Disney's Dubious Path to 9/11

mousepod · 09-12-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I would conjecture- (edited to remove conjecture) but I suspect that there is some truth to my conjecture.

You can't second your own motion, Neph.

But I get your point.

I'm going to watch the full unedited version tonight (if I can stomach it).

Like I said last week, my problem with ABC showing the movie had nothing to do with my pro-Clinton or anti-Bush stance. It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.

It's the government's hypocrisy that irks me. In this case, the FCC, which allows things like this to happen, while consistently overstepping its bounds to censor broadcasters for "obscenities". The FCC was crap under Clinton, and it's been crap under Bush. The pandering to the moral right is nothing new for the past several decades in both the Dems and the GOP.

Nephythys · 09-12-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

You can't second your own motion, Neph.

But I get your point.

I'm going to watch the full unedited version tonight (if I can stomach it).

Like I said last week, my problem with ABC showing the movie had nothing to do with my pro-Clinton or anti-Bush stance. It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.

It's the government's hypocrisy that irks me. In this case, the FCC, which allows things like this to happen, while consistently overstepping its bounds to censor broadcasters for "obscenities". The FCC was crap under Clinton, and it's been crap under Bush. The pandering to the moral right is nothing new for the past several decades in both the Dems and the GOP.

From what I hear-

*The Bush administration does not get off the hook on this one.
*The main message is that gov't red tape and beauracracy caused alot of problems- that certain action should have been taken- and wasn't. That is factual.
*That the people you come away hating are the enemy- the terrorists who want to see us dead or converted.

Let us know- I will be interested to hear another opinion.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-12-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

*That the people you come away hating are the enemy- the terrorists who want to see us dead or converted.

Yes, because nothing makes the world better than finding reasons to hate.

Nephythys · 09-12-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes, because nothing makes the world better than finding reasons to hate.

I fail to see any reason to twist what I said into that statement- but if it makes you happy to do so...whatever.

Ghoulish Delight · 09-12-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I fail to see any reason to twist what I said into that statement- but if it makes you happy to do so...whatever.

And I fail to see how I twisted anything you said? If someone tells me that watching something will give me a reason to hate someone, I tend not to watch it.

Nephythys · 09-12-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And I fail to see how I twisted anything you said? If someone tells me that watching something will give me a reason to hate someone, I tend not to watch it.

My point, which I suspect you do not need explained but I will do so anyway- is that all the uproar about the movie is useless- because the bad guys in the movie are the terrorists- not Clinton, Albright, Berger or Tenet- maybe they are not flattered by it- but they should not be flattered by their choices and inaction.

So one comes away with the message of who the enemy is- and it's not the Clinton administration.

No- I have not seen it- but yes, I feel you twisted my words.

Maybe you don't like the term hate- but wow, if you don't feel something after watching pictures of the terror attacks in the 90's or 9/11- then something is missing from this picture.

scaeagles · 09-12-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

It had to do with a "news organization" (which plays by different rules than "entertainment", especially during election time), using the public airwaves to disseminate fiction dressed up as truth. Period.

I guess I'm not sure why you said this. Was this produced by ABC news? I'm not being rhetorical - I don't get it. ABC is an entertainment company and a news company.