Skip to comments.
CBS dancing to Republican tune
Toronto Star ^
| Nov. 9, 2003
| ANTONIA ZERBISIAS
Posted on 11/10/2003 11:11:34 AM PST by holymoly
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
To: holymoly
...helped bring down Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy... Revealing slip. He derides McCarthy only because he was a "Commie-hunter." Oh, then there were Commies, were there? In the State Department?
McCarthy is supposed to be reviled for "ruining innocent lives". He must not have gotten the memo.
21
posted on
11/10/2003 11:32:52 AM PST
by
Plutarch
To: Plutarch
Er, she must not have gotten the memo. The butch photo tripped me up.
22
posted on
11/10/2003 11:33:59 AM PST
by
Plutarch
To: holymoly
You're correct. I shoulda entered a smilie or a {/sarcasm}
23
posted on
11/10/2003 11:37:39 AM PST
by
theDentist
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
To: holymoly
"...how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq..." It never ceases to amaze me how the LEFT uses the same pithy statements at the same time as if scripted. This seems to be the latest. I've noticed this in several articles today in different variations. It's like they're all listening to the Wizard of Oz.
24
posted on
11/10/2003 11:38:26 AM PST
by
HarleyD
To: holymoly
"I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq."
Don't you love it how morons like this claim that anyone who doesn't take their side in a controversial charge, in which people don't buy the leftist media line, are "surreal" and "outrageous"? According to this guy, half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous". The arrogance is mind-blowing.
Qwinn
25
posted on
11/10/2003 11:43:24 AM PST
by
Qwinn
To: holymoly
Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear physicist.
26
posted on
11/10/2003 11:46:41 AM PST
by
weegee
To: holymoly
But the Ronald Reagan-loving critics overlook that, claiming victory over the liberal media, which had merely set out to trash their beloved Gipper and, among other things, his appalling record on AIDS. Even though these critics never saw the show, and even though Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first six years of his administration. Salon posted the whole script as a PDF. This dumba$$ can read the venom for himself. I hope that this bed wetting liberal has put fresh rubber sheets on his bed...
27
posted on
11/10/2003 11:51:55 AM PST
by
weegee
To: holymoly
This is not to say that the Fairness Doctrine was without problems from a freedom of the press standpoint. But abolishing it led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact. We've "had" entire "news" networks that spewed lots of opinion and little fact. Only they all tilted left. Now that some obviously conservative news networks/radio is getting exposure people are waking up to just how socialist left leaning the news editors/anchors at Big Media were.
Beyond the "Fairness Doctrine", we have commercial free 501(c)3 radio stations on the left end of the radio dial; stations that are voluntarily limited in their political speech because of the tax dodge they take. Of course anyone who has listened to US taxpayer supported Pacifica or NPR will tell you that they violate their 501C3 charter everyday.
28
posted on
11/10/2003 11:57:00 AM PST
by
weegee
To: Revolting cat!
French Canadian?
29
posted on
11/10/2003 11:58:54 AM PST
by
weegee
To: holymoly
can you spell a-s-s--h-o-l-e
30
posted on
11/10/2003 12:01:14 PM PST
by
The Wizard
(Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
To: holymoly
This article is a case study in psychological projection!
31
posted on
11/10/2003 12:02:01 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
("A republic, if you can keep it.")
To: holymoly
Zerbisias pines for the bygone era when dissenting opinion could simply be ignored by the liberal media apparat. How distasteful to live in this awful new world, in which one is constantly subjected to ideas one hates, and in which conservatives --
conservatives -- have taken it upon themselves to pressure the media, something that for decades was exclusively the province of one's fellow leftists. How disconcerting. How...
unnatural. And to think; this poor man's anguish is likely to continue for the rest of his earthly days.
Heh. Heh-heh-heh...
To: Timesink
Too many Canadians - especially the writers of the Toronto Star, arguably one of the most liberal papers in that country - have an extremely unhealthy obsession with the United States. Why the hell should they care what an American network decides to do about a miniseries about an American president? You forget that Canadian Petah Jennings tells many an American what to think every day.
Peter is still a Canadian because he violated the loyalty oath that he swore when he "became" an American. He still claims his Canadian citizenship and says that he is a dual citizen (something that the US certainly does not recognize for foreign born nationals with foreign resident parents). He lied when he took his loyalty oath and is therefore still a Canadian. Some Canucks love mucking about in antiAmericanism.
33
posted on
11/10/2003 12:04:14 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Voltage
The left would hoot and holler that truths portrayed in "The Clinton Years" were lies and exagerations. Show the scene of Hollywoodites Marky Post and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason jumping on the bed in the Lincoln bedroom. Show the coffees with the Chinese communist military. Show "Mr. President" receiving oral sex from an unpaid college intern on Easter Sunday. Show him receiving oral sex while deploying American troops on foreign soil. Show him receiving oral sex while making visting foreign heads of state wait in the Rose Garden. Show him laughing at funerals. And the whole thing ends with the trashing of the White House.
34
posted on
11/10/2003 12:09:07 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Plutarch
Methinks that she may actually support Communism. So goes the US, so goes Canada...
35
posted on
11/10/2003 12:11:11 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Qwinn
According to this guy, half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous". The kennel attendents for the yellow dog democrats keep telling them that Algore really won the 2000 election. I'd say that there are a large number of simpleminded idiots living in a surreal dreamworld. Albert Gore Junior was good at spinning this hooey; "Everything that is down should be AUP, and everything that is aup should be DOWN!".
36
posted on
11/10/2003 12:14:48 PM PST
by
weegee
To: Qwinn
>Don't you love it how morons like this claim that anyone >who doesn't take their side in a controversial charge, in >which people don't buy the leftist media line, >are "surreal" and "outrageous"? According to this guy, >half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous". >The arrogance is mind-blowing.
That's exactly right. I've gotten into several debates and the attitude was "you're so stupid, you don't even know how stupid you are". No logical reason as to WHY I was "stupid", but stupid nonetheless. I guess because I didn't jump on the bandwagon with them and actually required some semblance of thought and logic and that confused them.
37
posted on
11/10/2003 12:17:47 PM PST
by
sunryse
To: sunryse
If you haven't, you need to read Ann Coulter's "Slander". It addresses the "stupid" retort beautifully. I'll post one quote here, it's just too relevant not to.
Chapter title: "The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're Stupid!"
"If liberals were prevented from ever calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist", "fascist", "homophobe", "ugly" and a few other highly nuanced arguments in their quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them. Like clockwork, every consequential Republican to come down the pike is instantly, invariably, always, without exception called "dumb"."
"This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything "stupid". The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. Someday we will turn to the New York Times editorial page and find the Newspaper of Record denouncing President Bush for being a "penis-head"."
You gotta love Ann. No one puts it as hilariously or succintly as she does.
Qwinn
38
posted on
11/10/2003 12:27:31 PM PST
by
Qwinn
To: holymoly
The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't discern between TV fiction and news. This is certainly the current spin. It is a lie. What the libs are trying to obscure here is the clear line between fiction and biography. There are two entirely different sets of rules that apply, two entirely different levels of obligation to accuracy. Were the names of the principals artfully altered and the circumstances changed, any amount of "artistic license" (by which we mean deliberate distortion of the truth) is excusable, but where the principals are (1) living, and (2) presented under their real names, it is not only unconscionable, it borders on the downright illegal, to present falsehood masquerading as reality.
To: holymoly
I wouldn't expect the Canuks to "get it" about "the Reagans" and the ordinary Americans' reaction to it.
They've never had anyone like him.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson