Obama Rebukes Sony for Censorship

In his best Ruff-Tuff Creampuff persona, the Big "O" rebukes Sony for not releasing Seth Rogen's latest 8th grader humor movie "The Interview".

“We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States. Because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like or news reports that they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody’s sensibilities who probably need to be offended.”

The President later added, "I wish they had spoken to me first. I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you're intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks."

Of course Sony had contacted the White House and of course Sony had no screens to release the movie on since every movie house in the US declined to show it fearing another Aurora CO massacre. And of course now everyone wants to see the movie which was getting horrible reviews by critics after private screenings.

But hey, if I remember correctly didn't Bad-Azz Barry pressure YouTube into removing the movie called "Innocence of Muslims", the movie that the White House claimed help trigger the 2012 attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi killing four Americans including an Ambassador?

Why am I not surprised by this duplicity that this White House has demonstrated ... once again. Same sheet, different day.

Sony is a private company and it's their right to cave into the demands of a clown that can't tell the difference between a movie and reality.

We must keep ourselves safe at all costs, even at the cost of our privacy, our morals and our pursuit of happiness. I for one will stay home where it's safe because Lord knows, no one dies at home.

Apologizer-in-Chief grows a set and pisses off half of his contributors in La-La land. Smooth move. Fortunately their attention span is only as long as it takes to horn another line at the club...................

Clicker wrote:Apologizer-in-Chief grows a set and pisses off half of his contributors in La-La land.  Smooth move.  Fortunately their attention span is only as long as it takes to horn another line at the club...................

I bet he won't get a single vote out of Hollywood in the next election.

At any rate can you imagine how big of an unstable, paranoid jackass someone would have to be to throw a major hissy fit over a fictional movie about a president being assassinated?

Now Paramount has pulled Team America from theaters.

We've become a nation of pussies.

Paquette wrote:At any rate can you imagine how big of an unstable, paranoid jackass someone would have to be to throw a major hissy fit over a fictional movie about a president being assassinated?

What do you mean stupid liberal...are you insinuating something?

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:At any rate can you imagine how big of an unstable, paranoid jackass someone would have to be to throw a major hissy fit over a fictional movie about a president being assassinated?

What do you mean stupid liberal...are you insinuating something?

Insinuating? I thought what I wrote was pretty clear and unambiguous. Do you disagree that Lil Kim is an unstable, paranoid jackass?

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:At any rate can you imagine how big of an unstable, paranoid jackass someone would have to be to throw a major hissy fit over a fictional movie about a president being assassinated?

What do you mean stupid liberal...are you insinuating something?

Insinuating? I thought what I wrote was pretty clear and unambiguous. Do you disagree that Lil Kim is an unstable, paranoid jackass?

Wow...pretty judgmental. I don't know him but the basketball player likes him.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:At any rate can you imagine how big of an unstable, paranoid jackass someone would have to be to throw a major hissy fit over a fictional movie about a president being assassinated?

What do you mean stupid liberal...are you insinuating something?

Insinuating? I thought what I wrote was pretty clear and unambiguous. Do you disagree that Lil Kim is an unstable, paranoid jackass?

Wow...pretty judgmental. I don't know him but the basketball player likes him.

I guess it's nice of you to come to Lil Kim's defense but I think I'll stick with my opinion of him.

Paquette wrote:We must keep ourselves safe at all costs, even at the cost of our privacy, our morals and our pursuit of happiness. I for one will stay home where it's safe because Lord knows, no one dies at home.

meh most of the guys who post on this forum wouldn't have come out of their bunkers to see this movie either.

Paquette wrote:

Clicker wrote:Apologizer-in-Chief grows a set and pisses off half of his contributors in La-La land.  Smooth move.  Fortunately their attention span is only as long as it takes to horn another line at the club...................

I bet he won't get a single vote out of Hollywood in the next election.

I am hearing that there won't be a next election.  This President will be reappointed by popular acclaim of the people if Romney, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are candidates.

In an unprecedented c-block Bill Clinton agrees to serve as Vice Emperor leaving both Hillary and Biden out in the cold.

It seems the claim that "every movie house in the US declined to show it" was wildly inaccurate.

Paquette wrote:It seems the claim that "every movie house in the US declined to show it" was wildly inaccurate.

Whatever. So Sony was finally able to cobble together 300 some art house theaters which are mostly small venues and manages to scrape together $1M in opening day revenues counting VOD $$ ¢¢¢. What a strike for Freedom of Expression!

It's even beginning to appear that North Korea wasn't involved but the FBI and Big "O" fell for it hook, line and sinker. In the end "The Interview" is a piece of crap movie that is set to lose big ¢¢¢ $$$. It certainly won't come close to recouping it's +$80M of production and marketing costs.

Of course North Korea wasn't involved, Lil Kim said so himself as he praised those who did it.

As for the quality of the movie, I'll leave that to the in house movie and yuppie beverage critic. I doubt I'll ever see it even after it achieves free streaming status, it's not the type of movie I generally watch. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that my personal taste should be the standard everyone else should live by.

But all of that is nothing but a distraction from the real issue, how to deal with terroristic threats.

Remember Bush's much maligned "go shopping" speech? He never actually told us to go shopping but he did tell us to go on living our lives instead of caving into fear. Dead bodies aren't the terrorists goal, instilling fear into the rest of the population is their goal.

Sony and the five major movie chains caved into fear, they gave the terrorists everything they asked for. They caved like a bully's victim handing over his lunch money. They're cowards. It was the "art house theaters" (apparently any theater not owned by the five major chains) that stood up and said they're not going to cave into fear.

But we're told that it's not a "strike for Freedom of Expression" unless it's profitable and freedom of speech is only worth protecting if it meets the standards of some elitist, yuppie snob.

I don't care if it's a crappy movie, I think we should follow Bush's advice, defeat terrorism by refusing to live in terror. And no matter what I think of Obama, I sure would feel like a hypocritical asshat if I condemned him for echoing the same message from Bush that I applauded just a few years ago.

Yawn...

My God you are fair minded using the same intellectual non-bias to judge Obama as you allegedly judged Bush years ago. You positive you aren't doing it just because Obama is black?
Your cloak is paper thin...find a dumber audience.

Darth Cheney wrote:Yawn...

My God you are fair minded using the same intellectual non-bias to judge Obama as you allegedly judged Bush years ago.  You positive you aren't doing it just because Obama is black?
Your cloak is paper thin...find a dumber audience.

Well, that bastion of liberal gathering referred to as GPV was shut down but there is something called Democrat Underground that should fulfill your suggestion.

Darth Cheney wrote:Yawn...

My God you are fair minded using the same intellectual non-bias to judge Obama as you allegedly judged Bush years ago.  You positive you aren't doing it just because Obama is black?
Your cloak is paper thin...find a dumber audience.

If "fair minded", "intellectual" and "non bias" are insults in your book, thank you for your scorn.

I will readily admit that I do not hate 100% of what comes out of democrats mouths nor do I love 100% of what comes out of republican's mouths. There's more than enough people from both parties with that moronic white hat/black hat mentality so I'll embrace your "fair minded" insult.

Skeptical wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Yawn...

My God you are fair minded using the same intellectual non-bias to judge Obama as you allegedly judged Bush years ago.  You positive you aren't doing it just because Obama is black?
Your cloak is paper thin...find a dumber audience.

Well, that bastion of liberal gathering referred to as GPV was shut down but there is something called Democrat Underground that should fulfill your suggestion.

Democrat Underground would be a perfect comparison to this place. They too are so disinvested from any critical thinking skills that they only way they can enter into a political conversation is by spewing "republicans bad, democrats good".

We would have to tie 1/2 of our brains behind our backs to be equal to the democrat underground site posters but I admire how you equally judge both extremes..

Darth Cheney wrote:We would have to tie 1/2 of our brains behind our backs to be equal to the democrat underground site posters

And I'm sure they would say the same about this place. Arrogance and extremism go hand in hand.

Darth Cheney wrote:I admire how you equally judge both extremes..

And I admire the fact that you admit you're on one side of the extremist fringe. That's a good first step.

Paquette wrote:Of course North Korea wasn't involved, Lil Kim said so himself as he praised those who did it.

But all of that is nothing but a distraction from the real issue, how to deal with terroristic threats.

Remember Bush's much maligned "go shopping" speech? He never actually told us to go shopping but he did tell us to go on living our lives instead of caving into fear. Dead bodies aren't the terrorists goal, instilling fear into the rest of the population is their goal.

Sony and the five major movie chains caved into fear, they gave the terrorists everything they asked for. They caved like a bully's victim handing over his lunch money. They're cowards. It was the "art house theaters" (apparently any theater not owned by the five major chains) that stood up and said they're not going to cave into fear.

But we're told that it's not a "strike for Freedom of Expression" unless it's profitable and freedom of speech is only worth protecting if it meets the standards of some elitist, yuppie snob.

I don't care if it's a crappy movie, I think we should follow Bush's advice, defeat terrorism by refusing to live in terror. And no matter what I think of Obama, I sure would feel like a hypocritical asshat if I condemned him for echoing the same message from Bush that I applauded just a few years ago.

Believe what you want, but considering how loose this regime plays with the truth, it certainly appears that a healthy dose of skepticism is in order in light of computer security expert's arguments.

They also point out that whoever attacked Sony had a keen understanding of its computer systems — the names of company servers and passwords were all hard-coded into the malware — suggesting the hackers were inside Sony before they launched their attack. Or it could even have been an inside job.
As for the quality of the movie, I'll leave that to the in house movie and yuppie beverage critic. I doubt I'll ever see it even after it achieves free streaming status, it's not the type of movie I generally watch. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that my personal taste should be the standard everyone else should live by.

And

And then there’s the motive. Government officials claim the Sony attacks were retaliation for “The Interview,” a feature film about two bumbling journalists hired by the C.I.A. to assassinate North Korea’s leader. In a letter last June, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations called the film “an act of war.” But naysayers point out that, as far as they can tell, Sony’s attackers did not mention the film as motivation until that theory percolated in the media.

Ultimately

The simpler explanation is that it was an angry “insider,” Mr. Rogers wrote. “Combine that with the details of several layoffs that Sony was planning, and you don’t have to stretch the imagination too far to consider that a disgruntled Sony employee might be at the heart of it all.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/new-study-adds-to-skepticism-among-security-experts-that-north-korea-was-behind-sony-hack/?_r=0

However that wouldn't fit very nicely into the Free Speech Drama Queen's narrative. If Obama truly wanted a free speech issue than this crappy movie provides perhaps he should have shown greater opposition to the Organization of Islamic Conference's "defamation of religions" resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and at the UN General Assembly. This was something that the US was once at the front of opposition but now has flipped and flopped on and advocated passage of a resolution that contains virtually the same elements on "defamation of religions" that the U.S. had opposed in the past.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/13/criminalizing-intolerance-obama-administration-moves-forward-on-united-nations-resolution-targeting-anti-religious-speech/

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Believe what you want, but considering how loose this regime plays with the truth, it certainly appears that a healthy dose of skepticism is in order in light of computer security expert's arguments.

They also point out that whoever attacked Sony had a keen understanding of its computer systems — the names of company servers and passwords were all hard-coded into the malware — suggesting the hackers were inside Sony before they launched their attack. Or it could even have been an inside job.
As for the quality of the movie, I'll leave that to the in house movie and yuppie beverage critic. I doubt I'll ever see it even after it achieves free streaming status, it's not the type of movie I generally watch. But I'm not so arrogant as to think that my personal taste should be the standard everyone else should live by.

And

And then there’s the motive. Government officials claim the Sony attacks were retaliation for “The Interview,” a feature film about two bumbling journalists hired by the C.I.A. to assassinate North Korea’s leader. In a letter last June, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations called the film “an act of war.” But naysayers point out that, as far as they can tell, Sony’s attackers did not mention the film as motivation until that theory percolated in the media.

Ultimately

The simpler explanation is that it was an angry “insider,” Mr. Rogers wrote. “Combine that with the details of several layoffs that Sony was planning, and you don’t have to stretch the imagination too far to consider that a disgruntled Sony employee might be at the heart of it all.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/new-study-adds-to-skepticism-among-security-experts-that-north-korea-was-behind-sony-hack/?_r=0

I think it's cute when you hold up opinion and try to present it as fact.

But it's all a distraction to the real point. Do you or do you not believe that we should cave into terrorist's demands? Would your opinion change if the movie had met with your elitist quality standards?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:However that wouldn't fit very nicely into the Free Speech Drama Queen's narrative. If Obama truly wanted a free speech issue than this crappy movie provides perhaps he should have shown greater opposition to the Organization of Islamic Conference's "defamation of religions" resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council and at the UN General Assembly. This was something that the US was once at the front of opposition but now has flipped and flopped on and advocated passage of a resolution that contains virtually the same elements on "defamation of religions" that the U.S. had opposed in the past.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/13/criminalizing-intolerance-obama-administration-moves-forward-on-united-nations-resolution-targeting-anti-religious-speech/

It's interesting that you would hang your hat on the opinion of this Chicago liberal.

But it's not surprising that you'd resort to this kind of off topic distraction. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually, I kind of like this guy, I disagree with him on many topics but he has a great talent for pissing off the ideologues on both sides. He's just as willing to call Obama on his civil liberties violations as he is to call for criminal prosecution of those who authorized and engaged in torture. In other words, he's not a blind, party loyalist hack. Something that's not very popular in today's political climate.