Slashdot Mirror

Did you even RTFA?

How's this for counter-arguments you idiot.

Read the sources.
This time he gives sources, and I suggest you actually look into them. In the past, he has included in his references sources that actually refute his claims.
I'm unsure of how prevalent that is in this instance, but some people are complaining allready.
His attempt to back up Bowling for Columbine, Wacko Attacko's, did not have much substance, for example.

If you really take an interest, you can read The Dave Kopel article and compare it with what Moore says.

Lying without uttering a false sentence?
What I'd like to have somebody do, preferably one from each "side", is go through F911 and find out wether Moore actually makes any false statement. No doubt he's lying with film and doing some Soviet Russia document revision, but saying something like "In his first eight months in office before September 11, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time.", that can't be a direct lie because the paper actually wrote that. Wether he actually WAS on vacation 42% of the time makes no difference to a rigid parsing of that statement.

And Farenhype911 just looks like talking heads to me. The Mike Wilson movie looks funnier.

And click (Flash)

BTW: Isn't it rather US-centric to have the star sprangeled banner as a logo for the politics section? (Yes, I know you're in the U.S.)

I know I'm probably burning Karma and that this is probably posted elsewhere, but take a look at this: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I'm not sure how objective this site is (I'll suspect it's not..), but after reading it, the spinning in Moore's film is blatently obvious.

Not to say that Moore doesn't have a point (in some ways, he does.. ), but this film really is a manipulative piece of propoganda.

I'd use my words, but I doubt you'd believe them. Here's somebody else's.

Wondering what good can come of this... I'm sure somebody has objections to this as well, and of course I'm probably just a right-wing Nazi...

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

My favorite lie: 'A little while later, Fahrenheit shows Jeffrey Toobin (a sometime talking head lawyer for CNN) claiming that if the Supreme Court had allowed a third recount to proceed past the legal deadline, "under every scenario Gore won the election."' ... while the truth is " if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario."

and then when you're done reading that, you can read all about the psychology Moore uses to dupe the viewer into agreeing with this deciets.

His movie is pure propoganda and will strive to do anything for the viewer to like him. I find it funny that Moore asks Congressman if they would send their Children into Iraq to fight a war, but Moore himself didn't even go to Iraq to get footage for HIS OWN MOVIE!.. Does anyone else see the irony?

Why not examine the truth of those answers?

You've got questions? Moore has deceptions. This guy counts 59.

If you haven't seen it yet, this is an interesting look at Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore kool-aid drinkers will slam it, but it's interesting to see.

Moore is certainly a good pitchman, and gets lots of people to see his movies, but he spins more than a tilt-a-whirl.

Do you not support the war because you are a pacifist, or some other reason?

My mother is as liberal as they come and she is quite secular; she isn't voting for Bush because (among other reasons) he is "a Evangelical Christian who hates me and everything I stand for" like abortion, women's rights, yadda yadda. She thinks those because he is a very strong believing Christian. She also opposes the war because she agrees with Sen. Kennedy that it was "a war concocted in Texas for political gain" and to help Cheney's Halliburton cronies.

How do I reconcile your view and hers?

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to figure it out the other side's views.

Also, my mother cannot stand that I'm a conservative (small-c) so I don't agree with Bush on a lot of domestic issues.

Uhmm... It is not accurate at all.
This piece is widely known, and easily found via Google: Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

And sufficiently reveals the film for what it is, pure entertainment (fiction) and a 'mockumentary'.

So what if it's leftist? Do you expect every reporting channel to be neutral?

No. I expect it to be factual. Not full of assumption. Fact is Fact. Pure and simple. Fact cannot be twisted to some adjenda and is simple pure and unquestionable. Assumption is the exact opposite. A perfect example of this is #24, which basicially states that since Bush is filling up recruit positions ("read: Draft Positions") that he MUST be going to reinstate the draft. It also reports about a bill to require 18-26 year old's into the military, but It doesn't say the outcome which would surely be it was voted down. This stuff appears in congress constantly and it voted down constantly. If it passed or if the draft was reinstated the news media would be all over it like Vietnam II just broke out, and everyone in congress as well as the presidency would be looking for new jobs in 2-6 years. And they know it.

Michael Moore is another example of this. you might want to Read this. It basicially lays down every untruth in Farenheit 911. Moore made some interesting points in that movie, but he also brought up a ton of stuff that he presented as fact that is totally unproveable or outright false.

It's a two way street too. The right does the same thing as the left when it comes to this. they bashed Cliton left and right and a lot of what they said was the same Propagandist Bull. But you never seen the media report on it either, because they knew that it was Propagandist Bull. Those stories must of made the 96-99 Censored list.

Both sides would never agree on the extreme end. it's like getting two magnets identical poles to stay together. the point is to pick a middle groud where your confortable. Simply put, if you want to go after Bush fine. There's a ton of stuff you can get him with that is totally true, undenyable and damaging. Dragging this crap out of the woodwork and presenting it as pure fact just discredit your main issue: that Bush is doing a bad job.

lessor? where were you when they were teaching spulling? Or has Bush cut education spending that far already.

Before one criticizes another for poor spelling, one should know how to spell himself.

He's had out billions in tax breaks

You probably meant to say, "He has handed out..."

...into a truly awe-inspiring defecit.

That would be spelled "Deficit".

And what has Kelly done?

Who the hell is Kelly, and what party are they running on?

If you meant Kerry, he lied about his service, see www.swiftvets.com for details.

Kerry also "Lied" about the war; he saw the same intelligence Bush saw and voted to go to war. In fact Kerry was "lying" about Iraq long before Bush came into office. Kerry even criticized the Clinton administration for not finishing the job in the 90's. The criticism Kerry made about Clinton came at least a year before Bush took office in 2001, to find out the exact date, go to www.kerryoniraq.com.

Clinton only lied about who was sucking his dick...

Yes because the chemical weapons lab in Iraq that he bombed was in fact a chemical weapons lab. Oh wait, no, that was an aspirin factory, but somehow Clinton told the truth.

And Clinton's reason for imposing a regime change in Persia, the mass graves, was the "truth", despite the fact that they never did find mass graves. At least Bush found mass graves in Iraq, but apparently that's only a good reason when it comes from the Democrats.

By the way, did you know that the Clinton administration gave Halliburton a no bid contract as well, but some how when Bush does it, it's newsworthy and a crime.

...(including the freedom to learn how to spell it seems).

You seem to prove that freedom was taken away long before Bush came into office.

Saddam Hussein would be the lesser of two evils

Now you sound like a Michael Moore nut-job. Perhaps you should go read some fundamental truths about Fahrenheit-911 written by a life long Democrat and Ralph Nader supporter, http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

No one has discredited Moore's statements, or even argued coherently with them.

Umm... I think that's called wilful blindness on your part.

Look here for example...

--Here's a link that might interest you, in reward for not posting anon:

http://www.davekopel.com/terror/fiftysix-deceits-i n-fahrenheit-911.htm It basically goes thru the film and points out where Moore was deliberately including falsehoods.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

And from my own review on www.icarusindie.com
----------

The other important point that Moore doesn't bother to consider is that it was not Bush that authorized the Bin Laden's to leave the country but Richard Clarke. On May 26, 2004 Clarke told The Hill newspaper:

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."
...
"It didn't get any higher than me," he said. "On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

I guess we can excuse Moore's ignorance on the issue since Richard Clarke came clean on it most likely after Moore had finished editing his film and history. What Moore also failed to consider is that fact that the Bin Laden family was actually talked to. But that's very inconvenient for Moore since those old cop movie clips provided a bit of humor for his farce.
--------------

Concerning doing actual research, Moore had this to say about Americans:

-------------
One of the more despicable accusations Moore makes is that somehow Iraq was better off with Saddam. He has kids flying kites and playing and whatnot. And then the war starts. Moore had this to say about Americans:

"(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

Apparently he thinks Americans are so stupid that we'll forget what Saddam has done to millions of his own people. You can hear all about his crimes against humanity during Saddam's trial. Apparently Michael Moore feels that Iraqis would rather be tortured, gassed, murdered, buried in mass graves, denied any rights, than suffer through a war that will make it possible for more than just the lucky kids born under the favorable thumb of Saddam to fly a kite and be happy without worrying about their family being murdered before their very eyes. How stupid does Moore have to be to think Americans are that ignorant to completely forget all that we've learned about Saddam in the last decade?
-------------------

F9/11 just reaffirmed why I'm voting for Bush. Michael Moore wrote an excellent piece of propoganda. But that's all it is. Blaring it out on the rooftops is just going to help Bush get elected if people bother to actually check out Moore's little story.

Moore's use of sources is no better than me proving the earth is flat by using sources from the Flat Earth Society. Moore fails to ask any questions. He just finds sources that support him and doesn't bother to challenge them.

I find it pathetic that the only news station with the spine to criticize the movie is Fox News.

Ben

I was talking about Bowling For Columbine.

And besides, the *other* movie isn't even worth serious consideration. Its just propogranda.

Check here. .

Oh yes, Michael Moore brings us the truth. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Just for background, I do not like Bush, but I dislike Moore even more because of the whay he insidiously uses imagery and video to suggest things to the viewer to give a false impression. This is outright deception, and in my book, removes credibilitiy of Michael Moore's message.

Do I want to see people get the truth about Bush and Iraq? Yes! But we need honesty in our debate. Moore does not deliver it. Moore just delivers sensationalism and tells people what they want to hear about hating Bush. Its the groupthink effect in action.

Of course, if you like, if you are open minded, you can also read This article about the Moore movie.

I mean, we really seem to live in a world these days that's an endless legion of assholes...

People tell me it's the result of free speech and free expression and the tossing of old ways, but that doesn't do much to mitigate the fact that we live immersed in an endless legion of assholes.

(I generally refrain from using language like this in posts, but in this case, I find no suitable alternative to "asshole" to succintly describe a person of that character, so here goes...)

No, you're right about the endless legion of assholes. On this occasion of the 200th anniversary of the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton we should consider that perhaps bringing back dueling would be a really good idea - the "asshole quotient" would fall precipitously if dueling were reinstated, for several reasons:

First, assholes would (almost by definition) get into duels at far higher rates than normal folks. Even if you presume they attempt to preserve themselves by superior preparation, the odds are against them over the long haul, so the asshole population falls, and polite manners once again reasssert themselves in civilized society.

Second, the smarter and more clueful assholes would begin to actually change thier behavior, staying a bit back from the line of offense that would be grounds for demanding satisfaction in defense of one's honor on the field of battle.

Third, this would affect far more than just the behavior of assholes - eventually, people would once again begin to speak with greater regard for the truth. Let's face it - how long would Michael Moore last in a world where each of the dozens of lies in his new film could lead to a duel?

In an odd way, then, dueling may be anything but regressive and primitive - it is in fact, a key component to an honest, polite, and civilized society, where people are truly held accountable for their words and their actions by the society itself...

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was busy reading the Fifty Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911: "Within Fahrenheit 9/11, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite."

...is closing in on $100M gross.

For a fictional movie, I guess it's not doing too bad, but it's not making any records in that category.

Probably 70% of the people were in their 60's or older.

Hmm, that's the age group that looks back on FDR-style socialism with nostalgia.

I'm starting to get really disturbed by the politics going on right now.

There's nothing wrong with questioning your government. When you start blindly protesting every single action of the government, I think it's time to take a step back and get a little perspective on things.

I'm starting to think twice about going to HOPE next month. Last time I went (2002) it was *incredibly* political. Jello Biafra gave a talk, and said a bunch of things about the "Bush conspiracy"--stuff that was easily debunked as bullshit on snopes.com--but everyone there just ate it up like it was hard fact. Random people would yell out "Bush sucks!" and everyone would laugh like it was the funniest shit in the world.

I've never seen a better example of herd mentality in my life. This is free thinking?

This was before the war, and before I gave a shit one way or the other about Bush and his policies, and I was probably more than likely to say "fuck Bush" based on what I knew about him at the time... and I still remember looking around and thinking these were a bunch of anarchist-wannabe children (many of whom were well past childhood.)

This was supposed to be a gathering of free-thinking people... individuals. Instead, it was a bunch of scene whores trying to act cool in front of "all the other hackers"... spouting ill-informed mass-media opinions without any actual information to back it up. And then they have the nerve to talk about how fucked up the media is. Hah. I'd feel different if I had seen anything but eagerly nodding heads slack-jawed idiots drinking up the bullshit like it was gospel.

I donno, I'd like to go to HOPE, it'd be fun in some ways... but I just cringe every time I think of the immature shit that Emannuel used to spout on his radio show, and I can only imagine how much more political HOPE will be with the current assault on Bush. Something tells me I won't really enjoy myself too much there.

I bet money that they show Fahrenheit 911 in the screening room and spend endless hours spouting mindless propaganda. And no, I'm not trolling. I'm not even a republican. I just hate people who don't think things through for themselves.

You do realize I said the "American Liberal" version of Goebbels. In other words, I was not implying anything other than his propoganda techniques, which are deceptive at best and often outright lies. Moore is a hateful elitest that loathes this country, it's way of life and citizens, and no amount of him saying with puppy dog eyes that he loves America can hide the fact that he bashes this country and its citizens every chance he can get, how can you love something you constantly call "evil". People who complain about the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (rightly so, IMO) will often gullibly swallow Moore's histrionics without question (Tom Daschle call your office). I think Limbaugh and Savage are at least more honest about who and what they are. Moore does raise some valid points, but he's too busy stroking his own ego, showing us how clever a smart-ass he thinks he is, and wallowing in liberal self-hate to have any credibility.

I would point you this as a brief example of how utterly deceptive Moore is.
And it's not limited proponents of opposing ideology. I would direct you liberals Christopher Hitchens, who uses the word "lies" a lot when talking about the content of Moore's movie, or Richard Cohen, who in the Washington Post started taking notes on the movie and gave up because of the sheer "stupidity" of it. His word. The problem with the folks on /., generally being naive, uninformed college-age or near-college-age people (as I once was, but at least I wasn't liberal ;-) is that they fall into that trap of hating Bush so much they will buy anything that supports their point of view. Eight years ago, we saw the same stupidity on the right concerning President Clinton, who despite being an utter sleazeball, did do a significant number of positive things for the country.

In fact, Michael Moore himself clearly targets almost exclusively what Karl Marx called "useful idiots", those easily manipulated, unquestioning folks who will buy any mindless rhetoric. Smarter people who simply agree with him can take him for what he is, but that's not the point of his movie.

If I said "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", I would probably get a score of 5, but if I say "Michael Moore is a big, fat stupid white man." it will probably get modded a troll. If I criticize President Bush (and there are plenty of things to criticize), everyone thinks I'm smart thoughtful poster, but if I show support for him (which I do... overall I think he's a great President), I'm considered a stupid right-wing nutjob who wants to create an American Taliban.

You can't deny there's a pretty disgusting double standard around here. That's why I prefer the technical stuff. News for nerds, you know.

It's a shame that Disney released a a very positive movie about America last weekend (I can't even recall the name, which shows how much coverage it got), which from what I read, in a completely non-partisan and non-political way, shows inspirational stories that demonstrate what makes this country. It probably made about $47. People would rather watch the cynical, bitter fat guy who hates America. That's sad.

Like i said, you need to watch the movie rather than look like a retard like you are right now.

I'm talking about one scene. And should I watch the one scene, what will I find out?

That Bush sat around looking stupified for seven minutes and Michael Moore had some smart ass comments about it?

As for the rest of the film, why should I watch the film, when it's so full of Crap?

I've certainly read enough about it. Do you disagree that the above linked list accurately describes the scenes mentioned, even if you disagree with the link's response to them?

You love the film because it feeds the paranoid, hateful, delusional fantasies you already possess, and affirms them. This, of course, was Michael Moore's intention, so that he could get folks like you to shell out money for it.

Not that there's anything wrong, in general, with producing a product that people want, but it sits poorly with me to make a propaganda film full of lies, distortions and fabrication and call it a 'documentary.'

now, Fifty-nine deceits like in Fahrenheit 911 would be a *bad* thing

It's amazing what you can find in some movies if you bother to look closely enough. The difference is when it was accidental (cough...Spiderman) versus deliberate hoping to get away with it.

Still, at least we can be thankful for not having to watch Mike Moore swinging from skyscraper to skyscraper clad in lycra... Brrr.....

What's a big deal about this 9/11 attack. Moore himself doesn't see so much reason for all the fuss about it:

quote from Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 :

Edward Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York City, writes:

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

"One of the panelists was Michael Moore...During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror."...I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced "Fahrenheit 9/11."

What stunning deceits these are.

deceit 1: moore depicts a party that actually occurred. Well, 55 deceits wouldn't be as impressive as 56.

deceit 2: somewhere in these paragraphs is a second deceit. Maybe. is it who retracted their predictions first? does it matter when everyone retracted nearly simultaneously using the exact same data source as this "essay" indicates? I'll grant a point for being factually incorrect.

Deceit 3: ah, they've got him there. he used a analyst's statement instead of a six month study (spending whose money, and what were they studying? did they recount the ballots themselves?)

Deceit 4-5: another bundled deceit. Considering that its true that the judges being appointed weren't able to be confirmed (what nitpicking on words! the confirmation is part of the appointment process. if they aren't confirmed, they fail the appointment process and aren't appointed into that position) I don't see two deceits here. I also love how the deceit mentions the riot, but doesn't actually claim that it didn't happen. (hey, if the "essay" can just drop random things, so can I. I'll concede off the records that moore must have pulled out one of those "lower" polls that the deceit concedes existed for those numbers)

Deceit 6: vacation time. This cuts two ways, and either way Bush loses. He's either spending the American dime to take pals out on "business" trips to "vacation spots", or he's really on vacation. Pick one. Either way, if its a weekend and he's on "business" then he doesn't have the day off and should be counted in this percentage.

Deceit 7: Ah, here we are asked to trust the "essay" author's psychic power to read into moore's mind and divine things that aren't part of the film at all.

Deceit 8: I'll grant this point. I'm sure after he finished his story he calmly excused himself from his photo op to return to his role of being the leader of the United States.

Deceit 9-11: get it? "9-11"? There's only two deceits here, that bush didn't read the report, and that the title was "too vague" for him to read. Of course the "essay" author then admits that the title and the paper itself was too vague to directly indicate that Osama bin Laden would attack the US using hijacked planes, so are there even two deceits here? (I'll concede #9, that bush didn't read the report)

Deceit 12-15: I think this person ran out of fingers. 142 saudis left two days after the 9-11 terrorist attack, and only 30 were interviewed by the FBI. Great job there, making the world a safer place! I'll give one deceit for this, for failing to mention that air travel had been restored. Okay, and a second deceit: the 142 people left over the span of a week instead of all on the same day.

Deceit 16: The deceit here of omission is cancelled out by the original deceit of redaction. If the government thinks it has something to hide, then its natural for the people to think it must be hiding something. (for accounting purposes, I'll grant this point. Tit for tat is not a valid excuse)

Deceit 17: The subject of investigation should expect to be reported on. People not subject to investigation shouldn't be expected to appear in the report. "But everyone else was doing it" isn't a defense, if it was, we wouldn't have so many potheads in our prisons. No point.

Deceit 18-19: there's two here? the only thing in this tiny section is that bush didn't get busted by the SEC for selling his stock before a loss report. And that's true. 1 point, for implying that the reason he came away scot clean was because he was the son of the president.

Deceit 20-22: Did the government get a refund on that cancelled weapon system? If not, then the fact that it made money remains true. 21 seems to be omitting George Soros, but I have a question for you: does being an investor in Enron make one a party to everything the other investors do? No point. I'll conce

It would be different if the points that they dispute in the movie on their website were more relevant and not just trivial like 'Moore implies thisandthat but in reality it was slightly different', for instance:

The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company.

It is interesting to compare: The critics [davekopel.com] with the The responses [michaelmoore.com].

I, for one, am very disappointed in the critic's points. Some of their points are in direct conflict with other points. For instance, they say special permission for the flights of the Saudis was not required because the flights were after Sept. 13th:

But nonetheless, many viewers will leave the movie theater with the impression that the Saudis, thanks to special treatment from the White House, were permitted to fly away when all other planes were still grounded. This false impression is created by Moore's failure, when mentioning Sept. 13, to emphasize that the ban on flights had been eased by then.

Yet in the next section they say that special permission WAS given by the white house, albiet signed by Richard Clarke, not Bush.

Again, Moore is misleading. His film includes a brief shot of a Sept. 4, 2003, New York Times article headlined "White House Approved Departures of Saudis after Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says." The camera pans over the article far too quickly for any ordinary viewer to spot and read the words in which Clarke states that he approved the flights.

It all sounds so child-like: "He implies that the white house gave permission, but they didn't have to! And besides, the permission that the white house gave was signed by Clarke, not Bush, so there.."

I have come to the conclusion that most people are stupid, it doesn't matter what side of the political fence that they are on.
--jeff++

Ok, let's start with a specific case, because it only took me about 30 seconds to find one:

1. The Florida Election Results Ruined by Fox News Reports.

From the film:
NARRATOR: Did the last four years not really happen? Look, there's Ben Affleck. He's often in my dreams. And the taxi driver guy. He was there too. And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place. Was it a dream? Or was it real? It was election night 2000 and everything seemed to be going as planned.

Series of news clips: In New York, Al Gore is our projected winner. / The Garden State is green for Gore. / We project that Mr. Gore is the winner in Delaware. This state has voted with the winner in... / (Tom Brokaw interrupts) Mike, you know I wouldn't do this if it weren't big: Florida goes for Al Gore. / CNN announces that we call Florida in the Al Gore column.

NARRATOR: Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy.

BRIT HUME: Sorry to interrupt you; Fox News now projects George W. Bush the winner in Florida and thus it appears the winner of the Presidency of the United States.

NARRATOR: All of a sudden the other networks said, "Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true."

Ok, so Micky Moore is all about the truth right, and Bush is a liar because we haven't found the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. (Remember being given incorrect facts and believing the source as a fact makes you a liar in Moore and camp's books.) Let's watch Moore quickly become a LIAR:

[Source]
NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed....

At 10:00 p.m., which network took the lead in retracting the premature Florida result? The first retracting network was CBS, not Fox.

Over four hours later, at 2:16 a.m., Fox projected Bush as the Florida winner, as did all the other networks by 2:20 a.m.

There's just one quick example, check out the source above for plenty more examples of what a pompus twisted politico Moore is with plenty more independant sources to rebuff almost every single thing that Moore has ever put to celluloid. I'm sorry I don't think that corporation's have a need or demand to guarentee an unskilled laborer a job, I don't think that Government should be playing daddy to us, and I don't think that anyone should have a right to bitch about their station in life because someone else was successful enough to have a bigger bank account than you. Michael is a liar and that is something I think everyone has a moral obligation not to be - and no I don't support Bush, my vote will be cast for Michael Badnarik and I hope that most of you here will be casting votes with your hearts not with the idea of the lesser of two evils.

Evidence.

(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.

The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.

Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.

Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:

"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.

"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.

Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.

(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.

The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.

Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.

Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:

"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.

"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.

Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.

(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.

The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.

Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.

Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:

"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.

"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.

Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.

(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.

The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.

Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.

Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:

"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.

"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.

Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.

(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.

The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.

Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.

Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:

"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.

"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.

"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.

Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.

Just as was seen with the fall of Bill Clinton, Americans have no tolerance for liars.

Dude, you are like so freaking right, man! Let's stick it to the Bush Evil Empire. Who cares if truth was thrown out the window. Its all about getting the unelected Chimp out of the White House.

Go ahead and suppress dissent. You'll only be proving your liberal bona fides. You aren't interested in the truth, only in pushing your nutty-conspiracy political agenda.

Really, it's very sad that the Left has swooned for such a thoroughly discredited movie. Is there an honest case for leftism in this election? We won't find out as long as we're arguing about Michael Moore.

I know I am probibly going to get modded down for this, but there are serious mistakes in this movie, and they were willfully made. For a comprehensive list of the problems with this movie, check out this. Mod me down if you are afraid of the truth, but this needs to be mentioned.

Moore credibility problems continue with release of factually incorrect F9/11

Michael
Moore
is
a
LIAR

The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)

But does he approve of his own lies as well?

"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."

Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.

Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.

By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.

There are roughly twice as many deaths per car as there are per gun.


In the first half of the 1990s, there were about 43,000 deaths per year for 142 million vehicles, or 30 vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 autos.

In the same time period, there were about 35,000 gun deaths per year for 223 million guns, or about 16 gun related deaths for every 100,000 guns.

See Table 1 and Table 2 of "Treating Guns Like Consumer Products" (David Kopel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. April 2000).

As the author noted

Moreover, the design argument underscores how dangerous automobiles really are. Almost all firearm deaths come from intentional shootings - homicides or suicides. Only four percent of firearm deaths are accidental. Cars are thus twice as likely to kill as guns are, even though the killer behind the wheel does not intend to take a life. Significantly, about half of the people who die from guns are suicide victims who chose to die, whereas few people who die in automobile accidents chose to die.

It seems odd that something that is only "designed to MOVE" causes twice as many per-unit deaths (mostly unintentional) as something that is supposedly "DESIGNED to cause harm." (mostly intentional, either to self or others).

FYI: Guns are also used for target and recreational shooting, which is not killing, nor even harmful. Shooting happens to be an Olympic sport.

Despite their design, guns are not more dangerous than cars in the real world. Perhaps people's beliefs are influenced by the dispraportionate amount of coverage that murders with guns receive in the mass media.

How many people remember the pre-school playground killings that took place two weeks after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999?

On May 3, Steven Abrams drove past the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center in Costa Mesa, Calif., where 40 small children were frolicking noisily in the playground. Deciding, as he later told police, ''to execute those children,'' he pulled a U-turn, headed back toward the playground, and floored the accelerator. The car - a 1967 Cadillac sedan - tore through the chain-link fence, sent the jungle-gym flying, and plowed into the crowd of children. It stopped only when it ran into a tree.

Abrams was unhurt. But Sierra Soto, a 4-year-old who loved to dance ballet and play with her pet bunny Butterscotch, was dead, her body so mangled that the paramedics wouldn't let her mother see her. Brandon Wiener, a 3-year-old whose first word had been ''vacuum'' and who was never without his favorite teddy bear, was still alive when they got the car off him, but died that night in the hospital. Five-year-old Victoria Sherman suffered a fractured skull and a shattered pelvis. Nicholas McHardy, 2, was also badly injured. Two other children were hurt, and a teacher's aide was treated for multip

"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."

Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.

Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.

By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.

There are roughly twice as many deaths per car as there are per gun.


In the first half of the 1990s, there were about 43,000 deaths per year for 142 million vehicles, or 30 vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 autos.

In the same time period, there were about 35,000 gun deaths per year for 223 million guns, or about 16 gun related deaths for every 100,000 guns.

See Table 1 and Table 2 of "Treating Guns Like Consumer Products" (David Kopel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. April 2000).

As the author noted

Moreover, the design argument underscores how dangerous automobiles really are. Almost all firearm deaths come from intentional shootings - homicides or suicides. Only four percent of firearm deaths are accidental. Cars are thus twice as likely to kill as guns are, even though the killer behind the wheel does not intend to take a life. Significantly, about half of the people who die from guns are suicide victims who chose to die, whereas few people who die in automobile accidents chose to die.

It seems odd that something that is only "designed to MOVE" causes twice as many per-unit deaths (mostly unintentional) as something that is supposedly "DESIGNED to cause harm." (mostly intentional, either to self or others).

FYI: Guns are also used for target and recreational shooting, which is not killing, nor even harmful. Shooting happens to be an Olympic sport.

Despite their design, guns are not more dangerous than cars in the real world. Perhaps people's beliefs are influenced by the dispraportionate amount of coverage that murders with guns receive in the mass media.

How many people remember the pre-school playground killings that took place two weeks after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999?

On May 3, Steven Abrams drove past the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center in Costa Mesa, Calif., where 40 small children were frolicking noisily in the playground. Deciding, as he later told police, ''to execute those children,'' he pulled a U-turn, headed back toward the playground, and floored the accelerator. The car - a 1967 Cadillac sedan - tore through the chain-link fence, sent the jungle-gym flying, and plowed into the crowd of children. It stopped only when it ran into a tree.

Abrams was unhurt. But Sierra Soto, a 4-year-old who loved to dance ballet and play with her pet bunny Butterscotch, was dead, her body so mangled that the paramedics wouldn't let her mother see her. Brandon Wiener, a 3-year-old whose first word had been ''vacuum'' and who was never without his favorite teddy bear, was still alive when they got the car off him, but died that night in the hospital. Five-year-old Victoria Sherman suffered a fractured skull and a shattered pelvis. Nicholas McHardy, 2, was also badly injured. Two other children were hurt, and a teacher's aide was treated for multip

"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."

Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.

Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.

By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.

There are roughly twice as many deaths per car as there are per gun.


In the first half of the 1990s, there were about 43,000 deaths per year for 142 million vehicles, or 30 vehicle fatalities for every 100,000 autos.

In the same time period, there were about 35,000 gun deaths per year for 223 million guns, or about 16 gun related deaths for every 100,000 guns.

See Table 1 and Table 2 of "Treating Guns Like Consumer Products" (David Kopel. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. April 2000).

As the author noted

Moreover, the design argument underscores how dangerous automobiles really are. Almost all firearm deaths come from intentional shootings - homicides or suicides. Only four percent of firearm deaths are accidental. Cars are thus twice as likely to kill as guns are, even though the killer behind the wheel does not intend to take a life. Significantly, about half of the people who die from guns are suicide victims who chose to die, whereas few people who die in automobile accidents chose to die.

It seems odd that something that is only "designed to MOVE" causes twice as many per-unit deaths (mostly unintentional) as something that is supposedly "DESIGNED to cause harm." (mostly intentional, either to self or others).

FYI: Guns are also used for target and recreational shooting, which is not killing, nor even harmful. Shooting happens to be an Olympic sport.

Despite their design, guns are not more dangerous than cars in the real world. Perhaps people's beliefs are influenced by the dispraportionate amount of coverage that murders with guns receive in the mass media.

How many people remember the pre-school playground killings that took place two weeks after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999?

On May 3, Steven Abrams drove past the Southcoast Early Childhood Learning Center in Costa Mesa, Calif., where 40 small children were frolicking noisily in the playground. Deciding, as he later told police, ''to execute those children,'' he pulled a U-turn, headed back toward the playground, and floored the accelerator. The car - a 1967 Cadillac sedan - tore through the chain-link fence, sent the jungle-gym flying, and plowed into the crowd of children. It stopped only when it ran into a tree.

Abrams was unhurt. But Sierra Soto, a 4-year-old who loved to dance ballet and play with her pet bunny Butterscotch, was dead, her body so mangled that the paramedics wouldn't let her mother see her. Brandon Wiener, a 3-year-old whose first word had been ''vacuum'' and who was never without his favorite teddy bear, was still alive when they got the car off him, but died that night in the hospital. Five-year-old Victoria Sherman suffered a fractured skull and a shattered pelvis. Nicholas McHardy, 2, was also badly injured. Two other children were hurt, and a teacher's aide was treated for multip