws. If they wanted to sue, go ahead. They did more. They threatened to make trouble for ABC in regards to their broadcast license. That is okay with you? Seems to be. It does nothing for me one way or another, it does not negate my opinion that the movie was wrong. It should not have been made that way, and it should not have contradicted the 9-11 report and stated it was based upon it.. that is wrong wrong wrong

Sinergy -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:44:13 PM)
The Simian In Chief was assassinated? That means Darth Cheney is now president! Just me, etc. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:52:16 PM)
I am not sure the case number, but the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that entity A (say, ABC or SNL or whoever) can make fun of entity B all they like. In the decision statement, it was indicated that this was appropriate whether or not entity B understood the joke or not. "A person who can laugh at themselves will never cease to be entertained." Dorothy Parker. Just me, etc. Sinergy

StrongButKind -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 9:59:04 PM)
I believe the caselaw is a bit more complex than that. The status of the object of ridicule as a public figure is very relevant, I think. Any lawyers on the boards want to clarify -- not an area of any expertise for me.

juliaoceania -> RE: "Death of a President" (9/13/2006 10:01:46 PM)
There are many people that are made into public figures, like Joey Buttafuco, and comedians seem to make fun of whomever they like

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875