Try again, bub. Look at the “DING DING DING!” thread on the Pit page. And as for your Constitutional lesson for today, may I present to you this magical First Amendment?

Questions? Good.

Like The New Joe Millionaire? Yeah, that show is bullshit. And don’t get me started on their bullshit-laden sitcoms and scripted dramas.

Or wait…was that supposed to be another lame anti-Fox News remark coming out of nowhere and completely irrelevant to the discussion? Geez, non sequiturs about FNC are the new “lol bush is stoopid”.

Well, since rjung does the same idiotic thing in his “argument”, I guess you’re in good (by which I mean shitty) company, fella.

No, I’m going by the quotes of the show that were printed in the NY Times and then widely circulated. I don’t watch Bill O’Reilly all that often, and haven’t in months. But thanks for making your blind judgment that anyone criticizing a piece of leftist trash must obviously be nothing but a mindless drone waiting for some commentator on FNC to tell him what to think.

As has been mentioned, it is almost impossible for a public figure to successfully win a suit for libel or slander. If this movie had aired, there would be millions of people who would believe that Reagan actually said and did certain things because they were in the movie, and because people’s desire to see their pre-existing suspicions satisfied will reinforce that belief. Look at all the damage done by the factually disastrous JFK, all the casual conspiracy fans still toss out falsehoods from that movie.

That you can get away with airing a film like that doesn’t mean you should.

Oooh, the ultimate left-winger retort: but they did it too! Note that the 9/11 movie aired on what channel? Showtime! Where is the Reagan movie being shuffled off to? Showtime! If a historically inaccurate 9/11 movie belongs there, I guess that’s where a historically inaccurate Reagan movie belongs too. So what’s your complaint? Frankly, I’d prefer Showtime showed rerun episodes of the old Gary Shandling Show, but if it’s to be the clearing house for historical dramas of questionable legitimacy, then so be it.

My smarter than me wife let me know the no-all-caps-rule applies with the entire thread title, as this one. the DING DING thread is not all caps for the entire title, first part of my last post hereby retracted. Second part stands.

Ah. So… defamation for fun and profit is morally acceptable, as long as it does not manage to become so egregious that it becomes legally actionable? Even if legally actionable, said action helps undo the damage to a person’s reputation how?

I’ve raised this same objection to your idea in the GD thread on this topic, which I would link to if the hamsters would let me. But you, apparently, would have it that one has no moral responsibility not to defame others, hiding behind the shield of “free exchange of ideas.” And this, frankly, is bullshit.

On a completely separate topic, viewers don’t get to decide if something is accurate or not; it is accurate or inaccurate irrespective of your and my opinion on it. Consensus does not determine truth.

Um, yeah. What RexDart said.

Those screaming about CBS dropping Reagan are probably the same ones who tried to stop Dr. Laura’s talk show before it even started.

Boo hoo.

So…in other words, Knorf, what you’re saying is that you are as stupid as your initial post made you appear to be.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, and by the way: “asshat” went out of fashion about a year ago. Try to keep up.

How about “cock-goblin”? (As opposed to cock-gobblin’, which would be OMG HOMOPHOBE!)

What about sweater-vests? I’ve got alot invested in that, they’re the only thing that looks good on larger men. Are they still in fashion?

As I read his responses this was exactly what I was going to post. Knorf, you are a fool.

it did!?! damn, now what will i wear with my scrotum skirt?!?!

…we now return you to your regular pitacious channel, already in progress…

What a fucktool you are and any other liberal who defends this situation with these tactics.

Playing the 9/11 card to defend this hatchet job of a mini-series that you know damn fucking well is a fabricated liberal 50% “story” to get back at Reagan for all those years of sticking it to liberals not only in the White House…BUT IN YOUR OWN FUCKING UBER-LIBERAL HEADQUARTERS OF CALIFORNIA…is deplorable.

How do I know it’s a fucking hatchet job…because the same network that employs Dan Rather and Les Moonves (two of the biggest liberals on the planet who probably creamed themselves when they read the script) would rather put their tail between their legs and peddle this fictious piece of shit to Showtime rather than air it on National TV and watch the fallout from most of America and their ad buyers who would recognize it for what it truely is…a pathetic and cowardly attempt by ultra-liberal Hollywood whack jobs and the liberal elite of CBS to stick it to an ex-President who can’t defend himself.

The fucking wimps couldn’t knock him off his “ivory tower” (no I’m not a Reagan supporter…his economic policies were as flawed as they come) when he was in office…so instead they lie in wait until they think public opinion of the guy has faded so they can attempt to bury his ass with this shameful crap…but as usual, the liberals don’t have their finger on the pulse of Amercia, which isn’t surprising considering that 50% of people putting this mini-series together are buttbuddies of Streisand and her make believe Beverly Hills/Malibu world and the other 50% are so far up Moonves colon, they can tell you what he eats for breakfast each morning on the weekends when he’s in the Hamptons.

As usual…liberals are their worst enemy…they keep pushing the moderates away with this bullshit and then wonder why everybody not in NYC and CA doesn’t blindly follow them?

There’s definitely a fucktool in this thread, but rjung ain’t it.

So, let’s see. No one bitching about the accuracy or lack thereof of this movie has actually seen it. But because Reagan is apparently untouchable in the eyes of his devotees/followers/worshippers/whatever, a large group of Republican fucktards who haven’t seen it either can get it pulled from CBS. But not before demanding editorial control, and not before rubbing it in all of our faces. None of them have any problems with this, of course, because God forbid we get any hints from that bad ol’ liberal media that Reagan might not be the most perfect example of leadership we ever had in the Oval Office.

Hint: It’s not about inaccuracies. If that was really their problem with it, they would have raised holy hell over the nonstop Dubya blowjob that was the 9/11 TV movie. It’s not about them attacking someone who can’t defend himself. The Republicans don’t want ANYTHING tarnishing their perfect image of the Gipper, even if there is enough material there for a fucking miniseries. John Dingell sums it up better than I ever could:

He forgot about ignoring AIDS for 8 years, but I think that sums it up pretty well regardless.

Oh, and Mr. Obvious? There is a pretty big fucking difference between playing the 9/11 card and criticizing a TV movie based on 9/11. It seems more than appropriate, though, that you share with Reagan a tendency to confuse fantasy with reality.

I just think it’s wonderful that in America, so many people can have so much informed opinion about a movie that they’ve never even seen!

See, this is the most common iffy accusation against Reagan. This is heavy in the film, actually, from what the NY Times leaked quotes indicate from the script.

I was only born in 1979. But still I recall alot of confusion about AIDS. It wasn’t until the early 90’s that we really had public knowledge about AIDS and it’s causes like we do today, and began to disseminate that info to the high schools and so forth. Heck, I’m old enough to remember when they used to call it by a name that implicated solely homsexual victims, the knowledge was so incomplete.

The numbers available to Reagan on AIDS were kind of odd. There was no great way to tell the real number of victims, as testing procedures weren’t perfected yet and diagnosis relied mostly on inference. (Much like today, where African doctors declare AIDS w/o even an antibody test, there’s confusion about the disease.) My older gay friends tell me that era was very confusing, that nobody really knew what was happening and everyone was quite scared. Frankly, I’d think criticism of that period would best be directed at the WHO, or the NIH, or some such bureaucratic group.

The demonization of Reagan on the AIDS issue is one of those points which I most criticize the film for indulging in.

At the risk of blinding you with the obvious, knorf was clearly referencing the First Amendment as (an admittedly poor) label for free speech. While corporate (self-)censorship may not be forbidden by the First Amendment, one may question whether the spirit (ie free speech) was being violated. Your claim that this was somehow unclear are unconvincing and hardly substantive criticism.

But not having seen the movie, any substantive criticism of its content is impossible, right? Oh, but many people won’t see it… because it was pulled from CBS.

Sheesh, I’ve seen some well deserved pit pile-ons, but this folks, isn’t one of them. What is that, five posts about poor word choice? Come on.

Whether the public knew HIV causes AIDS in the late 80s, the Regan admin. certainly did.

That was 1984. The first blood test for HIV was 1985.

Who gives a fuck if it’s a hatchet job? Who gives a fuck if it’s historically accurate. It’s a lame mini-series!!!

What? You think a lame CBS mini-series is gonna change the minds of the populace? No, it’s not. If anyone thinks they’re gonna get facts with this tripe, the they’re too stupid to worry about.

That said, if CBS doesn’t think they can make money by airing it, then passing the buck is the right thing to do.

But why the fuck are pubbies so up in arms over this piece of shit?? It stars James Brolin, fer chrissakes!! That’s how cheesy it has to be. I’ll be amazed if many folks actually tune in to see it. Or at least I would have been before they started the stink. Now, a lot of people will probably watch just to see what all the fuss was.

I was digusted hearing O’Reilly whine like a baby about it. He actually said that if 6 creative Republicans came to CBS with a proposed hatchet job on Bill Clinton, they wouldn’t even get a meeting. I scream at the radio “So fucking what?? I’m sure the executives at FOX will go for it!!”

[sub]his implication is that CBS is just doing to further the agenda of the left rather than to make money, which is an idiotic notion. CBS has shown it will put on ANY drivel that it thinks folks will watch. they’re a business, not an arm of the democratic party[/sub]

Except, y’know, like CBS’s lawyers and the president of CBS who made the decision. But they don’t count. Right?

:: applauds :: but with one addition—

…and that’s the reason they pulled th’ damn thing too: their lawyers probably said “Um. It might be actionable. Getting a very public lawsuit that we just might lose is not in line with our corporate philosophy of being corporate greedheads out to make as much money as possible”

On an aside, I wonder if CBS were to be stupid enough to broadcast the similar (but worse)The Clinton Chronicles, how many of the people having emotional crisises right now would rest easy, comforted in the idea that corporate free speech (?) thrives?

Ya know, if they DID plan to broadcast it, and the Dems got in such a tizzy like the Pubs did, I bet it would be a top 10 hit.

But I think that the Dems were smart to not even comment (for the most part) on that piece of…fiction.

Really, didn’t you get the impression that O’Reilly was afraid of it?? The smart thing to do would be to let it air, then make fun of , and lambast, everyone involved for making such a turd. He could have painted the CBS execs as idjits for green lighting it, and make his own network seem smart in the process.

I don’t get their thinking.

I’m kind of hoping the rise in solar flares knock out some major media communications before this propaganda rah-rah airs.