Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • wem1985
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Guys to be fair (and I don't really drift to one party, I'm pretty much on both sides concerning certain things) but ALL of us learned a lesson from those attacks. Clinton did have some chances to get him and I respect why he says he didn't go after him. Nobody knew at the time that something of that magnitude was going to happen, but it did and hopefully we learned from our mistakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • wem1985
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Jackdack View Post
    As a matter of fact, they only cut about 70 seconds of footage from the film in response to Democratic uproar. They checked their facts with the 9/11 commision report and other sources. I found out that Iger was even threatened to have his broadcasting licence taken away if he aired the film. If you need any more proof of left wing media bias then you're crazy. The events discussed about missing chances to take down Bin Laden during Clinton's administration really happened and people like Madeliene Albright were in part responisble. Good for Iger and not being afraid to pull this off the air. If Disney can produce Fahrenheit 9/11 then why can't they use half of their docudrama to tell what really happened under Clinton's administration.
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ride Warrior
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Motorboat Cruiser View Post
    No, actually the left's solution would have been to stay focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. You might have heard of him. He was the one resposible for the attacks, the one that we lost track of when we went in to Iraq. How on earth do you conclude that the left wanted to sit back and do nothing in regards to 9/11? You may believe that the only way to fight terrorism was to attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. I would rather believe that there were other options. Of course, "Iraq had better targets".
    We have remained focused on Afghanastan. If you will recall, Bush sent troups there in pursuit of Bin Laden, and to destroy the Taleban's terrorist training camps. Although we didn't completely destroy the camps, we broke them up and sent the Afghan terroists into the northern part of the country...where we have been battling them ever since. There are present suspisions that Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan.

    Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan have each been linked to offering various terrorist groups safe haven. We attacked Saddam's regime in Iraq because the CIA reported that it was developing nuclear weapons. As Saddam had already used chemical weapons on his own people, the Administration and our military did not want to take any chances of weapons of mass anialation ending up in the hands of terrorists.

    The war against terrorism is on many fronts. America would be placed in undue risk should we look in one direction, at only one terrorist friendly county. To have turned our backs on Iraq would have been an invitation to disaster. It is to your credit, Motorboat Cruiser, that you desire for broken up terrorist trianing camps to be obliterated. I could not agree more.

    Nevertheless, there are those on the extreme left that want America to cut and run from all terrorist harboring countries, Iraq and Afghaanistan included. As aforementioned, their solution is to turn US defense and the safety of our nation over to the UN...while we do nothing.
    Last edited by Ride Warrior; 09-17-2006, 06:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ROBONICS95
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Jackdack View Post
    As far as boycotts go, how ridiculous can you get. By doing so you are saying that despite the fact that you proclaim your right to free speech from the highest mountain tops, if someone else has an opinion opposite yours and they dare to express it then they must be silenced. How do you not see that this is obvious hipocrasy? I feel like I'm a lone voice of reason amidst a million screaming sirens of monotony. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Is anybody there?

    I am right with you...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Chaney
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by patriot View Post
    First things first: the First Amendment protects people from the government; it does not ban peaceful responses.

    I did not see F9/11, but perhaps a boycott is in order over that. But there is still a fundamental difference. If Don Rumsfeld was narrating a documentary about the cause of 9/11 in which he blamed Bill Clinton for the attacks, people could dismiss it as clear politics. But when it is cast as a documentary (even with disclaimers), it fools folks like Tom Chaney who don't know how to distinguish truth from fiction. Tom Chaney thinks Bill Clinton had an opportunity to capture OB-L. That is fiction. We didn't have operatives in place. There was no phone call waiting for the go-ahead. That was "dramatization." However, without a line across the screen at that moment, people, including Mr. Chaney, are likely to be confused.

    Disney knows this.

    Again, an effective boycott will have to involve the sponsors directly.

    FWIW--I am not a Democrat. But I love my country, and this has hurt us. Mr. Chaney will now likely never change his mind in the face of any evidence. And that weakens us as a team.
    I guess I'm obligated to respond to this.

    First off, welcome to MiceChat.

    I did not see the ABC program. We were at the theatre that evening.

    My referrence to Clinton and Osama is addressed in Darkbeer's post #69 on this thread.

    http://www.micechat.com/forums/showt...t=36970&page=3

    EDIT!! Apparently, this is not the complete audio file. Here's a transcript. In a speech to a group of Long Island businessmen, Mr. Clinton said the following regarding Osama Bin Laden:

    "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.
    They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
    So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

    Now, Mr. Clinton may well have made the correct decision on a strict legal basis. BUT... he did, apparently, have the opportunity to "bring him here."

    Now that you have been presented with evidence, will you change your mind?
    Last edited by Tom Chaney; 09-13-2006, 02:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Chaney
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Motorboat Cruiser View Post
    But there are restrictions on how the public airwaves can be used for political ads. Ever heard of equal time? And, there are restrictions on what can be said on the public airwaves. Ever heard of the FCC? They have no jurisdiction over movies, in case you weren't aware. They do over television. There is clearly a difference that you refuse to see.
    The ABC presentation was not subject to any equal time provisions. The law requires that broadcasters offer equal time at similar rates for political ads. News stories, documentaries, dramatizations, sit-coms, etc. do not fall under the requirements. Even if the ABC program had an agenda, it was not an out-and-out political advertisement.

    Yes, in my many years as a radio broadcaster, I gained a nodding acquaintance with the FCC. There are indeed SOME restrictions on what can be said over the airwaves. These mostly have to do with profanity, though George Carlin playfully bent that rule many years ago. Lying isn't prohibited. (Though it is discouraged!) Stating an opinion isn't prohibited. Having a hidden agenda isn't prohibited.

    The FCC places precious few restrictions on broadcast content, as is proper under the First Amendment. That allows us to enjoy a variety of programs like "West Wing", "Art Bell", "The O'Franken Factor", "Rush Limbaugh" etc. Both you and I could line up a bunch of people who are convinced that various of the above programs are full of lies and political agendas. None of them are subject to any equal time restrictions.

    Leave a comment:


  • James09
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Motorboat Cruiser View Post
    No, actually the left's solution would have been to stay focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. You might have heard of him. He was the one resposible for the attacks, the one that we lost track of when we went in to Iraq. How on earth do you conclude that the left wanted to sit back and do nothing in regards to 9/11? You may believe that the only way to fight terrorism was to attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. I would rather believe that there were other options. Of course, "Iraq had better targets".

    I couldn't say it better myself


    As for "Ride Warrior", I don't really have much time to reply to your post but as for the part about Clinton not doing anything, He actually established the group that investigates terrorism.

    I really think all that you said can be contraidicted but lets drop this michael moore thing. One thing that remains true to this day though, is we haven't found WMD's in Iraq, So something still remains suspicious about us dropping our attention to Afghanistan and going to Iraq a soveirgn nation that has not yet attacked America.

    -Lets stay peaceful though, we're disney fans-

    Leave a comment:


  • Cmash95
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    the key words about it all is that it was a dramatization based on interviews and the 9/11 report. what was fictionialized was meetings where there was no way to say exactly what was said. someone once told me that history is written bythe victors. well there are no victors in this case but history is currently being written by those in power. there are those who still believe in a conspiracy and want another investigation opened. I feel sorry for those family members that can't let it rest. all in all what I saw wasn't scewed to either party. it was based on written word. but personally it was too early to show something like this. but then I feel the same way about the movies out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Motorboat Cruiser
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Ride Warrior View Post
    The far left's solution is to sit back and do nothing, and put our lives in the hands of the United Nations.
    No, actually the left's solution would have been to stay focused on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. You might have heard of him. He was the one resposible for the attacks, the one that we lost track of when we went in to Iraq. How on earth do you conclude that the left wanted to sit back and do nothing in regards to 9/11? You may believe that the only way to fight terrorism was to attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. I would rather believe that there were other options. Of course, "Iraq had better targets".

    Leave a comment:


  • Motorboat Cruiser
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Tom Chaney View Post
    There should be NO restrictions placed on political ads made for whatever reason at whatever time. Read the 1st amendment.
    But there are restrictions on how the public airwaves can be used for political ads. Ever heard of equal time? And, there are restrictions on what can be said on the public airwaves. Ever heard of the FCC? They have no jurisdiction over movies, in case you weren't aware. They do over television. There is clearly a difference that you refuse to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ride Warrior
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by James09 View Post
    I hate to start political discussions on these forums but can you tell me how michael moore distorted the truth?

    As for the movie, they clearly state it is based on fictionalized scenes, so why do they make it? I think any movie based on 911 should be about the truth, or otherwise they're disrespecting the people who died that day.
    NARRATOR: Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997 while George W. Bush was Governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney: Halliburton.
    BBC articlethis press releaseMore...
    It breaks down like this. In 1997 the Taliban comes to Texas with the okay of Bill Clinton. This has nothing, nothing, to do with George W. Bush. In December of 1998 Unocal pulls out of the project. Then, in 2002, Afghanistan signs a a deal not with an oil company but with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to try and develop a pipeline. As the BBC article states,
    Halliburton press release from June 17, 2002.
    So much for some nefarious conspiracy between Halliburton, Unocal, Bush, and the Taliban. Moore then continues:
    This is, like most of what Moore says, a nugget of truth wrapped in a blanket of spin. The only documentation I could find about this trip was from some loony left-wing site, which is probably the same place Moore got it.
    NARRATOR: Here is the Taliban official visiting our State Department to meet with US officials. Why on Earth did the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies? Well, I guess 9/11 put a stop to that. When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also appointed as his envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was also a former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is leading. Faster than you can say Black Gold Texas Tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea. Oh, and the Taliban? Uh, they mostly got away. As did Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda.

    Leave a comment:


  • James09
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Ride Warrior View Post
    A) Why wasn't an account of the purported distortions and manipulations of the 911 commission report directly includede in the petition?

    B) The answer to the question raised above is that thinkprogress.org appears to be little more than an unsubstanciated leftwing blog.

    C) Why hasn't the 911 commission itself disputed the docudrama "Path To 9/11", if it is so off-base.

    D) Where were the voices of outrage over Michael Moore's distortion of the truth and "pioneering a reality film as an election devise" for the liberal viewpoint in his controversial Fahrenheit 9/11?

    E) This entire petition seems to be little more than an attack on the word "conservative". Well, conservative viewpoints are not limited to those from the Republican party alone. Their are also a good number of moderate conservatives in the Democratic Party that support Bush's retaliation against terfrorism and the war in Iraq. The far left's solution is to sit back and do nothing, and put our lives in the hands of the United Nations.

    F) Walt Disney and his company once promoted the patriotic right of America to take on Hitler during WWII. Glad to see this spirit lives on against the enemies of freedom at Disney's ABC, whether they be totalitarian or extremist religioun-based terrorism.

    G) Nevertheless, this is a good thread topic in the sense that it has elicited a good deal of response from differing viewpoints.


    I hate to start political discussions on these forums but can you tell me how michael moore distorted the truth?

    As for the movie, they clearly state it is based on fictionalized scenes, so why do they make it? I think any movie based on 911 should be about the truth, or otherwise they're disrespecting the people who died that day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ride Warrior
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by PragmaticIdealist View Post
    A) Why wasn't an account of the purported distortions and manipulations of the 911 commission report directly includede in the petition?

    B) The answer to the question raised above is that thinkprogress.org appears to be little more than an unsubstanciated leftwing blog.

    C) Why hasn't the 911 commission itself disputed the docudrama "Path To 9/11", if it is so off-base.

    D) Where were the voices of outrage over Michael Moore's distortion of the truth and "pioneering a reality film as an election devise" for the liberal viewpoint in his controversial Fahrenheit 9/11?

    E) This entire petition seems to be little more than an attack on the word "conservative". Well, conservative viewpoints are not limited to those from the Republican party alone. Their are also a good number of moderate conservatives in the Democratic Party that support Bush's retaliation against terfrorism and the war in Iraq. The far left's solution is to sit back and do nothing, and put our lives in the hands of the United Nations.

    F) Walt Disney and his company once promoted the patriotic right of America to take on Hitler during WWII. Glad to see this spirit lives on against the enemies of freedom at Disney's ABC, whether they be totalitarian or extremist religioun-based terrorism.

    G) Nevertheless, this is a good thread topic in the sense that it has elicited a good deal of response from differing viewpoints.

    Leave a comment:


  • patriot
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    First things first: the First Amendment protects people from the government; it does not ban peaceful responses.

    I did not see F9/11, but perhaps a boycott is in order over that. But there is still a fundamental difference. If Don Rumsfeld was narrating a documentary about the cause of 9/11 in which he blamed Bill Clinton for the attacks, people could dismiss it as clear politics. But when it is cast as a documentary (even with disclaimers), it fools folks like Tom Chaney who don't know how to distinguish truth from fiction. Tom Chaney thinks Bill Clinton had an opportunity to capture OB-L. That is fiction. We didn't have operatives in place. There was no phone call waiting for the go-ahead. That was "dramatization." However, without a line across the screen at that moment, people, including Mr. Chaney, are likely to be confused.

    Disney knows this.

    Again, an effective boycott will have to involve the sponsors directly.

    FWIW--I am not a Democrat. But I love my country, and this has hurt us. Mr. Chaney will now likely never change his mind in the face of any evidence. And that weakens us as a team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom Chaney
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Motorboat Cruiser View Post
    If this had been a film, I would have had less of a problem with it. There are restrictions placed on political ads made for broadcast television. This TV program had a not-so-subtle underlying message of "the republicans aren't as much to blame for 9/11 as the democrats" and it was shown eight weeks before an election. Would a ficticious film based depicting Bush having an opportunity to catch Bin Laden before 9/11 and choosing not to, have been acceptable for broadcast television eight weeks before the last presidential election. Would the republicans have remained silent?

    Hardly.
    The First Amendment applies to films as well as TV programs. Are you really saying that the thing that galls you is that more people are likely to watch a TV show than a film?

    George Bush is not the one caught on tape admitting to screwing up by not taking Bin Laden when offered.

    There should be NO restrictions placed on political ads made for whatever reason at whatever time. Read the 1st amendment.

    A film depicting Dubya refusing to capture Osama would be fictitious. A film depicting St. Bill refusing to capture Osama would be factual.

    Why is the left so excersized about a production that puts the Right in a favorable light? Is that just so NOT allowed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Motorboat Cruiser
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by disneyfan07 View Post
    here is an idea: if abc agrees to shelf(put into the vault and leave it there) the miniseries, will whoever is involved with the boycott stop the boycott????
    Wouldn't that accomplish little, being that it has already aired on TV?

    As far as the Knott's stuff, your point eludes me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Motorboat Cruiser
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by Jackdack View Post
    it as such. Further more, everyone seems to have ignored the main problem I have with there being an issue over this which is that Disney also released Fahrenheit 9/11. That took incredibly distorted and biased views and presented them as fact. If Disney can present a film that is swayed toward liberal view points why can't they present a fictional representation of events swayed slightly conservatively.
    If this had been a film, I would have had less of a problem with it. There are restrictions placed on political ads made for broadcast television. This TV program had a not-so-subtle underlying message of "the republicans aren't as much to blame for 9/11 as the democrats" and it was shown eight weeks before an election. Would a ficticious film based depicting Bush having an opportunity to catch Bin Laden before 9/11 and choosing not to, have been acceptable for broadcast television eight weeks before the last presidential election. Would the republicans have remained silent?

    Hardly.

    Leave a comment:


  • disneyfan07
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    here is an idea: if abc agrees to shelf(put into the vault and leave it there) the miniseries, will whoever is involved with the boycott stop the boycott????


    I strongly recommend at least thinking about it.

    a boycott just because of one show?????????????
    really now.

    however, if the boycott goes foreward, I vow NEVER to set foot in Knotts Berry Farm. Never. (has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am just trying to make my point)


    actually truth be told, I have kinda lost interest in Knotts Berry Farm anyway.
    the last time I went, the ferris wheel got stuck, and I waited, waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,w aited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,wa ited,waited, for them to find out what went wrong, and then waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,w aited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,waited,wa ited,waited,waited for the ride operator to call for someone to help him get the ride running again(apparently he couldnt doit himself????????), and to make a long story short, I got sick(possibly food poisoning)

    all the while waiting (ad nauseum) for them to fix the problem NO ONE let anyone know via loudspeaker that there was a technical malfunction and they were trying to fix the problem.

    and in my opinion, the park lost its charm when they added parts to the park that did not have the original atmosphere of the older parts of the park.

    in other words, knotts became (or has become) basically a corporate version of a state or county fair. I dont have to pay 30 bucks a person to see that. I can go to the fairgrounds in my own town and pay only 5 bucks if I want to go to the fair.
    Last edited by disneyfan07; 09-12-2006, 11:07 PM. Reason: forgot some stuff

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackdack
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    Originally posted by patriot View Post
    Jackdack's post is clear evidence of why indeed it matters and needs to be taken seriously.

    Jackdack reasons that the film is probably ok because of the makers' fact-checking against sources. What he apparently doesn't know is that their facts disagreed with those sources on some fundamental points. And Disney showed it anyway.
    You're missing my point. While I know that many of the particular scenes were fictional, Disney clearly labeled it as such. Further more, everyone seems to have ignored the main problem I have with there being an issue over this which is that Disney also released Fahrenheit 9/11. That took incredibly distorted and biased views and presented them as fact. If Disney can present a film that is swayed toward liberal view points why can't they present a fictional representation of events swayed slightly conservatively. In reality the Bush administration didn't miss blame. Condie was clearly shown as responsible for not taking terrorism seriously. I just get the feeling that it's fine to openly bash conservatives, but if you dare to impune the reputable nature of Democrats you are thrown to the dogs and regarded as a dispicable person. It's the double standard that I raised in the previous post that nobody bothered to address. They struck straight for the conservative idiot vein and that's gotten really old over the past few years.
    As far as boycotts go, how ridiculous can you get. By doing so you are saying that despite the fact that you proclaim your right to free speech from the highest mountain tops, if someone else has an opinion opposite yours and they dare to express it then they must be silenced. How do you not see that this is obvious hipocrasy? I feel like I'm a lone voice of reason amidst a million screaming sirens of monotony. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Is anybody there?

    Leave a comment:


  • DisneyMickey
    replied
    Re: Disney Boycotts Organized in Response to "Path to 9/11"

    What is the big deal with this documentary? I don't see what everyone is complaining about. It's not a slam against anyone compared to Michael Moore's documentary that was put out a few years back.

    Leave a comment:

Get Away Today Footer

Collapse
Working...
X