Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11

telstar writes "According to Michael Moore's website, he plans to forgoe the nomination for Best Documentary in an effort to get his highly controversial movie Farenheit 9/11 on television. Despite having no assurances from the home video distributor, Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections ... suggesting the eve of the elections as a potential air date. Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Comments

questions have been raised

[dirvish]

You've got questions? He's got answers.

Re:questions have been raised

[savagedome]

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway. Both the parties are busy butchering each other on stupid stuff.

Re:questions have been raised

[dnno]

And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinions, not answers. I'd like to see the source of his 'information.'

Re:questions have been raised

[dirvish]

How about his sources?

Re:questions have been raised

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

there's some irony in linking to one man's website to rebut the statements on another man's website.

Re:questions have been raised

[Amorpheus_MMS]

Opinions, not answers. I'd like to see the source of his 'information.'

If you had RTFL you'd have seen every paragraph has the source cited, with links to webpages where available.

Re:questions have been raised

[rd_syringe]

Actually, there were several things that weren't facts. The Pantagraph "retyping" comes to mind (where he took some yahoo's random letter to the editor from the opinion page of the Pantagraph, retyped it to make it look like a front page headline, then flashed it on screen as he narrated...even changing the date a little so it would be hard to locate the original issue).

Let's just say that your standard college journalism class would flunk Michael Moore for his misleading tactics. He hurts the left more than he does the right.

Re:questions have been raised

[GeckoX]

Then go read up on his sources, they're all right there if you care to follow the link provided.

Re:questions have been raised

[Speare]

And what, may I ask makes his answers correct?

You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.

Re:questions have been raised

[the_rev_matt]

Quite right you are. Moore even said in all his interviews that of course the movie is biased, the facts were all facts, and they were framed by his opinions.

Re:questions have been raised

[iceperson]

I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".

Re:questions have been raised

[Carbonite]

Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'.

There's spin and there's deception.

If I say "John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" it implies that at some point in the past he abused her. The statement may be true, but very deceptive. Moore used the same tactics in Fahrenheir 9/11.

For example, Moore claims that Rep. Porter Goss doesn't have an 800 number that people can use to report problems with the USA PATRIOT act. An ordinary phone number (area code 202) flashes on the screen. However, Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number for USA PATRIOT act. It's (877) 858-9040. Moore was technically correct when he stated there wasn't an 800 number, but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception.

Re:questions have been raised

[tail.man]

War is peace, slavery is freedom.

Your loving gov wouldn't lie to you or take advantage of you!

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september200 4/ 030904alexoncspan.htm

http://letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemoli ti on.html

http://www.unlearning.org/editor30.htm

Vote for the republicrats we need more wars!

When they draft you or your brats for the next war don't cry.

Re:questions have been raised

[imroy]

Nothing does. He's simply "answering" the questions that have been levelled at him and his movie. That doesn't necessarily make him right, but he at least provides the sources of his information so you can investigate things for yourself.

Re:questions have been raised

[nine-times]

You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.

Not really going to add anything, just reposting because it bears repeating. Hopefully you won't get modded down, since Slashdot tends to be packed with geeks and kids, after all, and will think that your post is "not correct".

Re:questions have been raised

[nojomofo]

Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, that implies that he does. Not false, but deceptive. But, gee, wonder what the intent was. That would be to deceive the voting public.

Re:questions have been raised

[derubergeek]

Just make sure you read his sources if you want the whole story and not the 'Less is Moore' story.

I just read fact #1: Fox was the first network to call Florida for Bush. Before that, some other networks had called Florida for Gore, and they changed after Fox called it for Bush.

Near the beginning of his first source for this fact, it is stated: The confusion and controversy began on Election Night itself, when the television networks committed serious errors in their reporting of the election returns. Most serious were: The report that Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, had won the key state of Florida, followed later by a retraction of that report. The report that Texas Governor George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had won Florida, and with it the presidency. This led to Gore's personal concession by telephone to Bush, based on the erroneous information. Yet another retraction by the networks, this time on the Bush call. The erroneous Gore calls [emphasis added] were made by ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC, as well as by the Associated Press. The later Bush calls were made by the five television networks but not by the AP.

Note that the report Moore uses to substantiate his Fox conspiracy theory refers to the call of Florida for Gore as 'erroneous', and yet we don't see him going after the networks that called for Gore. But of course, this is a documentary.

Re:questions have been raised

[canajin56]

Or, say I read 10 studies on how many shooting deaths there are in a year in various nations. For Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. I chose the lowest number out of all 10, and for the USA, I chose the highest number. All the numbers are "Facts" but its ethically wrong to pick and chose different studies. Clearly, there is no reason to do this other than deception. The numbers were striking even WITHOUT having to do that...I don't understand why he had to deceive to make his point even more shocking...

Re:questions have been raised

[JebusIsLord]

Has ANYONE involved refuted them by suggesting alternate explainations? (ie the white house?) NO?

The best and only counter-arguments (if you could call them that) i have heard have been:
a) Yeah, well Michael Moore is overweight!
b) This is all lies. I can't prove it, discuss it, refute them or offer alternative explainations, but lies is what they are.

Re:questions have been raised

[Russ Nelson]

Telling only half the truth is a lie. It's quite possible to go through Bush's public statements and find every slip of his tongue, publicize them, and then claim that he's an idiot. He's not an idiot. He's just inarticulate.
-russ

Re:questions have been raised

[strider44]

The main problem isn't that people are looking for a correct answer, but that his "facts" (and I use the term loosly in some cases) are projected in a way that is quite blatently deceptive. I have agreed with the intentions behind both of his movies. I don't like George Bush, especially in the way he has handled the situations that have arisen, and I absolutely detest guns and gun ownership. However I also detest his methods of using terminology that is technically correct but encourage connotative thoughts that are factually wrong. I definitely detest the attempted expediency of his methods.

Re:questions have been raised

[danheskett]

The facts are cited yes, but not the conclusions.

"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)

However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."

The test here, really, is this:

If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?

I'll give you an example:

Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."
The links he use only provide casual relation of the facts, they are not evidence of his claim. He links to an article which says that the owner of a company purchased by the owner of a subsidary who prepared the felon list gave $100,000 to the RNC. Is Michael Moore suggesting that the $100,000 was quid pro quo for putting blacks on the list? Is he suggesting that the man who sold his company to a company who has a subsidary that prepared the list had influence over the list? He doesn't say. He uses inference and the "ohh, of course there was collusion" factor to make his actual claim. The links are just simple distractions here.

Likewise, he doesn't address any counter-arguments. For example, that the "vote counting" woman in fact does no vote counting. For example, that the people who actually supervise the vote counts are elected officals of the county they work for. For example, that most counties in Florida did not use the felon listed. This presents a serious credibility problem. If you read the refutation points that are linked, it is interesting to note that race was specifically disallowed as a criteria, and that no evidence has ever been presented to counter this. But again, Moore doesn't address any of this, and instead, tries to prove wrong doing by inference only.

So, basically, what I am saying is this: having the articles that back up his quotes, figures, etc are nice, but they only backup the individual statements - not his combined synthesized conclusions. That is a major flaw.

Re:questions have been raised

[m303]

>ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben WTF?? i must have more cowbell ?? m303

Re:questions have been raised

[Threni]

> but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception.

No, if someone claims he has an 800 number and he doesn't, then he's lying. He should have been more accurate. Moore did not say anything that wasn't true, so he's not being deceptive. He could have given the 877 number, but he has no moral obligation to.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

> (common of geeks and kids)

What are you, some kind of geek and kid herd? Well, you are doing a very shitty job. Shame on you Mr. Geekpoke.

Re:questions have been raised

[jsupreston]

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

Re:questions have been raised

[u-235-sentinel]

If I say "John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" it implies that at some point in the past he abused her. The statement may be true, but very deceptive. Moore used the same tactics in Fahrenheir 9/11.

Can I quote you on that and just change "John Smith" to Michael Moore?

Re:questions have been raised

[EnderWiggnz]

or morphing max cleland into osama binladen...

Re:questions have been raised

[Jett]

I call BS on the site which raises questions on F9/11. In the very first section he links to a study by someone who has been completely discredited in the academic community: John Lott.

Re:questions have been raised

[jsupreston]

I didn't realize the article was also in the original post. I was up late last night doing a database recovery. My apologies.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking?

If some claims they have an 800 number, they are claiming to have a toll free number. Period.

You are an ASSHOLE.

Re:questions have been raised

[hey]

Yeah, the president was actually on the phone calling in airstrikes instead of reading a book about a goat.

Re:questions have been raised

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Right on.

I thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore
because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's spin and there's deception.

True, but I don't think Moore is guilty of anything close the deception about the facts of Iraq's WMD. Bush has lied outright repeatedly, and brought the political debate in the US to an all-time low. The fact that Moore is willing to continue the discussion at that level shouldn't be held against him.

Re:questions have been raised

[MagerValp]

His facts are backed way, way better than any of the stuff you get in the usual campaign propaganda dominating the media before elections...

Re:questions have been raised

[caswelmo]

Holy "Missing The Point" Batman!

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Wait... is the best thing that you can come up with the fact that they got the date on an article wrong and changed the font? Seriously? That's poor copyediting, the sort of thing done by a low-pay graphics guy. Is a copyediting error the best thing you can come up with? Seriously? Do you think Moore was behind the scenes, going, "Despite all of these headlines out there reporting that Gore won the election, I want you to take a letter to the editor instead and make it look like a headline, and tweak its date!" ?

----
Although offering no apology, the letter from Chatillon, who represents Westside Productions, which produced "Fahrenheit 9/11," did admit the date of The Pantagraph page flashed in the movie "was unfortunately off by a couple weeks." But the mistake "did not make a difference to the editorial point ... and was in no way detrimental to (The Pantagraph.)"
----

Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods (in fact, pretty much every one that Gore himself didn't request, including the one that was going to go through statewide had the US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in).

Re:questions have been raised

[Nerftoe]

Here ya go:

"Needs more cowbell..."

Re:questions have been raised

[GreyWolf3000]

It definately is deception.

1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.

I suppose you could argue that simply claiming that Michael Moore was not engaging in deception doesn't imply that you think that Michael Moore is now a credible source of information, but if you are, I suggest you hold Moore to the same level of scrutiny as you would the media, since his movie has the same power to shape your political views.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Seriously - is getting the date and font of a newspaper wrong the worst you can do? There are *thousands* of facts presented, and the best thing you can focus on is an erroneous font/date?

Re:questions have been raised

[Mullen]

No, if someone claims he has an 800 number and he doesn't, then he's lying. He should have been more accurate. Moore did not say anything that wasn't true, so he's not being deceptive. He could have given the 877 number, but he has no moral obligation to.

Actually, he does. 877 numbers are toll free. 800 are also too free, but since 800 was in use before 877, it is common to use the term "800 number" meaning toll free. Both are one in the same.

Re:questions have been raised

[88NoSoup4U88]

You forgot the c) option :

The people dumb enough not to think for themselves and thus refer to empty sources, like the quickly de-bunked Slate commentary (found at http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723).

As a non-American, I hope Michael Moore will be able to let it be on telly, preferably on the night before the elections... Let the landslide begin !

Re:questions have been raised

[ackthpt]

Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, that implies that he does. Not false, but deceptive. But, gee, wonder what the intent was. That would be to deceive the voting public.

I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child the same way they have the TANG stuff. What I've read of it was he had a former girlfriend pregnant and the child was quietly aborted and suddenly nobody has any information on it and the former girlfriend refused to discuss it. I understand issues of privacy, but politics in the past have done little to ensure protection of individuals when the stakes are high.

Re:questions have been raised

[jez9999]

So you'd support Bush staying in for '4 more years'? You might not approve of Moore but really this has to come down to the lesser of two evils - let's say Moore's documentary would definately win Kerry the election if aired, which would you support - airing the documentary to remove an insane virtual dictator who has taken thousands of lives and inspired a lot of hatrid in the world, or keeping Bush in power because a documentary was slightly misleading?

Re:questions have been raised

[say]

If Michael Moore had of presented his film with neutral point of view, would most people agree with his conclusions presented seperately?

That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that? Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?

An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics). All political systems have to, therefore, be quite open to anyone's interpretation of what has happened. You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.

Re:questions have been raised

[Carbonite]

The fact that Moore didn't say anything that wasn't true only means he wasn't lying outright.

What was Moore's central point of that segment?

1. Rep. Goss does not provide a free number to complain about the USA PATRIOT act.
or
2. Rep. Goss provides a free number, but it lacks the 800 area code.

Moore's tactics in this segment are virtually the defintion of deception.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Either you're uninformed, or Goss's own spokeswoman is.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/n at ion/2004-06-29-fahrenheit-goss_x.htm

In the film, Goss, a Republican from Florida, is shown discussing the Patriot Act. He mentions that Americans with concerns about the U.S. intelligence network can call a toll-free 800 number.

Moore informs viewers there is no such number and instead displays the phone number to Goss' office in the Cannon House Office Building across the street from the U.S. Capitol.

"We're getting hundreds of calls," said spokeswoman Julie Almacy.

The brief segment is intended to make Goss, 65, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, look uninformed at best and misleading at worst.

Almacy said Goss didn't mean to imply an 800 number really exists. She said he was referring to the intelligence committee as if it were a "help line" Americans could call with concerns they have about the Patriot Act or other aspects of U.S. intelligence gathering.

"It is a reference to the intelligence committee," Almacy said. "Mr. Moore decided to take it literally and it wasn't meant that way."

Re:questions have been raised

[say]

For Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. I chose the lowest number out of all 10, and for the USA, I chose the highest number.

Then, my friend, you would be correct.

Oh, you didn't mean the highest number among the ten countries?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

W is for WRONG

and F (John F Kerry) is for FLIP FLOP .

Glad we're dealing with such substantitive issues. Then again, 20+ years of consistent "nuance" (read: total lack of a principled foundation) behavior is probably substantitive.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a few questions that I think many of us have regarding September the 11th, 2001. I don't buy the paranoid conspiracy theories all that much except for one. This one theory is difficult to accept too, and can't be done in a vacuum, meaning if it's true then the less probable theories become more probable. But it begs attention none the less.

Here's the basic problem. Remember Flight 77, the one that hit the Pentagon? I can't understand why 1) there was such little wreckage recovered and 2) all passengers were identified.

Officially, the answer to #1 is that the fire burned so hot that there was no way the wreckage could withstand the heat. If this is so, how were all of the passengers identified?

If all of the passengers were identified, what were the remains, and can they now be tested by an independent lab?

I don't know if I buy the paranoid conspiracy theory that between one and three missiles actually hit the Pentagon. Where is the missile wreckage? And where is the real Flight 77? If you start going down this rabbit hole, the theories get even more outrageous.

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

Anonymous

P.S. I am not a nut.

Re:questions have been raised

[justasecond]

Did you even RTFA?

How's this for counter-arguments you idiot.

Re:questions have been raised

[networkBoy]

Moore even said in all his interviews that of course the movie is biased

And with that in mind I think it is poor judgment to air the movie prior to the elections. I firmly believe in Moore's freedom of speech and expression (even though I personally detest him), but anything on either side of the fence with this much political spin added should not air within a month before the election. If he wants to air it this month I'd have no problem with it, but too close to the election and you end up with spin wars rather than any fact at all.
To explain: F911 airs, someone else slams Kerry, another group comes back with slander about Bush, wash, rinse, repeat. All of this will be done by soft money (like Moore and Swift Boat Vets for Truth), all outside of normal controls or candidate influence/approval.

Re:questions have been raised

[EugeneK]

Yeah, probably an average of 10,000 Japanese are killed by handguns in any given year; you just never hear about it because of the LIBERAL MEDIA!

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, what's ironic about about?

Re:questions have been raised

[rd_syringe]

Wait... is the best thing that you can come up with the fact that they got the date on an article wrong and changed the font? Seriously?

Um, no.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

??? What are you talking about? Moore provides the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/0 2/ cnn.report/cnn.pdf

"With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well." By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush.

Then, he gives the following:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/e le ction_night.html

Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top."

So, I must ask: What on earth are you talking about?

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.

Re:questions have been raised

[Hatta]

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

You can, and should say the exact same thing about the corporate controlled media. They have been engineering consent for a long time now.

Re:questions have been raised

[stanmann]

First, you must be certain that he has in fact not beaten his wife in the past 8 months, because if it turns out otherwise then you have twisted the facts.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because the night before the election would allow the important issues he raises to be discussed in a meaningful way before everyone heads to the polls. I watched this movie. It surely makes a good case against George Bush. But I have to say... Having seen the movie, I don't see why I would vote for John Kerry. With the exception of the Saudi and Halliburton bits, Kerry (and even Al Gore) showed no better face than did Bush. Kerry was most notable for the fact that he wasn't mentioned at all.

Watch the film, at the beginning we actually see Al Gore tell black representatives from Florida to sit down and shut up when they attempt to air complaints about voter irregularities that may well have lost him an election.

One of the things that the black reps needed was a signature from just one member of the Senate. Where was John Kerry?

The war in Iraq? John Kerry voted for it.

All throughout the movie you see these things being done by the federal government. These things are Standard Operating Procedures for the two party system and none of them will change materially no matter which of them gets elected.

Re:questions have been raised

[terrymr]

But according to the guys own office there is no tol l-free number period. I'm not posting it again because it's already there earlier in the thread.

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

And FDR called the Secretary of State after Pearl Harbor, then did nothing else for 18 minutes.

What's your point?

Re:questions have been raised

[macdaddy]

Thanks. That's exactly what I was thinking but I wasn't sure where to look.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child

Probably because they're all on the same alien spacecraft with Art Bell, wearing tin-foil hats and talking with Elvis. What gives with people buying into this stuff anyway? Why do otherwise intelligent people suspend all critical thinking and go Unabomber wacko when they hear or see a conservative?

A friend of mine had an interesting theory (which he based on my behavior, amusingly). I used to be significantly overweight, and have since lost it all and am in good shape. When I see overweight people, especially fat geeky introverted guys, I tend to really get disgusted with them. I'd want to go over to them and tell them to put the 60 ounce sugar fountain drink down and get a grip on their life.

My friend (a wanna be shrink, I think) observed that I'd react most severely to people that were like the part of me I was irresponsible with. Some sort of self hatred I projected into these beefy nerds. Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?

My recommendation to all you loathing, under-successful people of intelligence and potential: Get off of the loser trip today. Set down these two rules for yourself:

1. Do not let yourself condemn or criticize anyone else. You've got enough to work on with yourself. Deep down, you know you're projecting self-hatred onto others. You know hating Bush or Kerry not only doesn't fix your own problems, but is a lie to yourself that allows you to pretend you're doing something when you're not.

2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING. Be consistent - this is your gold standard and the definition of your self value. This is what you'll be remembered for - not for all the attacks you made on other people, or how you were a "master of nuance" (history looks very negatively upon such intellectual frauds). If you believe it is wrong for people to be attacking your candidate on his Viet Nam service, then apply it to both candidates. If you think it would be wrong for George Bush to come out with the espose the night before the election on Kerry's affairs or nasty details on his divorce/affairs, then stand up and oppose Michael Moore doing the same to Bush. The more you stand up for the other side or other guy, the more you'll find your objectivity strenghtening.

I didn't become un-fat before I started dealing with my lies, delusions and hatred of myself as expressed in others. Give it a shot and live won't suck so much!

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

Funny you should mention that. On the oft-pilloried claim of Saddam trying to buy yellowcake from Niger routinely used by the "Bush lied" crowd, Italian diplomats are claiming France is behind the forged intelligence.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Everything there has already been debunked in the War Room. If you want to discuss specifics with me, don't just post a link, post a particular. If not, every time you point me to that site, I'll point you to the War Room.

Re:questions have been raised

[TamMan2000]

and F (John F Kerry) is for FLIP FLOP .

The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness (attacking both Kerry and McCain over Vietnam...)

Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.

read this site, it has 30 eaxamples of MAJOR flip flops from bush and his administration.

If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.

The site also fails to list my personal favorite:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" - George W. Bush

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, great, so he has an 877 line installed. Because he got so many 9/11 calls and was caught with his pants down, he had one installed.

This is your idea of a defendable anti-Moore position?

Re:questions have been raised

[brufleth]

I'd like to be a main accusser of Bush's National Guard service (as in the lack for an extended period). I have donated no money to either compaign. Thank you. Next.

Re:questions have been raised

[terrymr]

If you're refering to the counting of the electoral college votes, then Al Gore had a duty to essentially tell them to sit down and shut up. The rules only allow a vote to be challenged if the motion challenging the vote is properly submitted theirs was not and so they were out of order.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered why nobody has pursued Bush's illegitimate and aborted child the same way they have the TANG stuff. Because the source was Larry Flynt and was the result of his offering $$$$$ for dirt on Republicans as his way of getting revenge on them for Clinton's impeachment. Flynt even stated that he did not have enough support of the story to allow him to publish it and we know what a fine ethical journaist he is. What I've read of it was he had a former girlfriend pregnant and the child was quietly aborted and suddenly nobody has any information on it and the former girlfriend refused to discuss it. Actually she issued a statement denying the story and said that at the time the abortion had taken place, she had not yet had sex with Bush.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

BINGO.

Until the public realizes that it doesn't matter who the players are, it's the SYSTEM ITSELF that is flawed, we'll never see significant change, only superficial ones.

I love this country and the people in it, but I gotta tell ya, the most plausible solution I can see for us as a whole is to have a third party march in and take over the show, otherwise we're doomed to continue swirling down this spiral of decidedly un-American corporate oppression.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, read Moore's full, detailed counters to Right Wing attacks. You're talking out your ass, all for a miserable, unethical, immoral president.

Re:questions have been raised

[Tiroth]

The facts are cited yes, but not the conclusions.

"X" is a fact. (link here)
"Y" is a fact. (link here)
"Z" is a fact. (link here)

However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."

Don't expect to be spoonfed everything. The movie itself is the conclusion; the linked source material has been published after the fact to allow you, the reader, to make your own analysis. Whether or not those conclusions are justified is up to you to decide; it would be absurd for Moore to offer his opinion in this context.

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

I can't believe you're seriously proposing that something with gaping logical holes be accepted as the truth because you don't see a counterargument proposed by the accused.

My new film claims that the sky is green and the grass is blue. Since I don't hear any counterarguments coming from the local lawn care establishment, my new film is clearly correct.

Re:questions have been raised

[log0n]

Just an FYI, they both aren't one in the same. Their functions are both similar, but the face value and recognition of 877 != 800.

I'm not defending Moore, but considering this whole thread is about deception by way of semantics and other language trickery, let's try to avoid the same when taking issue with his work as well.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

But. That crap is already started. It's already going on.

Swift Boat Vets For Truth have already slandered Kerry, lied to the media, lied to the public. Much as this same group of yahoos did to McCain. They're not partisan, they're thugs for hire, and Rove pays top dollar for mud.

Re:questions have been raised

[Vilim]

To many people nitpick over tiny details like this while blatently ignoring the bigger issues. Oh no! he doens't have a toll-free number. That doesn't change the fact that it is a horrible act, which is the point Moore was trying to make. Although I agree that Fahrenheit 9/11 only examined one side of the issue, I think that Moore is at least on the right side.

Re:questions have been raised

[leinhos]

"... That would be to deceive the voting public."
I think you mean mislead .

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore didn't win any of the recounts. Several major newspapers recounted the votes after the election was over and determined that Gore would have lost anyway. Stop spreading bullshit.

Re:questions have been raised

[tom_purl]

Have you seen the movie? The Pantagraph part was part of a dream sequence. And like most dream sequences, it doesn't reflect the truth. It was supposed to be a fantasy. Seriously folks.

Re:questions have been raised

[searchr]

Actually, that # (877) 858-9040 goes to a direct line asnwered as "Office of Intelligence". Thank you VERY much for getting me put on some watch list now for crank calling...

And as I recall the flick, Moore wasn't playing with semantics, he said that the 800# Goss claimed to have wasn't set up, which at the time of the documentary, was TRUE. Now you can argue whether its a true statement when later in time it's proven false and if that's mis-leading. Or maybe a few too many calls to Goss' personal line (the one flashed on the screen) prompted his office to get that damn toll free line hooked up.

Whatever # you're passing around, who knows what it is, but someone answers "Office of Intelligence" I'm not gonna start criticizing something called "Patriot" anything...

Crap..now there's a nondescript white van parked outside my building...

Re:questions have been raised

[gfxguy]

How so?

I live in GA and voted in the election. Before the election I never heard one thing about Max's patriotism, not ONE thing.

After the election, he was whining that people were challenging his patriotism. It's the same tactic Kerry is using, but even worse... for Max, there were no SBVs or talking heads questioning his service... nothing, as far as I recall. We voted him out based on his horrible voting record, nothing more. And when Kerry loses, it'll be for the same reason.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore's version of debunking is just like his version of the truth: half-assed.

Re:questions have been raised

[gcaseye6677]

True. Both Bush and Kerry established early on that this would be the nastiest presidential campaign ever, with no attack too personal. Now that the rules have been set, neither side has the right to complain about ANY attack ads the other party comes up with. For every attack against Kerry, his side has engineered one against Bush that was at least as nasty, and the reverse applies as well.

Re:questions have been raised

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Look. Fox News Channel broadcasts 24/7. Unless they put up a static image for the next 2 months, I can't see how airing a far-left movie before an election is any different than Murdoch spreading far-right lies day in and day out. Yes, Moore can spin biased views with the best of them, but have you ever watched, for example, Sean Hannity?

And not airing this movie will certainly not prevent spin wars. In case you haven't noticed, the people in America (where I live) are too stupid to elect a legit leader; they'd rather pick someone who can make a lot of nice sounding empty promises that (surprise!) never see the light of day. It's been that way for decades. Without spin what do presidential candidates have going for them?

Re:questions have been raised

[Spoticus]

If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?

Why not?
Microsoft does it all the time and people take it as fact.
US News media does it all the time and people take it as fact.
Marketing people do this all the time and people take it as fact.

Re:questions have been raised

[Pentagram]

I haven't seen the film yet, but if the worst error you can think of is that of a wrong date and font on a newspaper article quote, its accuracy can't be too bad. Did this newspaper quote form the basis for an important part of the film?

Re:questions have been raised

[Burpmaster]

Additional info: I found this article, which mentions specifically that the number was created afterwards:

"Fahrenheit 911" continues to make news:

The Gallup Poll reports only 38 percent of movie goers have a favorable impression of the controversial, anti-Bush film by Michael Moore, based on what they have heard and read about it. Republicans hate it by a six-to-one margin, while Democrats applaud it, four-to-one.

One scene in the propaganda-documentary that always draws chuckles from viewers features Florida GOP Rep. Porter Goss inviting people to call a "toll-free number" to voice their concerns about the Patriot Act. But the flick notes that no such number existed at the time and offered Goss' office number in its stead.

There is one now -- 1-877-858-9040 -- on the Web site of the House intelligence committee, which Goss chairs. A spokeswoman wouldn't say whether the deluge of calls to her boss' office contributed to the establishment of the toll-free line.

Despite its focus on GIs against the Iraq war, the Pentagon's Army and Air Force Exchange Service intends to distribute copies to U.S. bases worldwide.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't have a duty to make a joke about it, which he did. He could have easily handled that in a way that at least some righteous anger about it, rather than essentially mocking the FL reps.

In any case: where was John Kerry? Why didn't he sign their complaints and request further discussion? Does he truly believe there were no irregularities in the Florida process in 2000 or did he just not care?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

> Holy "Missing The Point" Batman!

I think you mean "Holy "not agreeing with me" Batman". It addresses the point perfectly. Perhaps you're some kind of twat?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

oops, missed a whole word there. Should read: "...in a way that expressed some righteous anger..."

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

He "lied" about the existance of a toll free number? Maybe. I don't know the facts. Do you think that's the biggest issue he brought up?

Where did you learn that about this toll-free deception? Think about who wants you to avoid the real issues.

Re:questions have been raised

[Zangief]

If I say "John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" it implies that at some point in the past he abused her. The statement may be true, but very deceptive. Moore used the same tactics in Fahrenheir 9/11.

You are slightly wrong here.

"John Smith has not beat his wife in the past eight months" only implies that JS' wife has not been beaten in the past months. It is not certain if she was beaten in other periods.

The false implication generally is sneaked in a question:

"Why did JS stop beating his wife in the past 8 months?" or "When did...", etc.

Re:questions have been raised

[eric76]

I bet you believe everything SCO says to be factual as well.

Re:questions have been raised

[ksheff]

That's odd. I don't recall Bush attacking Kerry over his service in VietNam. He's been attacking him on his record in the Senate since then. But then again, what is wrong for attacking a weak point of your opponent?

Now a bunch of pissed off veterans who believe Kerry is lying and betrayed them by his actions after the war are the ones attacking Kerry. Not unlike a bunch of Bush protestors clogging up the streets of NYC.

Re:questions have been raised

[PsiPsiStar]

Speaking as a person who usually votes "left"
Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.

This is tantamount to lying in your bibliography, and this kind of routine sloppiness certainly disqualifies his work as any kind of 'documentary.'

I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party (considering all the misleading shit they put forward at their latest convention).
Now Democrats have their own Rush Limbaugh. What's sad is that this type of tactic will probably be as effective for the "left" as for the right.

Re:questions have been raised

[reclusivemonkey]

At least he doesn't ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY hurt thousands of innocent people with like, bombs and shit...

Has anyone here got a clue what this is really all about? No wonder Bush stays in power if this is a sample of American Political thinking.

Re:questions have been raised

[mtgarden]

Truth is always objective. History occured and it occured in a certain way. The facts of that history are objective truth. If we spin the facts based upon our bias, we distort those facts away from the objective truth that they represented. The facts may be correct, but the truth that they represent no longer exists properly.

So yes, we understand that every person has a bias through which they filter the facts that they see, but we should strive to filter out our bias. We whould seek the objective truth represented by the facts.

Re:questions have been raised

[htmlboy]

thought it was funny when a newspaper sued Moore because they say he represented a letter to the editor as a front page headline story, and changed the date of the letter. I wonder what happened to that suit.

iirc, they sued him for $1, since that's the minimal amount they could ask. the suit was only a means to seek a formal apology, which i believe they got.

Re:questions have been raised

[aixou]

Everything there has already been debunked in the War Room. If you want to discuss specifics with me, don't just post a link, post a particular. If not, every time you point me to that site, I'll point you to the War Room.


No, the war room skirts around the issues. Read more closesly at Kopel's page, he includes counters of Michael's "War room" counter arguments. There is so much goddamn spin and sleight of hand in F911 that it's difficult for me to take seriously at all. It's not that he isn't mostly accurate factually, its that he implies so much bullshit that you begin to drown in it half way though.

Carefully read through kopels page, and then read Moore's counter arguments, before you come to a decision on just how good of fact check Moore's war room does.

Re:questions have been raised

[Azghoul]

I pretty good theory. Don't be an AC about it.

Also a pretty good way to go about your life. It's not easy though. :)

Re:questions have been raised

[Keebler71]

I followed your link but could only find unsubstantiated claims by a friend of a friend of Bush that he had indirectly helped a woman obtain an abortion. The democrats.com article specificly states that it was NOT Bush's child. Where is the link that he had an illegitimate child?

Re:questions have been raised

[HedRat]

You mean like Kerry's military records?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually she issued a statement denying the story

Wow, what a bald faced lie!

Re:questions have been raised

[EnderWiggnz]

ya know what -

F911 is the counter argument. for years we've heard the administrations steady drumbeat of all terror, all the time, through various media outlets - there has been no counter argument to the admin's claims. even the NYT and WP admitted that they should have been more vigorous in verifying the steady stream of shit coming from the whitehouse.

Finally - we get the other side of the story, and you have the audacity to point out that theres an agenda? no shit. you watch a cousteau documentary, and you get a pro-environment slant. you watch a holocaust documentary, you get an anti-nazi slant, you watch an energy companies documentary, you get a "how wonderful the world is with our energy" slant.

the purpose of a documentary is to advance the authors point of view.

the *NEWS* is supposed to report both sides of the issue.

Re:questions have been raised

[BK425]

Teeth
(and stop saying "nut" like it's a bad thing)

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, what was stated was completely true - Gore won the recount in the vast majority of counting methods

Actually, this is not true. The fact is that Gore did not win the state in any of the recounts. And when the media did their own recount, Bush won using every recount standard except for the one that his lawyers were arguing should be used if a recount was to take place.

US Supreme Court respected states rights and not stepped in

I love it when people try to talk about "states' rights" without understanding what it means. The idea of "states' rights" means that the federal government should not interfere with the rights that the states hold under the Constitution. It also means that states should not exceed their rights and try to interfere with the government's rights. States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis added)

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

And Congress did pass a law several years ago requiring that any disputes over the election of delegates to the Electorial College must be resolved under the laws that were in place on the day of the election. These means that the attempts of the Florida courts to change and create new law (by changing deadlines and creating a statewide recount) to help Gore were a violation of that federal law.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens equal protection under the law, yet the Florida Supreme Court's final ruling created a situation where a voter's ballot could be counted differently depending on what county he voted in. This would hardly be equal treatment. When that ruling was issued, even the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court said that the ruling would not survive a test of its Constitutionality and by a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional (yes it was a 7-2 vote, the 5-4 ruling was only about what remedy should be ordered)

Any claim by Moore that Gore won Florida is best described by Shakesphere's words -

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Re:questions have been raised

[timts]

talk about misleading and fake facts:

isnt that what CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOXNEWS do all the time?

Re:questions have been raised

[lscotte]

Really makes you wonder how much money the Lawyers (that would be Kerry+Edwards) paid him to do all this.

Re:questions have been raised

[Slime-dogg]

It is also a mistake of the editing and cutting, which was done by Michael Moore.

When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience. Unfortunately, Moore gives documentaries a bad name. He doesn't use much logic to peice together his arguments, rather, he relies upon the heartstrings of his viewers. He does his own stuff, because he would definitely be fired if he ever worked in a normal reporting position. Remember the NY Times fiasco?

Gore lost. It has been four years already. It's about time that you got over it, stopped bitching, and got on with the rest of your life.

Re:questions have been raised

[Keebler71]

Uh..perhaps you should read the links in the original post.

Re:questions have been raised

[megarich]

well, the way i look at it, some spin and deception in a movie is a hell of alot better than the spin and deception that ship troops over to other parts of the world to get killed!

Re:questions have been raised

[Trolling4Dollars]

And with that in mind I think it is poor judgment to air the movie prior to the elections.

Hmmm... good idea. We should make sure that Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter and all the other right-wing loon-a-whacks don't get aired in October at all as well considering how biased they are.

If he wants to air it this month I'd have no problem with it, but too close to the election and you end up with spin wars rather than any fact at all.

Too late. It's already happened. For the last FOUR YEARS.

Remember folks, chuck Bush. He's done nothing for the average intelligent American (a small segment of the U.S. population). If you think he has done something for you, then you are either a fool or you're not the average intelligent American. Vote for Kerry.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

How is he supposed to give a number that didn't exist? The 877 number exists now sure, but it wasn't purchased until two weeks after the movie hit theatres. Do you suppose that all those calls to his office number that was given in the movie precipitated finally getting off his ass and doing what he said he had already done?

So were you lying, or were you just mistaken? I dare you to answer!

Re:questions have been raised

[maxpublic]

Moore even said in all his interviews that of course the movie is biased, the facts were all facts, and they were framed by his opinions.

Moore said the same thing about "Bowling for Columbine", but then deliberately staged the bank/rifle scene several months in advance by lying to bank officials about his intentions. It was never possible to pick up a rifle AT THE BANK by opening an account and bank officials allowed him to do it, for promotional purposes, precisely because he lied about his aims.

He then went on to say that anyone could do what he had done at the bank, which was utterly untrue. This isn't 'framing the facts by his opinions', it's a goddamned, bald-faced lie. And it wasn't the only lie in "Bowling" either.

And now you expect me to believe that "Farenheit 9/11" is completely devoid of lies, that somewhere between "Bowling" and "Farenheit" Moore decided to turn over a new leaf? Give me a fucking break! A sucker I may be, but brain-damaged I am not.

Max

Re:questions have been raised

[iwadasn]

When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.

The vast majority of serial killers spend the vast majority of their time not killing, does that make it OK? Could you walk into a court of law and say "well, you do have my client on film killing someone, but he doesn't do that all the time, certainly less than one hour a month, how about we just let it slide".

The facts are the facts. Biased or not, what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross, even if it is a selection of his worst deeds.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

I disagree. Now, point to specifics, or this debate is going to go nowhere fast.

Re:questions have been raised

[Slime-dogg]

Does Michael Moore have a toll-free number for complaints against his movies, web site, and rants at the Oscars?

I realize that this is government vs. individual, but if you really want to criticize, you'd better be living the life that you are demanding of others. Moore has an amount of influence upon the uneducated, as demonstrated by the highly moderated, yet highly inflammable posts above.

Re:questions have been raised

[cayenne8]

"In case you haven't noticed, the people in America (where I live) are too stupid to elect a legit leader; they'd rather pick someone who can make a lot of nice sounding empty promises that (surprise!) never see the light of day."

Hmm...based on this statement alone....I cannot for the life of me surmise which candidate you are going to vote for...

:-)

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

A lie by omission is still a lie. By presenting only data that supports his claims and then calling his conclusions fact Moore is lying. This isn't to say that some of his conclusions aren't true but how can you trust any of them when he blatantly trying to mislead us.

Re:questions have been raised

[philipdl71]

Do you think Moore was behind the scenes, going, "Despite all of these headlines out there reporting that Gore won the election, I want you to take a letter to the editor instead and make it look like a headline, and tweak its date!" ?

If there were multitudes of headlines out there reporting that Gore won the election as you imply, why would Moore go to the trouble of having a letter to the editor doctored to look like a headline and then putting a fake date on it? You have to admit that it looks awfully deceptive.

Re:questions have been raised

[werfele]

You may have a point, but when Bush's people point out that he's been drug-free since 1974, it's certainly tempting to speculate that he was not drug-free prior to that year. It seems rather similar.

Re:questions have been raised

[networkBoy]

In case you haven't noticed, the people in America (where I live) are too stupid to elect a legit leader

I live in California (Kali?) where we elect actors . . . So there!.
I do agree with you about the legit leader thing though.
-nB

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

This one tops the Bush quote you had-

John Kerry on explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation:

"I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it."

Find out more about John Kerry's flip-flopped positions at www.kerryoniraq.com/

Re:questions have been raised

[jomama717]

Say what you will about the facts as they were portrayed in the movie - there is no way to spin or embellish the shots of W sitting idle for 7 minutes after being informed that the country was under attack. That was a weak man in an extraordinary situation freezing - and it spoke for itself. That scene alone made the movie worthwhile for me as a portrayal of the man in charge of our country.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

When we were shown the videotape of the police beating rodney king, that was also skewed. It hardly showed the LAPD at their best, nor was it representative of the vast majority of LAPD officers, however... it was the truth. A single "mishap" of that magnitude is enough for a criminal case, and the fact that it might not happen all the time is irrelevant.

Ironically, the clip shown from that videotape was only a partial clip of what was actually recorded. Not that this excuses what the police did, it doesn't, but still it was kind of dishonest not to show that Rodney King had been very violent himself.

Re:questions have been raised

[AoT]

Pearl harbor was hundreds of miles away from the US, hawaii wasn't even a state yet. 911 was the first attack on US soil since the war of 1812. I'd think that the president would get his ass out of that room and start making some decisions. You know, maybe force all planes down, maybe scramble the airforce, maybe even put the whole military on full alert?

Re:questions have been raised

[toddhisattva]

The "academic community" that despises John Lott are a bunch of worthless lying bastards like Michael Bellesiles.

Damn good thing Northface University is offering a college education without all the liberal bullshit!

Re:questions have been raised

[dup_account]

And this Kopel's page is full of absolute truths? Nice that you'll beleive one political operative so completely, but discount a different political operative... Could it be that Kopel's half truths and spins fit better with your picture of reality that Michael's do?

Re:questions have been raised

[aixou]

I disagree. Now, point to specifics, or this debate is going to go nowhere fast.

Some of Moore's implications are technically fair, but deceptive nonetheless (similar to when Bush would mince 9/11 and Saddam Hussein in a speech, so careless listeners would associate the two)

I'll be quick. The details are on Kopel's page.

* Implying that Fox somehow had the ability to change all the other Networks stance on who won Florida, when this was not the case at all.

*Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

*Implying that Gore won the election no matter what. If the recount method Gore request had been allowed to finish, Bush would've won.

*Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months, with the implication that Bush can't do work away from the whitehouse (slashdotters should know the ease with which offlocation work can be done)

*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.

*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.

*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.

Anyway, that's just the tip of the iceberg

Re:questions have been raised

[networkBoy]

Hmmm... good idea. We should make sure that Fox News, Limbaugh, Coulter and all the other right-wing loon-a-whacks don't get aired in October at all as well considering how biased they are.

I agree.
Personally I dislike Kerry about as much as you appear to dislike Bush (I dislike Bush too, just less so than Kerry). I'm in a prediciment I think many Americans are: I know what I DON'T want, but can not come up with a good enough idea to replace it.
Thus I'm in a position of saying "That sucks" and when the come back of "you've got something better then?" inevetably comes I can only wimper out a little "not really".
That is what really chafes me . . . and it's even my fault (to some extent at least).

-nB

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

> Actually, this is not true.

Actually, it is true. Summing up the myths:

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/ op inion/3973122.htm?template=contentModules/printsto ry.jsp

"Question: Who actually received the most votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election?

Answer: Al Gore. State election officials ultimately declared George W. Bush the winner by a margin of 537 votes, but during and after the election dispute, questions remained about the uncounted ballots of 175,010 voters, ballots that had been rejected by error-prone tabulating machines employed in many Florida counties. Confusion and conflict, much of it generated by partisan intrigue, prevented these ballots from being counted during the election controversy. However, in 2001 every uncounted ballot was carefully examined in a scientific study by the University of Chicago, which concluded that when all the votes were counted, more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush.

Q: Why did some earlier post-election studies say just the opposite, that is, that Bush had actually won after all?

A: They did not really say this. They reported, instead, that Bush might have kept his lead if the manual recounts of machine-rejected ballots had been completed along the lines either requested by Gore or initially mandated by the Florida Supreme Court. In these recount scenarios, not all of the machine-rejected ballots would have been included. However, just before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the judge overseeing the final statewide recount was preparing to announce that the recount would cover all of the previously uncounted ballots."

Furthermore:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

(the referenced Newsweek article is already in the archives, but I can probably dig it up for you if you want). The judge presiding over statewide recounts ordered overvotes to be counted - one of the several situations in which Gore would have won. Bush only would have won in the recounts that Gore requested.

> States do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and infringe upon the powers explicitly granted to the federal government.

You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing - *THE STATE* makes the laws about how the elections are conducted, and the ultimate arbiter of *FLORIDA LAW* is the Florida Supreme court (the US supreme court can only decide if a florida law violates the US constitution). Apparently you're unfamiliar with the logic that the US supreme court used in their 5-4 decision - they actually claimed that because there was no way to guarantee "equal protection", you can't have a recount. Furthermore, they made this a non-precidental ruling, because it would trash states rights if they didn't.

And the decision *Was* 5-4. You're confusing your decisions. The 7-2 was a per curiam - or "unsigned" - statement that there were "constitutional problems". It was a rather mild statement, however, and focused mainly on the fact that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to complete them by the date required. The 5-4 was the actual vote on the case.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Michael Moore have a toll-free number for complaints against his movies, web site, and rants at the Oscars?

Please show me the section in the US lawbooks that state that Michael Moore's movies are considered laws, and that they directly affect every person who lives in the US, by forcing them to live under facist rules.

Until you do that, your argument is along the lines of "Well, Moore is overweight!"

Re:questions have been raised

[aixou]

No, of course the Kopel page isn't full of absolute truths. But, if you're going to watch F911, I think it'd be smart to make an effort to read both the Kopel page and the Michael Moore war room before coming to a decision. I know too many people that take F911 as gospel, and its irritating. (but then again, people who take gospel like gospel are a bit mislead as well :P)

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, i think what moore is doing is great. I'm not huge on his theatrics and obvious bias, but the associations and the facts are still true. It's all documented and i don't think that he had time to create a huge paper trail. I'm just suprised that he was able to get this one together in time. I'm really just afraid that 'cause it has his named stamped on it, people will think that it's all fabrication. A bush supporter seems to only be won with soundbites and sadly, i don't think that they have the attention span to sit through a 2 hour film on Bush no matter how dumbed down it is. At least one thing is good about this election, after this election he will never have to shake the hand of the average man again for the rest of his life.

Re:questions have been raised

[TamMan2000]

This one tops the Bush quote you had-

John Kerry on explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation:

"I voted for the appropriation before I voted against it."

But that one was actually consistant. Let me explain.

Kerry supported the approptiation when it was funded through the sale of Iraqi oil, but opposed it when funded by the tax payers of the United States. This is an entirely consistant opinion and is most certainly not a flip-flop.

Don't believe everything Dick Cheney tells you...

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

...but this is no different than anyone who loves to quote from the Bible or any other text. Michael Moore is no different than anyone else when it comes to this.

One only has to think back to "Slick Willy" and Michael Dukakis for slimy, untruthful memes. Of course, Dukakis did himself in royally.

I'm suprised the DNC hasn't siezed on some of the same imagery, linking it to the current >1000 service members killed in Iraq, to the Prez landing on the aircraft carrier. "In 1980, the world voted out Michael Dukakis for this" . "In 2004, what do you think?" .

Simple, undisputable facts.

In any case, anyone can take bits of words from various places and tie them together into a salient argument that appears to be buttressed by the quotes. Just watch a church sermon sometimes...especially when people are throwing OT and NT together...

Re:questions have been raised

[osbornk]

People always talked about all these mysterious votes that were not counted. What about the fact that the media declared Gore the winner before all the polls in Florida had closed. Remember that Florida is in two time zones. And the panhandle is heavily Republican. And guess what, there was a very low voter turnout in the panhandle because they thought that Gore had already won in Florida.

Re:questions have been raised

[Slime-dogg]

Fortunately, there is such a thing as correctness in everything. Unfortunately, there are typically multiple correct solutions. People, like lemmings, typically blindly subscribe to one solution or another without really looking at all of them, or looking for their own.

We have the facts at hand. We have logic. Foregoing a spiritual debate, for which logic and facts don't apply, we should be learned enough to apply this logic to those facts, and to then draw our correct solution. The worst thing is when people decide to "feel" their way to an end. Feelings have a place in life, but it really ought not come into play in politics. Too many people's lives and livelihoods are at stake for that.

The one thing that is sure, though, is that there isn't or shouldn't be fuzziness. If there is, then there is something wrong.

Re:questions have been raised

[pizzaman100]

Or, for instance, if you call thousands of voters in South Carolina, and ask them how they'd feel if they were to find out that John McCain

John McCain on Michael Moore:

"Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents. And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls. Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again."

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

No it's not tantamount to lying in your biography, it's a harmless error that doesn't change the meaning.

I don't know if you saw the movie but it was much tighter than his other films. He was very careful with his facts and it shows.

More importantly, whatever you think of his editorializing (and there's not really that much of it in this film), there's no disputing the footage of Bush, Cheney, and all the others- most of his material is straight from the horse's mouth.

The difference between Moore and most of the left is that he's not polite; the difference between Moore and the Rush Limbaughs of the world is that Moore is neither a bigot nor a liar. Conservatives can whine all day about the fact that Moore has a point of view, but when you actually see the films for yourself, you see that they're just desperately trying to distract your attention from the damning evidence that Moore presents.

Re:questions have been raised

[Moofie]

Uh, if it's a dream sequence, maybe it doesn't belong in a FUCKING DOCUMENTARY.

Re:questions have been raised

[Knara]

Of course, anyone spouting this line shows they have no concept of how legislative process (and politics in the US in general)works.

Let's take a hypothetical example:

I write a bill. It is good. It goes through committees and ends up with a hundred unrelated riders.

Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.

In that committee, it gets reworked, a few more riders. Gets sent back to congress. It gets voted for debate (my friend votes for the debate to happen), and then in the process a few more motions get approved that tack a few more provisions on that bill.

Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado river than it already does. The Colorado river is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.

Problem is, that bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.

So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says. Do us all a favor, and if you don't have anything to say that isn't just PR for one side or the other, just shut up.

Re:questions have been raised

[LifesABeach]

What I find so very hard to ignore is the look of total confussion of the President of the United States of America, on film, for all the world to see. I'd follow this [fatherless child] into battle, any time.

As for getting the family members of 'Scramble Brains' bin laden getting out of the country, courtesy of the executive branch; In my book, that's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Re:questions have been raised

[sonamchauhan]

Kopel is balanced. Read his summarizations of moore's responses

For eg:
[Moore response: On the Florida victory celebration, none. On the networks calls: provides citations for the early and incorrect Florida calls for Gore, around 8 p.m. Eastern Time, and for the late-evening network calls of Florida for Bush around 2:20 a.m. Doesn't mention the retraction of the Florida calls at 10 p.m., or that CBS led the retraction.]

Re:questions have been raised

[maxpublic]

I definitely detest the attempted expediency of his methods.

Which seems to boil down to the age-old adage "the ends justify the means". No matter who's pandering this view, it's nevertheless evil.

Max

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

Oh he *implies* stuff... by speaking the truth. I see. He makes a bunch of true statements and leaves the viewer to draw conclusions based on... true evidence. What a tricky guy!

The best way to figure out whether or not Moore's truthful depictions "imply" stuff unfairly is to see it for yourself and decide whether or not those implications are warranted.

Re:questions have been raised

[Slime-dogg]

I call BS on 9/11! It was done by someone who has been completely discredited in the academic community. Oh wait, he was never a part of that community.

Go blow smoke up someone else's ass.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, the lack of a toll free number was only pointed out after the person being interviewed falsely claimed there was. The movie didn't imply that everyone should have a toll free number.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

You know, that would have had the opposite effect on me. If someone was calling Iowa for Bush, and the polls weren't closed, I'd go driving down the streets with a bullhorn trying to round up anyone I could find that hadn't voted yet.

Perhaps I'm just weird that way.

Re:questions have been raised

[Dizzle]

F911!? How long is that keyboard?

Re:questions have been raised

[Moofie]

A partial truth can indeed be deceptive.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

...and this is different than someone from the administration that happened to have (or let happen or didn't try to stop) the 9/11 attack happen, then saying, "if you vote wrong, you will ensure it happens again to the US"?

OK, in my book, voting wrong in this case is voting for W.

The Democrats and Kerry's campaign are so lame that they choose not to let these gifts that The Dick Cheney keeps dropping. Instead, it's a flustered, angry John Kerry, in a press bite, retorting them.

Besides, do you have a 800 number for people to call about your post?

Re:questions have been raised

[CVaneg]

Let's not forget the US government. As one who is fairly liberal, I'm acutely aware of the current administration's transgressions, but I'm sure it happens on both sides of the aisle.

Re:questions have been raised

[maxpublic]

An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics). All political systems have to, therefore, be quite open to anyone's interpretation of what has happened. You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.

This is commonly the retreating tactic of someone who can't argue his own case effectively: to claim that there are no "truths" and that everyone's point of view is equally valid, no matter how inane or ridiculous.

Anyone with an ounce of facility in critical reasoning will see your statement for what it is: pandering bullshit with an attempt to subvert the discussion. There are indeed facts, and truths, and opinions that are much better informed than others. To assert the contrary is a fool's game, the extension of sophomoric college Philosophy 101 into real life.

Max

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

You should, if you want to claim that Bush misled the American people -- when the real truth just might be that France misled American and British intelligence to protect its financial interests in the old Iraq.

Re:questions have been raised

[CVaneg]

The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness

Let's not give Bush too much credit. That's Karl Rove's MO. Bush is just along for the ride.

I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.

But if he did that, then he'd be flip flopping!

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

I've just read your comment three times, and have yet to try to figure out how this constitutes any kind of reply to the point I raised.

Re:questions have been raised

[Pharmboy]

Actually you were making a good point until you started flaming at the end. But not all of Kerry's (or any Senator's) votes were of this caliber. I would even give you that MOST of the time, it is the scenario you state. Sometimes they flip because of a trade with other Senators, vote for a vote. But this is why only two Senators have become president, the appearance of indecision. Most have been Governors, or military leaders. It's just a different quality.

Frankly, I think it takes a different kind of person to be a good Governer or President than it does to be a good Senator or Representative. One is about leadership (even against the majority) and one is about building concensus and compromise.

Rudy made a great Mayor for NYC, but he would not have made a good Rep., because of his style, for instance. Same for Reagon, Carter and even Bill Clinton. Most presidents have been too independent to play nice in Congress.

Some people make great teamplayers, some people make good coaches. Seldom does anyone do both well.

Re:questions have been raised

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Er, what's ironic about about?

From Reference.com's search for 'irony':

# Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).

There are more ways to use irony than simply "The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning." One of my favorites, and a technique I employ quite often, is Socratic irony: "Profession of ignorance and of willingness to learn as one interrogates another on the meaning of a term."

Don't forget "situational" or "dramatic" irony, either.

Re:questions have been raised

[Moofie]

The thing that gets me about "Bowling" is the more subtle hypocrisy.

Moore argued:

1) America is a culture of fear.
2) The culture of fear is bad.

Then he goes on to propagate his own fear of guns, using precisely the same tactics he decries when the major media outlets use them. He uses his status as a media icon to bully K-mart (Wal Mart? Don't remember...some huge retailer) to stop selling ammunition, and pretends like that's some sort of huge victory.

Not only is he "just as bad" as the propagandists he's arguing against, he is INDISTINGUISHABLE from those propagandists.

Re:questions have been raised

[UdoKeir]

Michael Moore has an email address which he reads and responds to. I sent him an email back in 2000 and he responded to me. Of course, he probably gets a lot more sent to it these days.

Re:questions have been raised

[GodfatherofSoul]

Gore would have won Florida by any state-wide recounting scheme (I think there were 4). It was only some (or all) of the county-wide recounts that wouldn't have helped him.

As for "states rights," that term has inherited more definitions than the Founders originally envisioned. For example, it was used as a euphemism for pro-segregation during the civil rights struggle.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

1) Implying that Fox....

If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."

2) Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

3) Implying that Gore won the election no matter what.

In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won, based on a University of Chicago study. The only case Bush would have won was the one Gore requested, or no recount - but that was not what the State supreme court ordered.

4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months

That is completely true.

4b) With the implication that Bush can't do work away from the White House.

Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

5) Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing ...

A) Tenet couldn't have given oral testimony about the PDB, as was implied, because A) Tenet was not in Texas that day, and B) Tenet testified that he did not speak to Bush during all of August: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/

B) Neither did Condi: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A111 15-2004Apr14.html

C) And, based on a white house press briefing, it appears that Bush didn't read it himself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/ 20 040410-6.html

Watch the administration official dance around the question as to whether Bush ever read it, it's quite amusing.

6) Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country

Here's a couple examples:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_n ow _verifies_flig.shtml
http://www.iht.com/articles/ 531487.html

7) Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.

Please, back up that they were.

Re:questions have been raised

[Zigg]

Correction: "yet to figure out", not "yet to try to figure out".

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Who America voted for

Really shows how the true heart of america feels.

Re:questions have been raised

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Normally I frown upon voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's what I'm doing this year. I'm counting on the unproven fellow not being able to fuck up as bad as the guy we've seen slowly flush the country down the toilet these past 4 years.

Re:questions have been raised

[moonsammy]

Ok, I won't "condemn or criticize anyone else" - but I'm certainly going to condemn and criticize a group. Bush himself *might* not be a bad guy, but his administration as a whole is horrific. Let's look at the score:
- Unjustified war in Iraq. No WMDs found, no tangible link between Saddam and Al Queda. Was Saddam a tyrant that deserved to be overthrown? Yes. But the United States had no legitimate excuse to do so. We *ARE NOT* the world's police. We have better things to do in our own country with the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives this war has cost us. War should always, always, *always* be the last option, and only when it is absolutely necessary. I think a certain religious figure the administration claims to believe in would agree.
- Extremely shady corporate connections. "Kenny Boy" Lay and Enron. Halliburton, run by Cheney at the time, found guilty of illegal accounting practices. No-bid contracts.
- Voting machines. Do I really need to say any more? You read slashdot, right? I just can't in good faith believe that these things would have been pushed as hard if the guys who run the companies didn't favor the incumbent.
- Environmental policy. I'm not going to get started on this really, it would take too long. Go ahead and google for "Bush administration environment" if you need convincing that they are *really* frickin' bad on this issue.
- Inequal rights. I don't care where you stand on the issue, but do you really agree that a constitutional amendment is the best way to "preserve the sanctity of marriage?" Why is this a federal government issue in the first place? Isn't marriage a (mainly) religious practice that the government only cares about in terms of taxing? I personally think any two people who are actually going to stay with each other in the long run should be legally allowed to make that commitment, but I can see why some would disagree. But a constitutional amendment is very much the wrong answer to this social disagreement. Why not just have churches that don't like gay marriage not recognize such unions? The catholic church doesn't recognize my marriage (as I wasn't married by a priest), and they're welcome not to - but it is not the government's place to make moral judgements.
- Dismantling of "inalienable" rights. Why does the government need to be able to review my library records? Is there anything in public libraries I'm not supposed to be reading? Have any terrorists really been caught by spying on the entire populace, ever? Why the hell are people being held in prisons without due process? Are they so dangerous that due process would harm the country?

Ok, so what are the administration's strengths? Really? I can't think of any. Defense? Granted, they're probably more militaristic than a democratic administration would be, but I have yet to be convinced this has helped make us safer. If anything, the Iraq war has lead to a greater percentage of the world hating the US, which just can't be a good thing in the long run.

Fahrenheit 9/11 might not be 100% factually accurate. It might be misleading in some parts. But have you seen it? The movie is a stunning indictment of the general wrong-headedness of the current administration, and even if 50% of it was bunk, it would still piss me off that our leaders are getting away with as much as they are.

In short, I don't like John Kerry, but he's the best bet to get this completely unpalatable administration out. And that's why I'm going to vote for him, and encourage to the best of my ability everyone I know to do likewise.

To tie this all back to the parent post - I'm not projecting self-hatred onto others when I say I hate the Bush administration. I like myself, and honestly believe I'm a good person. I have my faults, but I recognize them and try to either make up for them or work to make them go away. But I hate this administration, and wish nothing but bad things to happen to those involved it it (mmm... life-long prison sentences...). I'm not going to stand up for the administration for the sake of giving myself objectivity - I'm going to stand by my principles and do what I can to get them out of office.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

So, in short... Moore told the truth. Moore wasn't talking about the retraction, Moore was talking about the call. And he was correct. In fact, if Fox had led the retraction, that would have been kudos in Fox's favor. It didn't. It made the call, and then CBS made the first retraction - that's score 2 against Fox.

Re:questions have been raised

[JWhitlock]

Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.

...

So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is

I'd say it's a good reason why governors have an easier time getting elected than legislators. Being in the executive branch at the state level lets you take clear stands, while someone at the state or national assembly has to become really good at compromise.

I don't think that people that call legislators "flip-floppers" are idiots. I just think it is a sad reflection on the political knowledge of the average citizen.

Of course, most who state that opinion on a public forum are idiots, or campaign workers...

Re:questions have been raised

[X86Daddy]

ooooooh, snap!

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a documentary is a factual and objective presentation. Nothing Moore does is objective. If he was really doing a documentary he would only present the facts, and leave it up to the viewers to form their own opinions. This is pure propaganda, designed to attack the current administration. I've seen Moores other work, and to be honest he did make some valid points. The problem is not with his opinions, or the questions he raises, but with the way he presents the "facts". You cant twist the truth to make it more dramatic then call it fact. So he doesn't like Bush, thats fine. A lot of people don't. Then just say "I don't like Bush, so I made a funny little film about him." Don't lie and say it's anything else.

BTW, who does Moore like? I cant imagine hes for Kerry, and he certainly didn't care for Clinton.

Now for my statement, all you losers pay attention, voting for someone because they ARE NOT BUSH is not a good way to choose a canaidate. Tell me what Kerry has done in his career as a Senator, or what he plans to do in office that makes him a good choice for the Presidency.

Well, I'm listening.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Yep. It completely shows how rural, sparsley populated areas went for Bush, while urban centers went for Gore. A county-by-county map shows it even more. Are you saying that rural people are worth more?

Honestly, I'm glad to be on the side of the city.

Re:questions have been raised

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

Time for an object lesson. Let's apply Moore's "creative editing" techniques to your post and see what we come up with.

Wait ... poor ... low-pay ... [Micheal]Moore was behind the scenes ... reporting that Gore won the election ... but the mistake did not make a difference to ... and was in to way detrimental to ... the US Supreme Court.

Ridiculous? Yup. Out of context? You bet. Totally changed your meaning? Of course. Can you deny that you said those words? Not a chance. You did indeed write those words, but I used them to express a different (and opposite) meaning than what you intended. Just like Moore in Columbine and F9/11.

Now someone give me an Oscar!!

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Please describe where Moore cut words around that a person spoke like that.

(BTW, I am expecting a response).

Re:questions have been raised

[dunc78]

So how about the war on Iraq, has he flip flopped at all on that? Like from the time he said something to the effect of if you don't agree with the war in Iraq then don't vote for me (Democratic primaries).

Re:questions have been raised

[nycjay]

Well, which of the adds from the left are factually inaccurate? the swift boat ads are not factually accurate. for example, the one guy who said that he treated kerry... there is no evidence of him, and in fact, there are documents showing the signature of the dr. who treated kerry... also, how many of them shared w/ kerry? not in vietnam at the same time, but actually with him? those ads are just wrong. the moveon.org ads, although anti-bush, are truthfull (as far as i know). if i'm wrong, lemme know...

Re:questions have been raised

[SnapShot]

I can "imply" a lot of things. I can imply that aixou is a paid operative of the Republican party and a cowardly possible fascist who is getting kick-backs from Haliburton to smear the good reputation of Michael Moore. I have no proof that aixou is not a paid operative of the Republican party and a cowardly possible fascist who is getting kick-backs from Haliburton to smear the good reputation of Michael Moore. But, since I am a good person of the highest moral standing, I am willing to listen to the obvious lies of the Republican defenders who may put forward evidence on whether or not aixou is a paid operate of the the Republican party and cowardly possible fascist who is getting kick-backs from Haliburton to smear the good reputation of Michael Moore and I am willing to fairly judge those lies on their merits.

That's how Karl Rove has been playing politics by implication and third-party character asassination since Bush ran for Governor of Texas. Don't spend too much time bitching because the other side has adopted a winning tactic. Sure, I'd like to get back to talking about the issues but after eight years of non-stop attacks on Clinton, the character assasination of McCain, Cleland, and Kerry, and media assualt by Rush and his ilk, I honestly like seeing the good side fight back.

Re:questions have been raised

[cobray]

"And then idiots like you repeat it. This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says. Do us all a favor, and if you don't have anything to say that isn't just PR for one side or the other, just shut up." So, you don't know what happened either? Instead of trying to explain away Kerry's actions in a hypothetical maybe you should check the facts first. Better go check with MoveOn to see what the party line is.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

Another weird post in this long and weird thread. Notice: Nothing in this post justifies Moore's lies, half-truths and misleading evasions. All you do is say "Oh yeah, well, Bush is a jerk!"

You're entitled to your opinion. But this thread is about Michael Moore, and how honest he is. With your post, you basically concede that he is a liar -- you simply justify it by saying Bush is a liar, too. So tell me: Why should I believe anything Moore says?

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[aixou]

If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."

According to Kopel "At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox." Backed up by http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/c2k/pdf/REPFINAL.pdf

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

I cannot. I'm not aware of the felon demographic in Florida. I'm open to ideas as to why the error existed, but I think it's sleezy on Moore's part to imply it was an intentional act on the part of Bush to win the election.

That is completely true.

Vacation implies no work. Dictionary.com says vacation is "A period of time devoted to pleasure, rest, or relaxation, especially one with pay granted to an employee."

Watch the administration official dance around the question as to whether Bush ever read it, it's quite amusing.

He can't honestly say whether or not Bush read it because he doesn't know for sure. Just like I couldn't say that you've seen F911. I assume that you have, but if I was asked, I'd have to say that I couldn't say one way or the other, just that I assume that you have.

Here's a couple examples:

Both your sources show that many planes were allowed to fly on the 13th. Granted, most of the flights were made so airliners could relocate their aircraft, but they were flights nonetheless.

Please, back up that they were.

I'll try to find info. (I might've been incorrect on that one.. assume so until I find backup evidence)

Re:questions have been raised

[tumbaumba]

You are under the naive delusion (common of geeks and kids) that there is a crisp and objective "correct answer" to everything, and that knowing the correct answer will solve anything.

Agreed and let me add to this one saying I heard somewhere: "There is no truth, there are only stories"

Re:questions have been raised

[terrymr]

He was there as the chair of the meeting not as the other candidate ... it wouldn't have been appropriate.

It would have changed nothing .... the votes would have been thrown out and congress would have voted along party lines for their respectice candidate ergo Bush still wins.

Re:questions have been raised

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Of course he is, rural people are worth more than the majority that live in cities, duh.

that map shows 20 states voted for gore and 30 voted for Bush. But people sometiems forget a great chunk of our population lives in NewYork and California.

On raw votes, more people voted for Gore. But, if you are a republican, you dont care what the majority of Americans think/want, as long as you win baby.

Re:questions have been raised

[William Tanksley]

The question is not between airing a bunch of deceptions by Moore or keeping Bush in office -- if it was, keeping Bush in office would be the only right choice, since the only evidence against him was deceptive. The real choice is whether anyone can campaign against Bush on real issues.

Kerry seemed to only be interested in Vietnam (at his convention).

-Billy

Re:questions have been raised

[protohiro1]

You see, we can't stand bush or his administration not because we hate outselves. Its because we (I promise) strongly disagree with his policies. So much so that he just starts to piss us off.

I can speak for "the liberals" as a group, because we aren't all the same. Personally, I really believe that things like universal socialized health care and marriage rights for homosexuals are a good idea. Not because I am a self-loathing loser (but thanks for saying that, really raised the level of the discourse) but because I rationally read about this issues and I believe that these are good solutions. I don't support (and never did support) the war in iraq because I believe that it is an unecessary waste of human life and money. I believe that based on as many objective (and varied) sources I can get.

Some people say crazy stupid things. People of all political stripes. That doesn't mean you can paint millions of people with the same brush. The fact that going to Iraq was a foolish mistake, sold to the people with very deceptive rhetoric is something most people came to understand pretty reasonably. Not because people went "Unabomber wacko".

You seem to have trouble with this, so I'll repeat it: I disagree with Bush on basically everything. Because I rationaly looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion. When various conservatives start basically making things up to argue their point--then I get real mad. When Mr. Bush talks about war, when he for whatever reason didn't want to go himself...that pisses me off. When people attack Kerry's war record I would love to sit down and say, that's wrong. But when it keeps coming and their candidate pulled favors to avoid serving in the same war. Well I start getting snippy. If another conservative post anonymously on the internet that I need to stop condeming and critizing other people and in the same post implies that people who agree with me are losers, then I get REAL pissed off.

Oh, and what's this crap about substance abuse? How many substance abusing liberals do you know? I know a lot of long sober people who really did overcome substance abuse problems that feel like I do about bush. I can't stand the guy and I hardly drink and I have never used illegal drugs. So step off, AC, ok?

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

I just want to point out one small error in part of your post.

Bush did not attack Kerry (or McCain, AFAIK) over Vietnam. It is Kerry who, as it has been pointed out time and time again, made his four months of service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Even during the primary campaign, it was pointed out that he brought up Vietnam constantly, at every single opportunity.

The fact is that the stuff a politician brings up on the campaign trail is fair game for criticism from all interested parties. For his part, Bush has been far more interested in fighting the current war then he has been in going back and arguing over Vietnam.

Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[nojomofo]

No, I don't concede that Michael Moore is a liar. In fact, I haven't even seen Fahrenheit 911. So it would be inappropriate for me to judge either way. What I am doing is attempting to counter the implication (I'll admit that it's unsaid) that I'm getting from a whole lot of posts that Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves.

About a decade ago, the Republicans decided that they would do whatever it took to win (dirty or otherwise), and for the most part, the Democrats haven't done the same (and have suffered for it) (this statement will undoubtedly get several very vehement replies, but I believe that it's true). Some may view what Michael Moore is doing as leveling the playing field - I won't make that judgment because (as I said) I don't know that he's being deceptive.

You should take anything that you hear from anybody with the appropriate grain of salt. That goes for Michael Moore, John Kerry, and yes, George W Bush. I believe that you need an awfully large grain of salt with anything that W says, but that's just me.

Re:questions have been raised

[legirons]

"I guess if you call altering newspaper editorials and letters to the editor "facts". If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"? The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries"."

What I can't understand is, why is this level of critical thinking not being applied to works by people other than Michael Moore?

If the people responding to this thread applied even a tenth of their tests to a newspaper story, radio article, presidential speech, television news article, or television documentary, we'd have enough purple-faced apoplectic denunciations that you literally wouldn't be able to hear anything else. Yet an alleged bias by Michael Moore is all over any forum which will listen, discussed everywhere, while factual errors several orders of magnitude worse are left unchallenged in nearly every story you read, watch, or hear.

Not saying that your [everyone's] analysis of Michael Moore's film isn't useful, just that it would be interesting to see how other stories measured-up to the same standard of analysis...

Re:questions have been raised

[EnderWiggnz]

you're definition of documentary flies in the face of reality, and a commonly held definition.

what you want - is a news report.
---

now onto your "point".

keep in mind that - as Clinton said - unseating an incumbent is a two step process.
1) you need to convince the electorate that the incumbent needs to be fired.
2) you need to convince the electorate that your candidate is better.

the "not voting for bush" point is important and necessary at this time.

on to "what kerry has done" in the senate:

John Kerry is not a big name legislator - his legislative accomplishments are significant, but the lesser part of his tenure. His most significant duties have been in the "oversight" role that congress holds over the executive branch.

Kerry was the lead investigator in the Iran-Contra Affair, the BCCI affair, as well as an investigation into POW's/MIAs in 'Nam that allowed us to finally normalize relations with that country, and put to rest rumors that there were still POWs.

Re:questions have been raised

[Knara]

I'm not particularly concerned with the "party line", as difficult as that might be for you to concieve. It's enough for me to know that anyone who has the audacity to allege that someone who votes differently for similarly named bills is an unqualified "flip-flopper" is either very naive, or a political opponent of aforementioned "someone".

The very fact that the same concept had to be voted on twice is a dead giveaway that *something* changed in the bill which Kerry found himself unwilling to vote for.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I am John Kerry.

I was against the first Iraq war, I am against the second Iraq war, but I voted for it. Now I'm against it but I was for it. I support the UN. I'm against terrorism and against the Iraq war. But I voted for the Iraq war.

So, I voted against the first war and supported the second war, wait...

I'm against gay marriage but for gay unions. I support gays but think the San Francisco mayor is wrong. I support gay marriages. No, wait, gay unions.

I'm Catholic. Wait, I'm Jewish. My granddad was Jewish. But I was raised Catholic. What am I? I don't want to confuse people.

I am for abortions, but wait, I'm Catholic, and Catholics are pro-life. But I might consider putting pro-life judges in office, but I'm not sure. I do know I voted for a pro-life judge, but I stated that it was a mistake.

I went to Vietnam. But I was against Vietnam. I testified against fellow US troops in Vietnam, threw my medals away and led others to do the same. But I am a war hero. Against the war. I stated I threw my medals away then I threw my ribbons away.

I then revealed that I threw my ribbons away but not my medals, then lately I stated that I threw someone else's medals away and never threw anything of mine away. I believe Ribbons and medals aren't the same thing. Medals come with ribbons, so now I believe that ribbons and medals are the same thing besides the fact that ribbons are cloth and medals are metal.

I wrote a book that pictured the US flag upside-down on its cover. But now I fly and campaign in a plane with a large flag right-side up on it. But sometimes, we fly upside-down for fun.

I am for the common man, unlike Bush. I am against the rich. But my family is worth 700 million dollars has a jet and many SUVs. I am the common man.

I am against sending jobs overseas. My wife is a Heinz heir. Heinz has most factories offshore. I am against rewarding companies for exporting jobs as long as it is not Heinz.

I own $1 million in Wal-Mart stock. I believe Wal-Mart is evil by driving small business owners out of town. I am a capitalist and I own part of Wal-Mart but I am a good guy for small corporate America.

I own SUVs when I talk to my followers in Detroit, MI. Teresa owns SUVs, I don't, when I talk to tree hugging followers. I have a campaign jet that gets 1/3 mpg, which is great fuel efficiency.

I am against making military service an issue in presidential elections. I defended a draft dodger Clinton and stated that all serve in their own capacity whether they draft dodge or not. Did I mention, I served in Vietnam and am a hero? Are you questioning my patriotism? I served in Vietnam. My opponent didn't. I have three purple hearts! I am a hero. I am qualified to run this country since I served.

I spent Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia, being shot at by the drunken South Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge, while president Nixon was lying to the country and saying that there were no troops in Cambodia. What's that you say, Nixon wasnt president in 1968, well it must have been some other president then. Who was that president with the a phony silver star, it was probably him. Are you sure the Khmer Rouge were not active until 1970, well...

I guess I must not have been there then. That's right I was actually in my basecamp in Vietnam at least 55 miles from the Cambodian border and I spent the evening writing in my journal about being in Cambodia. I got confused after I said it so many times between 1968 and 1986. I am a real hero though, just spend three minutes with the people
who served with me and they will tell you. No, not those 200 plus veterans who served with me and say I lied, and not all those veterans that signed affadavits that say I am a phony, I mean just these 8 people that travel around with me (my band of brothers).

I am John Kerry. I want to be your President.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

its not about the recount, stupid. its about the 70000 black folk who were RIPPED off by jeb bushie and the gang; its about the only count that matters -- the popular vote.

if it was not for the electoral college this country would NEVER have a republican president. the majority of americans just don't buy that crap -- so we have to use a disproportionate system that gives more power to white-ass gun nuts in the midwest.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I come on Slashdot and post a message saying that someone else manipulated something, but I don't present any evidence of that. Now, obviously, I'm an asshole, but why do I need to parade that assholeness in front of the world...?

Re:questions have been raised

[flyneye]

Lets not forget that the Repubs have made a similar film and perhaps their movie should air on the same night.
Personally I think it would be more fruitful,entertaining and just downright relevant to air an uncut "Pink Flamingoes" which will surely yield higher art than either aforementioned films.BaBaBa maow maow BaBa maow ma maow!
Perhaps next time one of the parties will channel Ed Wood and get Tony Danza to narrate.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone realized that you thought you'd made a point.

Re:questions have been raised

[danila]

How about e-mail (featured prominently on almost every page on his site)? I don't think it would be that difficult to contact a prominent maker of political documentaries - after all wouldn't he want to make it easy for everyone to send him interesting leads for his next film?

Re:questions have been raised

[imroy]

In one of the few interviews we saw here in Australia, Mike basically said "Yes I'm biased, I won't deny that. But so is the mainstream US media and I'm trying to offer balance with this movie.". The interviewer was quite offended by Mikes opinion of her profession and became rather defensive.

I'm not sure we should all try to filter out bias, but perhaps instead try to better understand our own biases and those of others.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/
tallahassee/news/ opinion/3973122.htm?template=
contentModules/prin tstory.jsp

That is an OPINION piece from one writer, one who appears to be biased. For example, the author states

Of particular importance in the 2000 election were the ballots on which a selection had been made from the list of candidates and then a name had also been printed in the space for write-ins. Although these "write-in overvotes" were automatically excluded by tabulating machines, they contained unambiguous and legally valid votes whenever the write-in candidate matched the candidate chosen from the list preceding it.

This is simply not true. Florida law simply states that if they have marked their ballot twice for candidates in a race, that ballot cannot be counted for that race. Some voters punched out the chad next to Bush's name and then wrote in "George Bush". There is no way to determine that the write was not intended to refer to the previous President Bush. Another example of the author's bias is when he accuses Governor Bush of "[bending] the rules on absentee ballots to allow improperly marked absentee ballots to be counted." This is a clear reference to the issue of the lack of postmarks on absentee ballots from military personnel. The fact is that federal law doesn't require mail sent through APOs to be postmarked and Florida has absolutely no right to impose such a requirement on the federal government. In fact, after the mess in the Dade County elections (I believe it was in 1998), the state agreed to not reject absentee ballots for hypertechnical reasons. The only reason that the requirement for the postmark exists is so that it can be shown that the ballot was mailed on or before the election day. In 2000, the democrats were attempting to throw out absentee ballots without postmarks that had been received and locked away in county election commissions' safes before election day!!

Clearly that columnist has an adjenda. Dealing with reality is not part of it.

You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing

Actually it does no such thing. Read it again, especially the bold type where Congress has the power to pass laws that override the states' laws in this manner (it is this same portion of the Constitution that gives Congress to pass laws mandating election standards and the Voting Rights Act.) It was a federal election law that the Florida courts were violating, a federal law that Congress had every right to pass.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the logic that the US supreme court used in their 5-4 decision - they actually claimed that because there was no way to guarantee "equal protection", you can't have a recount.

Actually I am familiar with the decision and that is not what it said. In fact it says the following:

Justice Breyer's proposed remedy--remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an "appropriate" order authorized by Fla. Stat.

in other words, they could not order the FLSC to fix the problems without violating FLORIDA LAW. So much for the issue of states' rights that you are concerned about.

And the decision *Was* 5-4. You're confusing your decisions.

I'm not confusing anything (now could I since I am not a DemocRAT?). The 7-2 decision was for the granting of the stay that stopped the recount initiated by the FLSC. It was stopped on the grounds that it violated the US Constitution.

It was a rather mild statement, however, and focused mainly on the fact that it would have been hard, if not impossible, to complete them by the date required.

Not true! In the granting of the stay, Justice Scalia's concurring opinion dealt with the question of whet

Re:questions have been raised

[SAN1701]

The way I see it there are lies, damned lies, and Moore "documentaries".

Funny, knowing what we know now, I think that there are lies, damned lies, and WMD claims.

Re:questions have been raised

[drawfour]

This is something that has always bothered me about election coverage. This example just proves the point, and it's not about whether Bush or Gore won. That is a totally different argument.

IMO, until after ALL (yes, ALL) polls are closed (including Hawaii), the media should NOT be allowed to "call" any state. Nor report on what projections are, nor anything. It taints the election process, even if just a little. There comes a point when the media needs to take responsibility and respect the voting process.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

Oh my god this is just so bizarre.

First, the doctoring of the Pantagraph was not a "copyediting error." Have you seen the movie? There is just no way this was some kind of "unfortunate" mistake. The date was changed AND a frickin' LETTER TO THE EDITOR was changed to look like a news article. The Pantagraph editor himself calls your theory "baloney."

Second: Moore is a media machine. He has a production company with PR people and a vast communications apparatus. But not only has he refused to apologize to the Pantagraph, he has refused to respond to repeated requests to answer one simple question: Why was the newspaper altered?

Your post is the worst kind of apologia. Read Dave Kopel's 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me that Moore deserves your blind loyalty.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

In the speech made by Heston around the time and place of the columbine murders. Moore cut together two different speeches (IIRC) and presented them as one speech.

And in F9/11 a member of the house says he will help Moore to collect signatures from other congressmen about signing up their kids for the military, but Moore edited it so that it looks the opposite.

The movies are full of bits of facts but they are put togheter so the viewer get the wrong impression.

Re:questions have been raised

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

It's an illustration. It shows how one can recite facts while distorting their meaning.

Here's another one for you. Suppose we were discussing Adolf Hitler and I told you that:

1. He united the German people and lifted their spirits following their defeat in WW1.
2. He was elected by a large majority in a fair election.
3. He conquered most of Europe.

These are historically verifiable facts, yet they do not convey the truth about the man. This is what Moore does. He shows the portions of interviews and events that support his goal. It's not 'spin' or 'bias'. A half truth is a full lie.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Custard]

Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado river than it already does. The Colorado river is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.

Problem is, that bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.

We've got to do something about this...

The real question is, what kind of asshat would say "alright, I'll only give housing to 250,000 families across the USA if you take give more water from the Colorado River". We need to find out who's the representative who tacked on that Colorado River rider in the first place, and put him in the spotlight.

I realize this is just a theoretical example, but is it possible to trace who added what insane riders to a bill, or does that information get lost in the volumes of committee dialog and minutes?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

... So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records, and presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

Ok, that's a long winded discussion about a hypothetical situation. Why not tell me what the specifics this situation were? The tax break for the elite was the reason for the vote change? So what? At that point, Kerry had to be thinking election 2004... his people are telling him, "do not change your vote." And he changes his mind because he he thinks it's the right thing to do, to not vote for it. Personally, that sounds like the kind of guy I want in charge. Someone who'll make up his own mind, right or wrong, and stick to it. Not a president who will do whatever his cabinet says is right. It's the same criticism I've had with the media. Ask the hard questions. Don't just be a mouthpiece for whoever.

Re:questions have been raised

[TamMan2000]

Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.

The problem is that it doesn't tick off most americans, they lap it up... And Karl Rove figured this out.

Using your logic one could deduce that Bush did not, in fact, slash veterans benefits. He is after all hugely popular with the military, and cutting veterans benefits could cost him that.

Re:questions have been raised

[severoon]

I know he did that in Bowling for Columbine when he took Heston's quotes out of context and left the viewer believing that the NRA descended on the town right after the incident at the high school.

This thing with F911 and Michael Moore is one of those things where I'm one of the only dispassionate, rational people around. It's not even worth discussing because most people who saw the movie decided what they thought about it before they went into it. If you are unable to uncover even one little teensy tiny "fact" presented in that flick that makes you a bit uneasy about Moore's tactics, then you're one of those people.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

He did it to Charlton Heston:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html

This is what made me realise what a liar Moore really is.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the best you can do? "It wouldn't have been appropriate"? How was the joke at the expense of the representative appropriate?

And it wouldn't have changed anything? So? My vote this November probably won't change anything. Does that mean I should stay home that day?

Re:questions have been raised

[goodydot]

In the book 'Hocus Pocus' one character refrains from swear words because it 'gives people an excuse to not listen to anything you have to say.' You would think that a smart person doing a documentary in order to put forth a point of view would refrain from such 'deception' in order to make their view as argument-proof as possible. The more underhanded tactics you use, the more you open yourself up to critisism unrelated to your argument. Oops!

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

so your defense is "you are"

your entire defense of kerry is based on that bush is also doing something.

how does that deny that kerry acted a certain way.

kerry is the one saying he is better than bush, yet how can that be proven?

the problem with the democratic party is they have no new ideas, only attacks on bush. the entire platform is "bush is sooo bad, im gonna do a way better job without referencing any hard methods to doing it"

give me a break, bush doesnt need to claim what he will do, people have a sense of it. but if kerry wants any real shot at winning, he needs to say something concrete, not just try to be JFK.

the daily show called the election 2 years ago, and that prediction will play out in a couple months.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you should read a little Nietzsche, here's a caution. "Careful when you fight monsters lest you become one." Or by "good" did you mean the side that reenforces your world view/bias?

-BeyondGoodandEvil

Re:questions have been raised

[danheskett]

That's funny. A neutral point of view. What on earth is that?
Statements like I quoted from Mr. Moore are not neutral. They express an opinon. For example, in the quote above he writes that you can usually tell "them by their skin color", right? He is making a judgement, that the felon list was compiled based on color. Okay, fine.

Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.

So, instead of saying:

"Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."

He could say something along the lines of:

"Katherine Harris, co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Florida as well Secretary of State was in charge of certifying the vote and supervising the counties vote counting officals. Criticism was raised by the United States Civil Rights Commission and others alleging the State had improperly hired a firm with Republican ties to remove felons from the voter registration rolls. Additionally, the comission claims that black and minority voters may have been targetted because of their statistical likelihood to vote for the Democratic candidate. State officals deny impropriety and point to the companies relatively high-success rate. Supporters of the decision to hire the company, including the Bush campaign, acknowledge that the data may have been faulty, and credit county officals for suspending use of the modified lists in 20 of Florida's counties."

That's the difference. In the second excerpt, facts not presented are excised. Multiple points of view are presented. Allegations are clearly made, and names named.

Is it Fox' point of view? Bush's point of view? Saddam's point of view? Kerry's point of view?
Neutral Point of View is all of those views. It is Bush's view, Kerry's view, and Saddam's view, rolled into one statement that examines each, provides relevant context and supporting materials.

An important aspect of any reasonable political system is to acknowledge that there are no truths (except in math and physics).
Why math and physics? For example, in Math, if you assume that 1=1, but that also 1 != 1, then you have nothing, and no truths, and everything is subjective. Same with physics. What rules do we follow? If you reduce things enough, the traditional rules fall away, and new rules must be invented to explain behavior.

What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth. You should read into Natural Law which proposes that certain things are immanent in nature. Your claim that there are no objective truths is a clearly post-modern perspective, with which you are entitled to believe.

The problem with post-modern thinking in terms of politics is that no idea or policy or action is considered to better than the other. Why vote for one candidate over the other? Either one produces equally debateable results, with neither result being any better than the other. You have to be open that your result is inferior and superior to mine at the same time. If there are no objective truths, you are going to have an awfully hard time arguing for a specific course of action.

You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.
That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's. It doesn't matter who wins, because, in the end, it's all a matter of inerpretation and individual policies or actions do not have any value or weight.

You agree, correct?

Re:questions have been raised

[Procrastin8er]

everything in the documentary was 'facts' How about Moore's accusation that "Bush" allowed members of the Bin Laden family to leave after 911, when Richard Clarke stated clearly that it was his decision to allow them to leave, not Bush's. And he testified to that at the 911 hearings. That is fact. And Moore has never acknowledged this, and if memory serves he did state that he would pay anyone $10,000.00 if they could find a factual error in his "croqumentary". Hmmm I wonder if the check is in the mail...

Re:questions have been raised

[uberdave]

It is possible to make only true statements, and yet lead people to a false conclusion. It's called spin, or marketing, and it is done all the time.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

This is insightful? OK, how about this:

There's some irony in quoting from one scientific journal to rebut the statements from another scientific journal.

Whee, irony! Mod me up!

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

What are you talking about? Moore took a clip of a girl who had someone murdered next to her, and then played a clip of Heston doing his "cold dead hands" speech. That's not even remotely like what you did - not the slightest bit.

You're going to need to be more specific on your second case.

Re:questions have been raised

[danheskett]

It is not absurd for Michael Moore to offer a clear, concise claim.

For example,

Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the color of their skin."

What is Michael Moore alleging here? That Katherine Harris rigged the vote counting? That she stole ballots and replaced them with her own modified ones? That she obstructed the process? That she rushed to judgement? That she was corrupted by the Bush administration? What is he alleging regarding the company in question? That the company was hired with the directive to purge blacks from the voting rolls? That they were incompetent? That they were staffed by Bush operatives? That they colluded with other state offical to violate voter rights? That they acted with blatant racism? Or that they weren't careful enough to safeguard against voters being removed from the rolls improperly? What is he saying?

Michael Moore is intentionally vague here, as in other places, allowing only inuendo to make his claim. Then he can link to some articles which back up basic assertions: Katherine Harris was secretary of state, and co-chariman of the Bush campaign in Florida. Check. The State hired a company that whose owner bought a company which was founded by a strong Republican backer. Check. But where is the article about collusion? Where is the investigation of what type of arrangement was made? Where is the proof? He never provides any proof of wrongdoing! Just suspicious circumstances.

In court, this type of argument would be tossed out. It's nothing. There is no substance provided, instead, insuiations are drawn and the viewer/reader left to conjure about what might have happened.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Ok... please be more specific about your analogy. For example, if this is an analogy to Moore's portrayal of Bush's behavior on 9/11, what part did he leave out? The period of mute silence in the nation from the White House in which the rest of us were terrified? The bumbling and awkward speech put together way too late? What, exactly?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush MO is to attack his opponant for his weakness

The MO for any combatant is to attack his opponant for his weakness - would you rather they attack them for their strength?

Calling Kerry a Flip Flopper is another example of this.

Uhh, certainly - because it's his most astounding [-ly under reported] weakness.

If you think that changing ones position is a bad thing, I suggest you rethink (yes I am assuming you support him) supporting GWB.

Isn't that a catch22?

( The parent was modded Informative? Oh, I'm reading /. again... )

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Um, the NRA *did* descend on the town right after the incident. The only complaint people usually raise is that his "cold dead hands" quote - a Heston trademark, almost - wasn't from that particular event. So?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why our political climate is like it is, because you and your ilk can't think for yourselves and just regurgitate what some website or candidate talking point says.

Again, attacking the messenger doesn't solve the problem. This is not "why our political climate is like it is" - it's because of the real problem: riders on proposed legislation.

Why not spend your efforts attacking the problem instead of those who point it out (and point out those who indulge in it).

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO. Yeah, use the same source AGAIN you fool. Nobody with half a brain trusts Moore in the first place.

The Truth
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
By Dave Kopel
http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits- in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Moore's appeal lies in his giving wealthy, over-educated, whites an opportunity to laugh at working-class whites.

Re:questions have been raised

[be-fan]

Well, I saw the movie, and several of these criticisms aren't really accurate:

* Implying that Fox somehow had the ability to change all the other Networks stance on who won Florida, when this was not the case at all.
I don't remember him implying that Fox News had any power to change it, just that they were in the lead in declaring Bush president.

*Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.
I'll buy that.

*Implying that Gore won the election no matter what. If the recount method Gore request had been allowed to finish, Bush would've won.
That too.

*Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months, with the implication that Bush can't do work away from the whitehouse (slashdotters should know the ease with which offlocation work can be done)
It's not an implication, it's a matter of public record. Whether or not he can do work away from the Whitehouse is a seperate issue. Now, I know when I do work at home, I'm not nearly as productive as I am at work, and I'm not the fricking President of the USA! His work probably involves, to a great degree, meeting with other people, and that's certainly something that is restricted by him not being in DC.

*Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing mentioning the potential terrorist threat.
I'm pretty sure it came out that he didn't.

*Implying that there were no flights allowed in the air when the saudis left the country.
Yeah, this is true.

*Implying that the Bin Ladens weren't at all questioned before leaving the air.
This is patently false. The movie did say they were questioned, just that it was cursory and they weren't detained for more extensive questioning.

Personally, I didn't like the movie. I get his point, but he uses a low-class argumentative style, using emotion more than reason. Personally, I thought there were lot's of ways to nail Bush using a purely rational argument. That said, I'm beginning to think purely rational arguments would exceed the attention span of most voters, so the evil of Michael Moore style arguments is necessary to counter the very effective marketing machine on the Republicans' side.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey asshole,

Read his post again, he was calling Bush a flip flopper.

His first sentence was ambiguous (the second his, should've been bush's), but you should be able to figure it out...

Re:questions have been raised

[EpsCylonB]

To explain: F911 airs, someone else slams Kerry, another group comes back with slander about Bush, wash, rinse, repeat. All of this will be done by soft money (like Moore and Swift Boat Vets for Truth), all outside of normal controls or candidate influence/approval.

And that won't happen anyway ?, lets face it moores film is not going to influence anybody, you either agreed with him to begin with or not.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Ignorant Moron,

Read these:

The Truth
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ [msn.com]

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
By Dave Kopel
http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits- in-Fahrenheit-911.htm [davidkopel.com]

Moore's appeal lies in his giving wealthy, over-educated, whites an opportunity to laugh at working-class whites.

Re:questions have been raised

[Colazar]

David Kopel on his website spent several paragraphs talking about how one could speak only "facts" and not convey the "truth." In Sematics we talk about the "Presumption of Relevance," which is that if you say something, it is presumed to have something to do with the conversation, or what you said before. The textbook example I remember was:

Q: Do you know what time it is?

A: That was the number 12 bus.

In this case, the questioner will usually assume that the fact that the number 12 bus went by can somehow tell him what time it is. (ie it goes by every half hour.) However, you can mislead someone, without "lying" by violating this presumption. Say you happen to know that the #12 bus was 15 minutes late, but don't mention that. Your "factual" response has led the questioner to think it is 15 minutes earlier than it actually is. The movie _Being There_ is a good example of humor that works by violating the Presumption of Relevance.

All of which is to say that, according to David Kopel, at least, (I have not seen F9/11), most of the problems in the movie are from violating this precept--putting two facts together in such a way that the only logical conclusion you can draw is an incorrect one. This is misleading. This is wrong. I decry it.

However, what really annoys me(as someone who opposed the War in Iraq) is that Bush did the *exact same thing* when he argued for going to war against Iraq. I honestly don't understand how someone can micro-analyze one side of the argument, but not the other.

Personally, I could have been convinced to go to war against Saddam Hussein. But not with the arguments that were made at the time, which didn't pass my sniff test then, and look even worse now.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy more into what you're saying if you didn't target only liberal hate. If you're in any way suggesting conservitives behave any more rationally, you're in denial. Both sides sit around hooting at each other more than they actually put any thought into what their actual stance on an issue is.

Re:questions have been raised

[EpsCylonB]

Problem is that people like you get hung up on the small points and on't address the broader issues that his films present.

So the advert that said free gun with a bank account was fiction ?. Fair enough I'll beleive you, but for many people giving out one free gun is one too many. The fact that the bank did it at all is the issue. Only in america could you get such a mix of capitalism and crypto facism.

Re:questions have been raised

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

See this post for appropriate response.

There is indeed irony in quoting from one raving lunatic's website to rebut the statement's from another raving lunatic's website.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

What, exactly, that was left out changed the meaning here? Your link just reinforced that his copyediting was about as responsible as you can get if you need to cut down a speech. He didn't try and make it one-run-on piecemeal speech - he cut to Heston's speech, and to the protests, back and forth. Furthermore, he kept Heston's entire meaning intact. Summarizing Heston's paragraphs (let me know if you disagree with my summary - and suggest your own if you think it's wrong), we find:

Intro paragraph: Heston thanks everyone and welcomes them from coming.
Moore clip: "Thank you all for coming and thank you for supporting your organization."

(cut to protests)

Second and third paragraphs: We've toned down our activities, but we have a right to be here - it's proper
Moore clip: "I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today."

(cut to protests)

Fourth and fifth paragraphs: The mayor doesn't want us to be here, but it's a free country.
Moore's clips: "I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor" and "This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." (no protest clip in between, but it is incredibly obvious that no meaning was cut out - that is what Heston said, just made shorter; he just cut Heston going on about his military service to the mayor).

(cut to protest)

Remaining paragraphs: The media is making the spectacle, not us. Besides, it's not our fault. Don't come here? We live here. NRA members are everywhere
Moore clip: "Don't come here? We're already here."

Every day, every channel of the news media shortens and summarizes speeches - and they're not so kind to cut between shots of the speech and another scene, to make it obvious when they're doing that. What Moore did was actually quite an impressive job at keeping everything that Heston said, while cutting the speeech to 1/20th of its size.

Re:questions have been raised

[derubergeek]

??? What are you talking about? Moore provides the following: http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/02/ cnn.report/cnn.pdf

The quote I had in the post you responded to was taken directly from the link you provided. Perhaps you should actually read it rather than letting Mr. Moore hand feed you the tidbits he wants you to chew on.

Re:questions have been raised

[Matt Clare]

Fahrenheit 9/11 begins on election night 2000. We are first shown Al Gore rocking on stage with famous musicians and a high-spirited crowd. The conspicuous sign on stage reads "Florida Victory." Moore creates the impression that Gore was celebrating his victory in Florida. Moore's voiceover claims, "And little Stevie Wonder, he seemed so happy, like a miracle had taken place." The verb tense of past perfect ("had taken") furthers the impression that the election has been completed.

Good for Dave Kopel for offering all that info up - all sides need their say. My comment is are we disputting facts or symantics?

Re:questions have been raised

[fingusernames]

What the Supreme Court ruled is, ahem, nuanced. Yet, clear.

To wit:

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida has the power to review the acts of the legislature of the state when those acts are an exercise of a power granted by the people of Florida via the Florida constitution.

However, the United States Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress ..." The Supremes ruled that such power exercised via an explicit grant of authority in the United States Constitution is not reviewable by a state supreme court. Hence, the Florida Supreme Court had no power to intervene in determining the manner in which Florida assigns Electors: the authority was not grounded in the Florida constitution, but rather the United States constitution. That power is clearly granted solely to the Legislature, and given the source of the authority, it is directly reviewable by the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decision, while unquestionably controversial, was correct. This power of regulating federal elections was allocated solely to the elected state legislature, and is a federal, not state, matter when it comes to review.

Larry

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

Unfortunately, it's also possible to draw conclusions from innocent statements that make them seem sinister -that's called politics or spin, just going the other way, and that's what's happening here.

I don't think Moore was trying to mislead. I've seen the film.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

You just quoted the constitution which completely backs up what Florida was doing - *THE STATE* makes the laws about how the elections are conducted, and the ultimate arbiter of *FLORIDA LAW* is the Florida Supreme court (the US supreme court can only decide if a florida law violates the US constitution).

Actually, you're quite wrong about this technical point. It is not the Florida Supreme Court's status as arbiter of Florida Law that is relevant here.

The Florida Supreme Court's Nov. 21 decision (the one after the vote certification, which permitted counties to perform further recounts) was indeed based on the Florida Supreme Court's authority as an interpreter of Florida's law, including the Florida State Constitution.

But the US Supreme Court subsequently vacated this decision in a unanimous and unsigned ruling, and asked the Florida Supreme Court to consider the case again... this time without using the Florida Consititution in its decision.

Most acts of a state's legislature are done with authority granted by the people of that state. Thus the State Constitution, which is the document that describes this grant of authority, has supremacy over those acts of the legislature. (And in some cases, the US Constitution may in turn override the conditions of a State Constitution, because the States have consented to join the US under the US Constitution's terms.)

But Presidential elections are different. Under the US Constitution, it is the United States that directly grants to the various state legislatures the authority to determine the rules by which Presidential electors are chosen. Although the rules are laid out by state legislatures, it is a federal authority that they are exercising.

Thus, the requirements of a state's constitution are not pertinent, unless made so by the US Congress. And furthermore, absent some explcit grant of authority from the US Congress, it is not clear that any courts established by a state constitution (including Florida's Supreme Court) have any competency whatsoever to decide what is actually a matter of federal jurisprudence, though it be enacted by a state legislature.

In any case, when the Florida Supreme Court revisited the case at the request of the US Supreme Court, their interpretation of the Florida election rules was based by federal law and the US Constitution.

Re:questions have been raised

[GreyPoopon]

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'.

Perhaps, but unlike you I consider the deceptive practice of providing only the 'facts' that you want known without the very important related 'facts' that you don't want to be known to be every bit as much of a lie as intentionally providing incorrect information. And yes, because of this position I consider both sides of the argument to be full of lies.

Re:questions have been raised

[rpdillon]

Since so many people wish to argue "facts", this article does a fairly good job of it.

David Kopel's Article

Sure, MM presented some facts, but the overall impression was not simply misleading, it was outright propoganda. To dignify this work as a "documentary" is outrageous.

I am neither left nor right, Democrat nor Republican, but I think people should have some sense of dignity when they make a film. They should be responsible and not willfully mislead people. This isn't always possible, but we can do better than Fahrenheit 9/11.

Re:questions have been raised

[Bill Hayden]

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

That would be because, at the time, Florida inexplicably had no checkbox on the felon ethnicity form for "hispanic". This has been widely reported and re-reported here in Florida since the new felon list came out a couple months ago. There were probably thousands of hispanics, but they were not listed as such. Perhaps the 50 were the ones who bothered to fill in the blank next to "Other".

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s.:

Just to drive the point home,

Since the Florida Supreme Court's decision ended up depending on the US Constitution (after receiving the aforementioned spanking from the US Supreme Court), it was clearly permissible for the US Supreme Court to overrule this decision using the equal protection clause, since it is generally acknowledged that the US Supreme Court gets final say in interpreting the US Constitution.

Re:questions have been raised

[avdp]

factual, yes, objective, not really. All documentaries have a story to tell and will present facts to illustrate their points. News are supposed to be factual AND objective, not documentaries.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

> This is simply not true. Florida law simply states that if they have marked their ballot twice for candidates in a race, that ballot cannot be counted for that race.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Under Florida law, a ballot with a mark by the candidate's name and a name written on the ballot (what we're dealing with here) is an overvote only if the person written in is a "qualified write-in candidate", as defined in Florida Administrative Code. A candidate listed on the ballot cannot be a "qualified write-in cancidate" for the same office (see Florida statutes 99.061 (4)(b)

"Any person who is seeking election as a write-in candidate shall not be required to pay a filing fee, election assessment, or party assessment. A write-in candidate shall not be entitled to have his or her name printed on any ballot; however, space for the write-in candidate's name to be written in shall be provided on the general election ballot. No person may qualify as a write-in candidate if the person has also otherwise qualified for nomination or election to such office."

Got it? Good. I hope I've cleared that up for you.

> Another example of the author's bias is when he accuses Governor Bush of "[bending] the rules on absentee ballots to allow improperly marked absentee ballots to be counted." This is a clear reference to the issue of the lack of postmarks on absentee ballots from military personnel. The fact is that federal law doesn't require mail sent through APOs to be postmarked and Florida has absolutely no right to impose such a requirement on the federal government.

Wow, you sure seem to hate that section of the constitution that you quoted earlier:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Florida has *every right* to impose *whatever restrictions it wants* on the method of voting. By your logic, felon purge lists wouldn't be allowed, either, because they're not federally mandated.

> In 2000, the democrats were attempting to throw out absentee ballots without postmarks that had been received and locked away in county election commissions' safes before election day!!

Imagine, trying to follow rules and regulations to the letter in order to help your candidate - no Republican would ever do that....

http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~mhl/where/me-katherine -h arris.jpg

> Actually it does no such thing. Read it again, especially the bold type where Congress has the power to pass laws that override the states' laws in this manner ... Which It Did Not Do.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

> It was a federal election law that the Florida courts were violating, a federal law that Congress had every right to pass.

What law are you referring to? The Supreme Court didn't refer to a federal election law, they referred to equal protection.

> Actually I am familiar with the decision and that is not what it said. In fact it says the following:

The supreme court decided that *one justice*'s remedy is contrary to Florida law. The decision itself was based on equal protection. You really need to read up on Bush v Gore.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.Z PC .html

I'm not confusing anything (now could I since I am not a DemocRAT?). The 7-2 decision was for the granting of the stay that stopped the recount initiated by the FLSC.A

No, No, No. The 7-2 was per curiam. I already explained what per curiam is - do I need to do so again?

> Not true! In the granting of the stay...
> the issue of the irreputable harm

The issue of irreputable harm was used as the grounds for the immediacy (needed for issuing a stay of a ruling). However, it was not the basis of the ruling itself. You really need to read the opinion of the court - I linked it.

Try again.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

And who has the authority to interpret the laws created by the legislature?

Ahem.

Yes, that's right.

Re:questions have been raised

[rpdillon]

Not really.

The best way to find out if his implications are warrented is to compare them to WHAT HAPPENED.

Moore *has* to imply these things to maintain the "integrity" of the film. If he outright lies, then people can't make the argument "Well, everything he said was true." That argument takes so many people in, when it fundamentally false.

Implications are all Moore has, and you have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker. He wants folks like you to look at the facts *he" presents and draw *his* conclusions. In fact what you should be doing is looking at *all* the facts and deciding for yourself.

I hope this doesn't require me to clarify that *all* the facts are not found in Fahrenheit 9/11. Do some research, then form an opinion.

Re:questions have been raised

[Rei]

Yes, but the constitution is quite clear on the issue that it grants the rights to the state. Even though they are relying on federal law, that federal law passes all authority to the state. Your argument only validates the right to appeal the case to the supreme court.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

if i say there are wmd in iraq and i know it isn't true, that is also deception...

Re:questions have been raised

[Procrastin8er]

If there was a "legitimate" challenge to the Florida results, the Dems, along with the main stream liberal media, would have been screaming bloody murder the second it was discovered. Even NYT's, after six months of "digging" couldn't find any credible evidence.

Re:questions have been raised

[nine-times]

Fortunately, there is such a thing as correctness in everything. Unfortunately, there are typically multiple correct solutions. People, like lemmings, typically blindly subscribe to one solution or another without really looking at all of them, or looking for their own.

I think this is the sort of mentality that he was objecting to? "Geeks and kids", in the posters words (though I think it extends beyond this), make the mistake of thinking that there are "correct" solutions. They think that problems only arise when people are too stupid to think things through, and choose an "incorrect" solution.

Fortunately or unfortunately, that's not the way things are. Solving one problem always makes other problems. Choices always have negative and positive ramifications, sometimes predicable, sometimes not. Some choices may be better or worse, wise or foolish, smart or stupid, but choices are rarely "correct". "Correct" choices are pretty much limited to grade-school multiple-choice tests.

I think the reason the poster chose "geeks and kids" is that this is a lesson that might not seem to make sense until you live a little. Kids haven't lived long enough to have enough experience to figure it out, and geeks are too busy locked in their basement dealing with computer logic to know what life is. However, it's a pretty broad mistake that people make- to think that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. It's just not true.

Re:questions have been raised

[killjoe]

The way I see it if those swift boat veterans can air complete and utter lies to smear a candidate so can Michael Moore.

Re:questions have been raised

[Damek]

As a progressive, I agree - Michael Moore is a deceptive, roundabout-lying-without-really-lying liar, and generally a slimy scumbag.

But at least he's not President of the United States. Just think of the damage someone like that would do in that position!

Oh, wait...

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

Just a simple question.

Please show me a few of the posts (you claim "a whole lot of posts," but I'll settle for two or three) that give you the "implication" that "Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves."

In particular, the parent post -- the very one you are replying too -- never makes this claim, or anything like it. Why didn't you respond to a post that actually gave you that implication?

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

Are you kidding me?

Did you see the film? Did you see Bush sitting there in the classroom? Did you hear him say that he's not really thinking about Osama?

The implications are obvious from the facts presented. There's no comparing the footage to what happened- the footage *is* what happened. The footage is the footage.

I drew my own conclusions, and I encourage you to do the same. Seeing this movie doesn't turn you into a communist zombie the way some conservatives seem to think it does. You're a grown up, see the film, do research and decide for yourself.

Re:questions have been raised

[networkBoy]

If they're not factual then why does the Kerry camp not shut them down in the legal arena. The press would have a field day and when Kerry won it would effectively undo all the negative PR. Since this has not happened I assume the ads are truthful enough that Kerry doesn't want to risk a legal battle.
my 2c on that part.
-nB

Re:questions have been raised

[SilkBD]

This anonymous coward has a point. I would add him as a friend if he wasn't a coward or anonymous.

Re:questions have been raised

[ppp]

The first TV announcement declaring Gore the winner in Florida was broadcast TEN MINUTES before the poles closed in the Florida panhandle region. If voter turnout actually was low there, I doubt that was the reason.

Re:questions have been raised

[killjoe]

The best way to shut up idiots like him to prove once and for all that idiocy does not work. What are YOU going to do to make sure Bush does not get re-elected.

"all it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing".

If you don't agree with the idiots it's time to get off your ass and do something. At the very least fo find somebody who hasn't voted before and take them out for beers and convince them to vote for kerry. Then drive over there and pick them up so they have a ride to the polling place. If each one of us did that Bush would lose by a landslide. We can't just sit around waiting for the shit to hit the fan.

BTW I don't much like Kerry but nothing could be worse then Bush. I am embarrased for our nation whenever he speaks. We deserve better.

Re:questions have been raised

[Bombcar]

[I]f it was not for the electoral college this country would NEVER have a republican president.

Yup. Because we know for a fact that either Ronald Regan was a Democrat or 60% of the popular vote wouldn't matter.....

From Wikipedia:

In 1984, [Ronald Regan] was re-elected in a landslide over Carter's Vice President Walter Mondale, winning in 49 of 50 states and receiving nearly 60 percent of the popular vote.

Also, how do you explain Jeb Bush winning by a 13% margin in 2002?

Re:questions have been raised

[mikestro]

Let's See, in this case? The US Supreme Court.

Ahem.

Yes, that's right.

Re:questions have been raised

[Slime-dogg]

That's amazing. I have lived quite a bit. I wouldn't put myself into the "geeky" or "kiddie" category.

I also never said that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. I do not have the ability to control other people's choices, which may or may not affect me negatively.

I also was not commenting on the negative/positive ramifications of choices. If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.

Perhaps it's the need to be contrary that fuels your fire. Things are fortunate and unfortunate. That's how it will always be. There is a right and a wrong, there is a correct and incorrect. There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

1. They "lap it up?" I don't understand. I hear constantly about how the Administration has this country whipped up into a patriotic, war-worshipping fever. And yet this same electorate "laps it up" when Bush attacks war veterans? I don't get it.

2. Why is it that Americans (as Karl Rove figured out) "lap up" Bush's bashing of war veterans? What is it about it that appeals to them? And on the other hand, you are obviously not "lapping it up." Why not? How is it that the Bush administration managed to make this veteran-bashing so appealing to everyone else, but not to you? Are you immune to their charm? Or just smarter than most other people?

3. Now, about veteran's benefits. Could you please read this: http://66.216.126.164/lowry/lowry200312180910.asp

and get back to me? I'd be curious to know what you think.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[Threni]

> I suppose you could argue that simply claiming that Michael Moore was not
> engaging in deception doesn't imply that you think that Michael Moore is now a
> credible source of information,

I'm simply claiming that by Michael Moore did not engage in deception in this instance. A 800 number is not a 801 number, nor is it a 802 number, etc. Just because you've decided a collection of numbers together for whatever reason or purpose does not make them the same number.

Re:questions have been raised

[killjoe]

If it was so correct why did the supreme court specifially state that it could never be used as a precedent and they reserve the right to rule the opposite way if another case comes their way?

My guess is that they reserve the right to elect a republican no matter what the law says.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm against Bush because he isn't bright enough to be President. So I guess I'm an idiot.

Re:questions have been raised

[ArsonSmith]

everything except these:

1. The Gore victory rally isnt celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls had even opened.

2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

4. Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.

5. Bushs Presidency before 9/11 was not in serious trouble. No commentator said that he looked like a lame-duck president. Congress had passed his #1 bill (the tax cut) and was on the way to passing his #2 bill (the education bill). The scene at the end of the movie in which Bush tells a rich audience I call you my base, was from an October 2000 charity fund-raiser. Both Gore and Bush spoke at the fund-raiser and, as is the custom at the fund-raiser, made fun of themselves.

6. In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, forty-two percent of the time. As the Washington Post reported, the figure includes weekends, and includes time in vacation locations such as Camp David, where Bush was workingas when he met with Tony Blair.

7. In the golf course scene (about the middle of the movie), Bush had just heard about a terrorist attack on Israel. He called the press together to make a quick statement condemning the terrorism against Israel. He was not speaking about attacks on the United States.

8. There is no evidence that Bush did not read the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing about al Qaeda.

9. He never claimed that the titles vagueness was an excuse for not reading it.

10. The Briefing did not say said that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes. It said that the FBI has not been able to corroborate such a threat.

11. The Saudis left the U.S. only after air travel was opened for the general public.

12. According to Richard Clarke and the September 11 Commission, Clarke personally approved the Saudi departures, and the decision went no higher in the chain of command.

13. Moore lied to a TV reporter in claiming that Fahrenheit discloses Clarkes decision to the audience. Clarke called the Saudi exit material in Fahrenheit a mistake by Moore.

14. Contrary to what Fahrenheit claims, the September 11 Commission found that many Saudis were asked detailed questions before being allowed to leave.

15. James Bath did not invest bin Laden family money in Bushs energy company Arbusto. He invested his own money.

16. Baths name was blacked-out from an Alabama National Guard record released by the White Houseas required by federal law, which prohibits the disclosure of health-related personal information.

17. Prince Bandar has way too much influence on the U.S. government, as Fahrenheit shows, but American coddling of the Saudi tyranny is a long-standing bi-partisan tradition, not
a Bush invention.

18. Harken Energy: Bush only sold the stock after company lawyers told him it was OK.

19. The reason that Bush beat the rap was because there was no evidence he had engaged in insider trading.

20. The Carlyle Group is not a Bush playground. Many Bush opponents are investors, including George Soros.

21. The Bush administration dealt Carlyle a huge financial blow by canceling the Crusader missile, one of the few weapons cancellations in the Bush administration.

22. The bin Ladens dropped out of Carlyle before the stock sale. Of the 1.4 billion that the Saudis invested in companies with Bush connections, the vast majority of the money was invested in Carlyle before George H.W. Bush joined the firm.

23. Craig Un

Re:questions have been raised

[Tiroth]

Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you.

It seems clear and concise to me. You can infer a lot more, but I think the statement is ipso facto pretty interesting.

In court, this type of argument would be tossed out. It's nothing. There is no substance provided, instead, insuiations are drawn and the viewer/reader left to conjure about what might have happened.

I think you are getting all lathered up over nothing. This isn't a court of law. No one is being accused of a crime. The usual standard is whethere there exists "the appearance of impropriety". I think it is clear to the unbiased reader that there is at least the possibility that Katherine Harris' actions could meet that standard. Since you are given the relevant sources, the reader can make up their mind.

Re:questions have been raised

[killjoe]

" but I think it's sleezy on Moore's part to imply it was an intentional act on the part of Bush to win the election."

Why? Cos the republicans are too ethical to try and surpress voting by african americans?.

IF they can call in death threats to stop vote counting they can erase voters of the lists.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

Sure, oh erudite one -- if both authors were clearly raving lunatics.

But in this case, I don't think *either* of them are lunatics. Moore is pretty obviously a master propagandist: He believes a little "fudging" of the truth is acceptable in pursuit of what he believes to be proper ends. That doesn't make him a lunatic, though. As for Kopel, frankly, I can't find anything "lunatic" about him or his site at all. He is a respected writer and scholar mainly known for his expertise on second amendment issues.

I mean, I share Kopel's belief that Moore's fudging and misleading are despicable. But surely that alone doesn't qualify us as lunatics?

Respectfully,

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[maxpublic]

Problem is that people like you get hung up on the small points

You mean like people deliberately lying to me? Yeah, I guess I'm old-fashioned that way. Color me crazy, but when I know you're a liar I have a pretty hard time trusting the veracity of what comes out of your mouth.

but for many people giving out one free gun is one too many.

Well, now ain't that something! "Many people", in this case, represents a tiny but annoyingly vocal segment of the American population. The vast majority has no desire whatsoever to ban gun ownership, and would never consider repealing the Second Amendment.

In fact, it appears that the anti-gun lobby is losing ground since the number of Americans in favor of an outright ban in firearms is lower now than it's been any time during the last twenty years, and more Americans go armed today since the immediate post-World War II period.

Gun ownership is not fascism, by the way. To imply such a thing is to mark yourself as a loon.

Max

Re:questions have been raised

[phantomfive]

2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING.

I strongly agree with this, but with one small quibble: if you find out your principles are wrong, you should change them.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I was under the impression it was all lies since verything else he's done was all lies

Re:questions have been raised

[lscotte]

Parent is not a troll at all. You really think there is no political motivation behind Michael Moore? Then you truly are an idiot.

Re:questions have been raised

[TechniMyoko]

it's tantamount to lying in your biography, it's an error that changes the meaning I just did it to you, harmless you say?

Re:questions have been raised

[node 3]

You have entirely missed the point of calling Bush out on his abortion, alcoholism, coke habit, etc.

The reason is that he oppresses people who have had these very problems. The right has abortions (Bush), gets divorced (Limbaugh), has affairs (Gingrich), does drugs (Bush), etc. But the right likes to claim these things are only done by evil people. The left believes that view to be wrong and points out the hypocrisy in order to make the case that the evil is not in doing those things but in oppressing, as opposed to helping, those so afflicted.

The right is in the position of the privileged class. They can do with impunity the very things that they throw the poor in jail for. That is evil and that is why the left is so loud about such issues.

Re:questions have been raised

[atrizzah]

Amen to that!

Re:questions have been raised

[Procrastin8er]

Sure he got answers, they just happen to be all wrong.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

While I don't support Bush, that's an example of Moore misleading. The reference was to terrorists in Israel, not Iraq.

Re:questions have been raised

[nickjl]

What do you expect him to do, go and prop the towers back up? It seems to me that either he was shocked speechless, just like most people would have been.

Re:questions have been raised

[TamMan2000]

1,2.
If Bush was bashing all war veterans it certainly wouldn't work out too well for him...

They are saying that a couple of specific war veterans are off their rocker from 5 years in a camp, and can't be trusted as commander in chief, or lied about their patriotism in times of war (without much evidence).

as for why it isn't getting me, I am not alone, there are a lot of us who see through it, I don't claim to know why more of us don't see through it.

3. So things may not be as bad as I was led to believe... I would like to know what the cut off income is though...

Re:questions have been raised

[WD_40]

Are you able to supply any sources to back up your claim that,

"About a decade ago, the Republicans decided that they would do whatever it took to win (dirty or otherwise)"?

I suspect not.

Re:questions have been raised

[say]

Neutral Point of View is an important idea. It means presenting ideas, facts, and opinions without making a judgement to which one is correct or incorrect. It means that the writer or speaker must present all views fairly.

My point is not being "there is no theoretical neutral point of view", only "who is going to decide on what is?". Your theories are probably fun to discuss, but this is not about theories. It is about how you in practice make people take a neutral point of view. And no, I don't think that would be possible in describing a war. If you think it is possible, may I please get your neutral viewpoint on the ongoing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H finished war in Iraq.

What you are suggesting is that there is no objective truth.

Jeez. I am saying that a political system should not consider something true and something not true, because that interferes with freedom of speech (you are free to say anything, as long as our courts believe it to be true).

In politics, we should not allow or disallow anyone because they disagree with established truths. They just might be false. Like whether the world is flat or round.

I do not personally believe that there are no true and false statements in the world. I merely believe that in politics, we have no adequate way of defining true and false. Therefore, we should not rely upon it.

>You have no way to know whether someone else's interpretation is better than your own.

That's right. Which is why we should in fact just flip a coin between candidates, because in the end, no one's interpretation of one set of results is better than anyone eles's.

Idiot. You are doing exactly what Michael Moore is accused of, misquoting me. I have never said that no things are better than others. I said you should not, in a system, qualify or disqualify an opinion because any other system or person believes it to be true or not true. But the beauty of democracy is that you vote for the reasoning you believe is most likely to be correct.

But personally or in a political system, you have no way to test wether an interpretation of facts are more correct than others, only which one is more probable.

Example: If A tells me lower taxes will make things better for the poor because more businesses means more jobs means more paychecks means less poverty, while B tells me higher taxes will make things better for the poor because higher taxes means more money to spend on the poor, you would be quite famous when you finally find the truth there.

When Michael Moore says in his documentary that Bush and the bin Laden family has tight connections and that is because of economic advantages Bush gets from that, and that maybe this war is all about control over oil, that is also a possible interpretation of the facts we know.

Re:questions have been raised

[sg3000]

> more votes had been cast for Gore than for Bush

Not to mention the fact that Jeb Bush worked to have thousands of African Americans purged from the voter rolls prior the election by misclassifying them as felons. As reported in the New York Times, he's tried to do it again in 2004 and then tried to keep the voter rolls secret.

Re:questions have been raised

[ioslipstream]

The votes were machine rejected. That means they did not count.

How difficult of a concept is that to understand?

Error prone or not, the votes were rejected, and Florida law would not allow those votes to be counted.

Are you suggesting the "error prone" voting machines suddenly developed a republican biased AI? Sweet... somebody call Marvin Mintsky, he can stop his research now, those Floridians beat him to it.

Re:questions have been raised

[jomama717]

Anything would have been better than nothing. He's the President - he is accountable for the security of the country. If your house caught fire what would you do?

Re:questions have been raised

[jez9999]

what was shown in that movie should be enough to get bush nailed to the cross

But mightn't that make him some kind of a... martyr? :-)

</tasteless>

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

So that somehow makes it ok? Just because one person does it does not make it a reasonable thing to do.

Re:questions have been raised

[adisakp]

Before everyone starts flaming, everything in the documentary was 'facts'. Now, the way he presented them was his own spin on the 'truth'. You need to take it with a grain of salt.

You could kinda say the same thing about the 'facts' about WMD's and Iraq-9/11 links that ultimately led to the justification of war in IRAQ.

Re:questions have been raised

[zoombat]

This is a nice succinct summary of the issues, however it would be more convincing with links to evidence. For example I found the discussion about the 800 vs 877 toll free number (#38) pretty convincing that the number was only created after F911 came out..

Re:questions have been raised

[sg3000]

> "Presumption of Relevance,"

Oh, you mean like when yesterday, it was reported that the 1,000 U.S. soldier was killed in action, and the official response from the Bush administration was, "We are also thinking about all the victims of 9/11", which in truth was a non sequitur, but it was an attempt to get people to think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks (to justify the war), even though there's no reason to believe it was true. Somehow it would be poetic justice if the Bush administration fell because of presumption of relevance.

Not that I think Moore is guilty of this; I saw F9/11 and I've read the criticisms, and it seems to me that the bulk of the complaints are that Moore is trying to make the viewer draw the wrong conclusion. But the fact is, Moore is presenting the facts, and a reasonable person would draw the right conclusion.

Re:questions have been raised

[hexix]

Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues. And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?

And you know that these people have substance abuse problems? How did you find this information out? You state it as a fact, so I'd be curious to know more about this fact.

I didn't read your entire post cause you lost me at that point, but I think I got the idea of it. If anyone is claiming Bush had an abortion (first I've heard of it) I'd think it's more based on the fact that this man who tries to put everything in terms of right and wrong, honorable or not honorable, faithful and non-faithful, doesn't fit so perfectly in to these rigid categories, and really nobody does.

So the way I see it, it is more of a message to the far right to get off their high horse, cause nobody is perfect.

But I'm probably giving too much faith in people, and it's probably just a cheap tactic to lure votes away from Bush. Nonetheless, if Bush is going to make this strong stances to please the evangelical right, then why is it too much to ask that he hold himself to them as well?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Does any one else find annoyed spetics really funny?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Description on how Moore made two speeches into what the viewer will think is one: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine /scenes/hestonrally1.htm

Re:questions have been raised

[Neward Rylet]

Well I admire him for being a modest, humble, truthful, and forgiving person with a strong and stoic charecter.

Re:questions have been raised

[hexix]

I think you better admit defeat here. An "800 number" is pretty much slang for any toll-free number. Apparently an 877 number still qualifies as a toll-free number. So, uhhh, yeah.

I'm sick of Bush and probably fall in the category of liberal, but you must admit when Moore just flat out deceives. The movie has good points, it's too bad Moore had to use such cruddy tactics to sensationalize it. I believe the message could have been much better if it seriously tackled the problems with the bush administration, instead of just painting a huge weak target on all "liberals."

Re:questions have been raised

[biggerboy]

1) If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. ...

Sorry -- are you in the news media or are you just guessing that this might possibly be the case? What kind of proof do you have or is this simply conjecture?

2) Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans...

Because, um, they were felons? Race had nothing to do with that list and Michael Moore knows it. That as much BS as I've ever seen.

3) In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won...

But that isn't the case that the Gore supporters cite -- The U of C study is a red herring. The fact that REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DID, the fact is that Gore would have lost the recount.

Period.

4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months -- That is completely true.

From what source? Hey, have you heard of telecommuting? Or are you stuck at your era-1970 biases?

The ranch at Crawford has the uber setup (video conference, hotlines to everyone, etc.) that would put any geek slashdot telecommute cable/dsl modem setup to shame.

4b) Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)

See above.

5) Regarding the briefing.

Uh, have you read the briefing or are you just reading other's interpretation of it? The fact is that the briefing HAD NO SPECIFIC THREATS LISTED IN IT. So, whether or not the white house had read the brief is SIMPLY IRRELEVANT.

1) Implying that Fox....

If one news station calls an election, the others follow that call. Call them lemmings, but no news station wants to be the last to call an election. I was watching CNN at the time, and was watching the florida count numbers coming in, was aware that it was incredibly obvious that Gore could still carry the state (and not even that difficult), and then had my jaw drop when I heard them say something to the effect of... "wait, we're getting the news that Florida has been called for Bush..."

2) Implying that a member of the Bush admin hired a company to turn away African American voters at the polls.

Please, then - offer your explanation of why the "Felon Purge List" had over 20,000 African Americans, but less than 50 hispanics (I assume you're talking about Database Technologies and the purge list).

3) Implying that Gore won the election no matter what.

In the method that the State supreme court had ordered, Gore indeed would have won, based on a University of Chicago study. The only case Bush would have won was the one Gore requested, or no recount - but that was not what the State supreme court ordered.

4a) Implying that Bush vacationed 42 percent of the time in his first six months

That is completely true.

4b) With the implication that Bush can't do work away from the White House.

Of course he *can* do work. And I'm sure he's so much more effective without all those "relevant people" around him. Crawford, Texas, is so much more accessable for meetings than DC. I'm sure all of the brush-cutting photos, horseback riding, and talk about having fun was just a media ploy. (/sarcasm)

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

5) Implying that Bush didn't read the briefing ...

A) Tenet couldn't have given oral testimony about the PDB, as was implied, because A) Tenet was not in Texas that day, and B) Tenet testified that he did not speak to Bush during all of August: http://sl

Re:questions have been raised

[Myopic]

No that's not true. F451 might be like the Rodney King video, but the "misleading" part is not that the officers don't beat up negros every night, rather that the media never showed the parts of that video where Rodney lunged at and tried to attack the officers. By only showing the part where twenty white officers kicked a downed black man, the media took away the context of the beating. Now, most people would nevertheless say that beating a man senseless is not the appropriate response to a suspect hitting an officer, but that is the context of the entire event, and context is important.

Likewise, Mr. Moore may show you some detail of Bush's presidency, but by leaving out the context he robs you of the ability to make an informed judgement. Actually, Moore often does even worse by not only removing the original context, but by implying a totally different, often contradictory context.

It comes down to this: context is everything. Without context, it's next to impossible to apply critical thought.

Re:questions have been raised

[Kent Simon]

That was my post w/ the geographic map. I couldn't log in for some reason..

My only point is this. People often diminish the importance of these other states. Especially those from New York and California. I often get the impression more that Californians (especially) think less about people from rural areas.

that map shows 20 states voted for gore and 30 voted for Bush. But people sometiems forget a great chunk of our population lives in NewYork and California.

If you do some research into how the electoral college works, it is precisely to protect these smaller populated rural states. A strictly popular vote could potentially be hazardous to the longevity and more specifically the wealth of these states.

Anyways, even disregarding that, people seem to act like this is the only incident where this has happened. Which is completely not true

FOUR PRESIDENTS won the presidency but lost the popular vote: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford G. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

Re:questions have been raised

[nine-times]

I also never said that if you do nothing wrong, nothing bad will ever happen to you. I do not have the ability to control other people's choices, which may or may not affect me negatively.

And if everyone chose "correctly"? Then what? What would that even look like, do you think?

If you have kids, you'll know that it's better to let a child fall over a couple of times while learning to walk than to prevent them from walking at all. That is an example of a best-choice, which I dub "correct," which does cause pain.

How are you so sure? Have you ever prevented one of your children from learning to walk? Do you think you could- or maybe he'd learn to walk anyhow? Or let's get less hypothetical- there must have been times where you caught your child, and there must have been times that you've let him fall. Were each of these individual choices "correct"? If you say yes, I'm going to be very confused on how you can be sure for any given fall. Your kids aren't teenagers yet, are they?

There are shades, but there is always a "most correct," and sometimes there are a couple of them.

Well, then. What is the "most correct" college for me to go to? What's the "correct" job? Is it "correct" to get married? Who is the "correct" woman for me to marry? If she's dating someone else, is it more or less "correct" to try to woo her anyway? What if he's all wrong for her? What if some people think I'm all wrong for her? Could that be "correct"?

What is the "correct" age for me to get married? To start having kids? And their "correct" names? What is the "correct" question for me to ask you right now? Is it "correct" for me to be responding to you at all?

It's just, well, since I have an expert here, I figured I'd ask as many question as I can. What's the correct car for me to buy? What's the correct color? And the correct music to listen to? I have 5 CDs; which is the "correct" one to listen to today? What is the most correct place to buy my clothes? Pens, pencils, paper... what are the correct brands? Is it more correct to sleep on my back or my stomach? How much correct information do I need before I can make the most correct correct decision? If I think I've done the correct thing, and you think I haven't, who's correct?

Or do you think it possible that a lot of these decisions don't have correct answers? Sometimes it's not just what you do, but how you do it. Sometimes there isn't a correct way to do it- each of us must do it our own way.

Imagine yourself in a room with an infinite number of closed doors, and beyond each, a mystery. Each door has signs on it, but but signs that no mortal man can read fully. Behind each door, perhaps lies another room with an infinite number of closed doors- or perhaps nothing at all. Each room is different, but each is just another room, no more right than the others- can a room be more "right" than the other rooms, after all?

But perhaps some rooms make you happier. Perhaps your happy rooms make me sad. Which rooms you like best will even change as you go. Perhaps there are multiple paths to any given room, but perhaps not, and you'll never know, because you aren't permitted to backtrack, and you're not permitted to peek. Only one thing is certain, and that is, at every moment, you must step through a door, leaving one room, entering another.

Right now, right this moment, you are about to pass through a door, and you hardly have the full moment to decide which one- you certainly can't examine them all. Tell me quickly, which door is "correct"?

Re:questions have been raised

[Zeinfeld]

Speaking as a person who usually votes "left" Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.

Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the left, he is sloppy and his politics are often infantile - he was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush.

If you want good journalism then don't go to Rush Limbaugh, Commander Taco or Michael Moore, they all have their axes to grind. Don't go to Fox News, best still avoid the US "news" altogether, try the UK press, the Economist, Guardian, Times, BBC, Independent, Financial Times will all give a much better view of US politics than pretty much any US journalism.

Moore is simply giving the right a taste of what Fox News has done for years and to a far lesser degree.

Moore is not good journalism, he is not even particularly great as a propagandist, but he does not practice the absolutely deliberate distortions that Fox, Limbaugh, Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, etc. peddle.

Sure it would be good if US citizens actually learned to think for themselves. Since they refuse to people lime Limbaugh, Moore and Murdoch will do their thinking for them.

That is why Bush is at arround 50% in the polls instead of 15% which isw where you would expect a President whose economic plan is an utter failure, who has increased federal govt. spending more than either Carter or Clinton, who has lost millions of jobs, has stopped trying to catch Bin Laden and has instead started a $200 billion plus 1000 dead war of choice.

Bush is not a conservative, he is a complete incompetent.

Re:questions have been raised

[hexix]

Woops, looks like there is more to this. According to this post the 877 number didn't exist until after the movie opened.

I do still feel the same way about the movie as a whole though, had good ideas but was presented in a way that's easy for Bush supporters to just dodge dealing with the questions raised in the film because it is so biased.

Re:questions have been raised

[Colazar]

Frankly, I think it takes a different kind of person to be a good Governer or President than it does to be a good Senator or Representative. One is about leadership (even against the majority) and one is about building concensus and compromise.

You know, you may be right, but if only 2 Senators have ever been elected President (and I don't know who they were, so I don't know if they were any good at either), how would we know? Maybe the things that make you a good legislator would make you an *outstanding* President, it's just that you can never get elected to the office.

Re:questions have been raised

[JebusIsLord]

okay, here we go again. WHAT ARE THE GAPING GODDAMN HOLES?? Please share them with me, as no one has even tried to as of yet. Once again you are attacking a straw man. Sky is green, grass is blue? Give me a break.

Re:questions have been raised

[antic]

Well said. He is also doing spectacular work of making the people of the USA look like apathetic dimwits for electing him and putting up with it.

He is embarrassing your country on the world stage.

Re:questions have been raised

[PsiPsiStar]

No it's not tantamount to lying in your biography

Bibliography, not biography.

Re:questions have been raised

[crizh]

I read 59 deceits and it seemed pretty convincing.

Right up until the point he said:

" His latest book, Dude, Where's My Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the terrorist murder of civilians in Israel."

That is an outright lie. A lie of such magnitude I have trouble keeping my last meal in my stomach. As for the links contained in that text, I find myself having a sudden desire to scrub my frontal lobes clean with a wire brush.

Rachel Corrie died trying to prevent Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian refugees in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions. Those homes had nothing to do with tunnels. They were inconvenient to the nearby Israeli settlers. Settlers who were in Palestine in direct contravention of the Geneva conventions.

'Terrorist support group'!?

People like him make me want to puke.

So unfortunately, despite a promising start where I really did start to feel like Michael Moore might be deceiving me, every single other word on Mr Kopel's website has been reclasified in my mind as almost certainly outright fiction.

Re:questions have been raised

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

The deceit in F9/11 has been covered very well, on David Kopel's site and on many other ones as well. See the "Presumption of Relevance" post for better phrasing than mine.

Re:questions have been raised

[EpsCylonB]

Again you seemed to have missed the point. I am going to level with you, I am from the UK so I am probably not very qualified to talk about gun ownership in the USA.

The issue is of what a gun is and how they are distributed.

In my view a gun is tool, one that is primarily designed to kill people. If you need a gun you should by it yourself specifically for a purpose.

A gun should not be used as an enticement, the idea behind the bank's scheme was that someone would see the free gun offer and be more likely to open an account. So they might not get the account if it wasn't for the gun.

While I don't neccesarily agree with the argument that guns should be publicy owned (in case the british invade again or whatever) I can respect it.

What I can't understand is the way americans treat guns as commercial properties. I recently finished reading Clintons autobiography and he talked about the opposition he faced from the NRA when trying to get assualt weapons banned from the public. The idea that anyone should need a machine gun in a civilised soceity is madness to me.

Re:questions have been raised

[disntrstd]

And considering Bush's record, why would you chose him over a deranged homeless lunatic?

Re:questions have been raised

[benna]

I'm a liberal. Lets get that out there from the start. I saw f911 and personally I didn't like it that much. Nothing I didn't already know. The Bush Bin Laden connection is way overstated. The connection was nothing any reasonable person should be concerned with (though I've heard the arguement that it was a stab at bush's connecting saddam with al quiada, and though it would be funny if this was true, it seems to me he was quite serious). What I will say however in support of the movie is its a brilliant propoganda film. He may flunk journalism class but he could teach a class on propoganda. Thats not to say most of the movie wasn't true. Its the way he presented it that was quite brilliant. I don't want to sound machiavelian but I think in this case the ends justify the means. Kerry is too nuanced in his posisions (not that he's a flip flopper mind you). The general population doesn't understand it and its easily exploited by the bush campaign. This movie is good for convincing people that see things as black and white that bush is a bad guy. Bush is so bad that I don't really care if the movie is 100% true. People pay to see it, its not the news, so in this case it pains me to say that I really am ok with it. Having said all that I think moore's other movies were real documenteries and not propoganda like f911 is. Its just for this election that moore made this movie.

Re:questions have been raised

[Free_Meson]

When doing "Documentaries," you are carrying a responsibility of presenting truth to the audience.

Truth has little if anything to do with nonfiction. If you believe you have access to some font of truth, please introduce me to whomever sold it to you. I think I can find him a job selling bridges and whatnot...

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down. He is linking to an editorial, not an actual article.

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

Indeed. I read too quickly. The point is the same- the error didn't change the meaning, and was therefore harmless.

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

You see, you changed the meaning to the exact opposite of what I said. That sort of error is to be considered harmful.

Re:questions have been raised

[rpdillon]

Of course I saw the film. I wouldn't waste your time and mine talking about it if I didn't.

So what he sat there? I've gotten into this discussion too many times...what do you want him to do? He was in Florida - his actions during those 7 minutes are not going to have *any* impact on the attacks. They will have impact on people's peerception, and the worst thing to do in an emergency is panic - and leaders' actions during crisis can determine whether people panic or handle the crisis smoothly and professionally. He stayed cool - and that's more than most people could do.

You are naive to say that "the footage *is* what happened." You certainly don't know what he was thinking, what intelligence he knew about, or what his plans were based on watching his face in that classroom. What we can see is what he did to take action after he did think. That footage tells just a few seconds of a 20 year story. If you think you know what happened just because you watched Fahrenheit 9/11, well, what can I say? I'm sorry for you. That's what Michael Moore wanted, and as I said before, you prove that there are people out there who will buy it.

Re:questions have been raised

[KarmaOverDogma]

That's an interesting idea, if it is, in fact proveable in this case to be true.

Show me, then, with more than one reputable source (aside from Micehal Moor'es website which has numerous citations rightly or wrongly stating that what he says is true) how Micheal Moore's politicodocumentary has more people than not disagreeing with him by virtue of an "interview" in an "editorial." I myself could write an editorial, and it looks like you just did the same.

One thing I do love about Micheal moore's politicodocumentary was all the debate it inspired. Probably he could have done it in a less flaming fashion, but the man has his passions and beliefs, just like you and I do.

.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you guys rewriting history? The media originally said Gore won Florida, and I initially assumed the election was over at that point.

Re:questions have been raised

[Agent__Smith]

"Oh he *implies* stuff... by speaking the truth. I see. He makes a bunch of true statements and leaves the viewer to draw conclusions based on... true evidence. What a tricky guy!"

Are you really that thick? I'll give you specifics of his implications... dating back. He is a very talented guy, who is even more talented at splicing tape.

I think back to the hatched job Moore did on Charlton Heston, wherein Moore spliced together parts of 3, count em 3 speeches putting up to 7 splices in a single supposed sentance. If your "FACTS" require assembling parts of 3 to 7 sentances to come up with one "FACT" then maybe its time to rethink your facts.

I also thought the below was worth a gander:

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/sau di flyaway.htm

"In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film" liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens says Moore "makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11". As Hitchens notes in a recent article, he too had a problem with this, but changed his position when the facts came out. So why didn't Moore? From Hitchens:

I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights.

Moore interviews former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke, who, as Newsmax noted, served as a principal source for Fahrenheit 9/11. However, Clarke has gone on record saying that the central premise of Moore's film is "a mistake." From Newsmax:

In an interview with the Associated Press, Clarke took issue with Moore's criticism that President Bush allowed prominent Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to fly out of the U.S. in the days after the 9/11 attacks.

Saying Moore's version of the episode has provoked "a tempest in a tea pot," Clarke called his decision to make the bin Laden family flyout a big part of the film's indictment against Bush "a mistake."

Note the word "HIS". Not president Bush's decision...Richard Clarke's (a published Bush critic) decision. Once again, Moore's own source proves him wrong.

"After 9/11, I think the Saudis were perfectly justified ... in fearing the possibility of vigilantism against Saudis in this country. When they asked to evacuate their citizens ... I thought it was a perfectly normal request," he explained.

In May, Clarke confessed that he, and he alone made the decision to approve the flyouts.

A desperate Moore-fan has to really scramble over this one yet again to find some excuse for Moore to somehow not be lying here. But Clarke leave no room for honest mistake here.

"It didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill newspaper. "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."

STILL want to give Moore a free pass for missing Clarke's confession in May and still brush this off as an honest mistake that Moore spends a large chunk of time on in his movie? Not a smart move if you want to keep from looking foolish.

Clarke told the 9/11 Commission the same thing in March, after first detailing the episode for Vanity Fair magazine last August - leaving plenty of time for Moore to adjust his film to the facts as recounted by his primary source.

And back to Hitches:

This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that--as you might expect--Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin La

Re:questions have been raised

[Zeinfeld]

Well said. He is also doing spectacular work of making the people of the USA look like apathetic dimwits for electing him and putting up with it. He is embarrassing your country on the world stage.

As a point of fact he isn't embarrasing my country. We have that Tony Blair chap.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't mentioning that the machines had a setting in which they would reject an overvote on the spot and allow the voter to try again with a new ballot, up to a total of 3 ballots. (Overvote = voting for a candidate and also writing in their name).

In most of the primarily Black counties that used this machine, this setting was turned off, in most other counties using this machine, this setting was turned on and the percentage of overvotes was much lower.

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

The sitting there was obviously important to most of the people who saw the film, even if it wasn't to you- you even admit that it's important to all the people you've discussed it with.

Those 7 minutes could have been the time it took for an order to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon. He should have said goodbye quickly and politely to the kids and then gotten on the phone to assess the situation and delegate responsibilities. That's what leaders do. He didn't stay cool- he stayed paralyzed. But we couldn't even have this discussion if people didn't see the footage.

20 Year story? If it's historical context you want, don't you think we ought to go back to 1948? Although I admit, Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam in the early 80's and our outfitting of Iraq with chemical weapons for their war against Iran isn't a bad place to start, all told.

The footage is the footage. Context must be added, but the footage is an important part of that story. F9/11 showed a lot of footage that the mainstream media didn't think was an important part of that story- to get a more complete picture it's important to see it through multiple filters. Moore's is a very good one.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

George?

Re:questions have been raised

[autopr0n]

And guess what, there was a very low voter turnout in the panhandle because they thought that Gore had already won in Florida.

I'm pretty sure that the reports didn't say gore won untill all of the polls had closed. And anyway, it's not like most pan-handle voters were going to vote in the last half-hour or so of the election.

Re:questions have been raised

[neurojab]

>plus 1000 dead war

Correction: 1000 U.S. citizens have died. The number of Iraqi civillians is over 11,000 by LOW estimates. If you add in Iraqi soldiers, and you've got a total body count around 17,000, again, by low estimates.

Re:questions have been raised

[PsiPsiStar]

Problems with your bibliography make it very difficult to fact check what you've done. If you said that a source is from the april 24th 2004 edition of the New York Times, and it's from the 21st, then you haven't really cited a source at all.

It's not the fact-checker's job to figure out where a person got their information from.

Re:questions have been raised

[TechniMyoko]

But its the same thing moore did. Now do you understand? All I did was remove key words.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but you can't say that Bush doesn't do this too. Quite often too.

Re:questions have been raised

[hooqqa]

If I needed to know all that, it would have been on the Simpsons already.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anthony Boyd]

That is completely true.

Vacation implies no work. Dictionary.com says vacation is "A period of time devoted to pleasure, rest, or relaxation, especially one with pay granted to an employee.

That seems to support his point, not rebut it -- even Bush himself couldn't quite justify all his time off when a reporter asked him about it. Perhaps you agree that Bush was a slacker President. If so, ignore my post.

Re:questions have been raised

[Zeinfeld]

Correction: 1000 U.S. citizens have died. The number of Iraqi civillians is over 11,000 by LOW estimates. If you add in Iraqi soldiers, and you've got a total body count around 17,000, again, by low estimates.

This is for their benefit. so they should not complain about ending up somewhat dead or tortured.

Oops, just remembered, its not for their benefit, its for the benefit of Haliburton.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the degree to which Blair has cooperated with Bush, I'd say he's embarrassing your country too, though not nearly to the same degree.

Re:questions have been raised

[mattACK]

Pattern recognition is a hallmark of intelligence. The ability to recieve new data and formulate a new conclusion is a good thing.

Someone who'll make up his own mind, right or wrong, and stick to it.

That, friend, is a fool. Whether or not that is W I will leave for you to decide.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

OK, yours was a reasonable post. Let me throw out a couple of points.

1. I'm not an expert on the Rachel Corrie thing, though I am somewhat familiar with it. The Israeli government claimed militants were using tunnels to smuggle people and weapons under the border. This is, in fact, a fact: several such tunnels have been discovered. So was the bulldozing in question an attempt to shut down the tunnels, or an attempt to remove homes that were somehow "inconvenient" to nearby settlers?

I don't know, and neither did Corrie. Like so many isolated incidents over there, it boils down to a he said/she said scenario. It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other. I mean, remember the Jenin "massacre"? It's not like the Palestinians have any credibility whatsoever.

2. This is a fairly obvious point, but I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. It would be quite reasonable of you to say that you think Kopel's a jerk for saying that stuff about Corrie, but even a jerk can make credible arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.

3. Kopel didn't lie. It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel. I do agree that Kopel's wording is too strong. I would have said something like "Corrie's actions demonstrated a lack of empathy for the victims of terror, a lack of concern for the certain future victims, and a lack of understanding for the difficult position the terror bombings put the government of Israel in." He is a pretty reasonable guy -- perhaps you should e-mail him and suggest he at least soften his wording on that point.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[abe ferlman]

No, not the same. Moore didn't change the meaning, you did.

Re:questions have been raised

[CrazyDuke]

Do you have proof of the low turnout or are you just speculating. I speculate if the media screwed up and declared the guy I didn't like the winner with the polls still oepn, if I hadn't voted yet, I'd carry myself to the voting booth with a fire under my ass.

Re:questions have been raised

[ioslipstream]

You have links to back this up AC?

Re:questions have been raised

[GarryOwen]

Fair enough questions.
First of all the assault weapons ban did not ban machine guns (machine guns were banned back in the 1930s without special permit). The assualt weapons ban dealt with rifles that were semi-automatic(1 round fired per trigger pull) and met a certain physical characteristics. It banned rifles that looked "scary"(bayonet lugs, military looking stocks, magazines over 10 rounds). Now one thing to remember is these assualt weapons are no more lethal than normal semi-auto rifles, and the ban stopped the retail selling of new assult weapons. It did not stop the reselling of assault weapons that were already owned. Basically, the assault weapons ban was a "show" law that had no real impact on crime or violence.
Now, guns in the US are not just used for killing, though a large percentage are purchased with defence in mind. In the US, especially in rural areas, it is quite reasonable to have guns for both target and hunting purposes. I know of a bunch of families that would go shooting on the weekends as part of a family picnic. So it is not unreasonable with a society like that, to give away rifles with the purchase of another large item.
I hope this helps( think of it like a bow and arrow, just more boom)

Re:questions have been raised

[10101001 10101001]

(emphasis mine (using EM tag))

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The section you quote isn't for Presidential elections, so the quote is pointless to the discussion. Hence this quote is not justification for Congress passing law about electorial voters. If you can find some in the Constitution, let me know though. Otherwise, you've only shown how Congress is overstepping its bounds.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and nobody ever claims Rush Limbaugh is biased, right???

Please, don't spout such easily refutable B.S. as this. It shows you for the moron you are!

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the caught on video crack smoking former Mayor of DC, a Democrat. Lets not start a "prove my side has ever had problem x" discussion. Both sides have had their failures (you listed a few true ones on the right). This is not arguable!

Just because a few people turned out to be hypocrites does not make thier concepts wrong, only hypocritical for them. This is shooting the messenger to kill the message.

Also, don't forget the important concept that everyone, including right wingers, subscribe to: anyone can change themselves to stop doing something that they know is wrong. If this innuendo so somehow true, when was it? That plays a big role in its significance today. Just because someone did something wrong 10 or 20 or 30 years ago doesn't mean that they don't regret it now. It would be an important question, requiring an important and proper answer, but not an automatic write off.

The problem most right wingers have with these concepts as presented by the left is that these failures are somehow badges of honor. Whether intentional or not, this is the message we on the right see, and in big BOLD letters!

Failures of any kind need to be recognized for what they are. These right wingers have to my knowledge paid a price for their hypocricy. The left seems to want to avoid their guys paying the same price, when without this price the action is by ommission condoned to society (think Clinton here for a prime example)! We can't have a society which condones or excuses this bad behavior no matter who does it, right, left or other. If you can't agree with this conceptually then we are indeed farther apart than I had hoped.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

But by definition to be principles you can't just change them because they are difficult or something. Any change must be very carefully thought out along with all the ramifications of such a change. Changes like this should be more targeted when possible to avoid sweeping generalizations (those things that the left loves to rail on the right about but then commit them in even larger numbers themselves).

Far too many people like to change anything and everything without thinking things through. This causes many, often larger, unintended consequences down the road (think Communism, great idea on paper but sucks in every form ever executed). Millions of such examples, great and small, exist all around us. Just make sure your change isn't adding another one.

Re:questions have been raised

[zferrini]

And your point seems to be the top of your head. Most people would look atr the economy of a country that is changing leadership and look at the economy as it was handed over. Th American economy was going down fast before Bush took over the office. After the .com bust and 9/11 the economy slide further. If you had any brains at alll you would have seen this in the numbers. I am not a Bush fan by any means but please look at the facts before you open mouth and insert foot. The American econmomy was hurt while Clinton was still in office and it became worse from there. If you look at the indicators for january and february of 2000 you will see the Gross national product was already in the negetive and had been for most of 1999. Now unless your math calss teaches that 1+1=58 then you must be as incompetent as the person you refered to. Zferrini

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's the first time I've heard an good argument for bush wining the florida recount.

Do keep it up, if a small fraction of the right was as thoughtful and thorough as you, I might consider switching sides, or at the very least have a reasonable debate with some.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen!

Geeks, being problem solvers, are usually reasonably in touch with reality when they aren't totally autistic, and even then... Why is there no geek political review? Or have I missed something?

Re:questions have been raised

[antic]

And John Howard is doing a fantastic job of embarrassing Australia.

I will, at least, give credit to Howard and Blair for being able to do a better than pre-school job at ad-libbing a speech on a given topic.

Footage was shown on Australian television recently (very popular show/time-slot) of Bush looking like an idiot trying to answer a question on indigenous matters in the US (or something similar). It was actually embarrassing to even watch.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Kopel "At 10:00 p.m., which networks took the lead in retracting the premature Florida win for Gore? They were CNN and CBS, not Fox."

Unfortunately there's the problem - those against Moore use pieces like this as a reason to shout "No, the movie's wrong, because CNN was the first to say Gore hadn't won!", thereby falling into the same techniques Moore uses of making a particular impression to suit themselves.

Moore never says that - he says Fox News was the first to say Bush HAD won, which is true - but several hours after the retraction. Moore leaves out the retraction entirely, giving the impression that the Bush-favouring network actually changed the call, rather than just wanting to make it first.

Which is what the 59 deceits page is all about - they aren't actual mistakes or wrong information; just editing and suggestions which encourage a particular viewpoint. The loudest Moore critics conveniently ignore that and claim the movie is inaccurate, whereas it's really just edited to make Moore's point.

Re:questions have been raised

[crizh]

"The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.

As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance.

# We support the Palestinian right to resist the occupation, as provided for by International Law;
# We call for an immediate end to the occupation and immediate compliance and implementation of all relevant UN resolutions;
# We call for immediate international intervention to protect the Palestinian people and ensure Israel's compliance with International Law.

Due to the lack of respect for Palestinian human rights and human life by the Israeli government and occupation forces, an international presence is needed to support Palestinian nonviolent resistance. Palestinian activists trying to work or protest alone face harsh punishment from Israeli forces. This has included beatings, long-term arrests, serious injury and even death. International activists are thus a resource for Palestinians, both in terms of their presence and as witnesses to the daily humiliation and injustice of the Israeli occupation. "

http://www.palsolidarity.org/portal/alias__Rainb ow /lang__en-US/tabID__3337/DesktopDefault.aspx

"It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel."

You are either badly misinformed or lying. Which is it?

"It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other"

Nothing immediate about it, six months of rigorous academic study of the subject. There are two narratives to be considered here, the Palestinian and the Zionist, neither are wholly accurate. The Palestinians, despite their unfortunate associations with Islam and terrorism, are for the most part correct. Might I suggest Gush Shalom ( http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/ ) as a good place to start to get an unbiased and accurate assessment of the situation in Palestine.

"I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. "

Simply because he has already made dozens of, what sounded like, plausable statements of fact. And then he makes one that I know for a fact is total BS, suddenly all his other statements of fact start to look very doubtful.

Kopel is clearly an intelligent guy who knows how to do his research and how to differentiate between fact and propaganda. I have no doubt whatsoever that the statements he makes about Rachel Corrie are ones that he knows to be either completely false or deliberately 'spun' to give false impressions.

Clearly I can no longer trust a single word the man utters.

Re:questions have been raised

[junk]

well shit, if you'll buy all that, i've got some swamp land and a bridge i think you might be interested in.

please do some actual research on these points, before you make your purchase though. you'd be amazed at how the facts look after just a little bit of digging.

my favorite ons is still the saudis being in the air prior to any other people being allowed to fly. that's been disproven all over the place (see the 9/11 comission report for the full details) if you really want to know the truth on hat one.

Re:questions have been raised

[JabberWokky]

"Descend" if you mean "attend the board meeting in a different city in Colorado". A board meeting that had been scheduled for months before Columbine. Just how far away would have been appropriate? Yahoo Maps shows Denver and Columbine as about 200 miles apart from each other, five hours by car.

-- Evan

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

dedicated to the parent .. all puns intended!

quote1

"He is also doing spectacular work of making the people of the USA look like apathetic dimwits for electing him and putting up with it.
He is embarrassing your country on the world stage."

So .. NO1 : you say MM is emabarrasing the US by telling the world that Bush is a stupid joke

quote2
Footage was shown on Australian television recently (very popular show/time-slot) of Bush looking like an idiot trying to answer a question on indigenous matters in the US (or something similar). It was actually embarrassing to even watch.

NO2 : you say Bush is a stupid joke

dude, are there a lot of IDIOTS like you in Australia?

and your "oppinion friend" Zeinfeld is even worst, he contracdicts himself in THE SAME POST.

why dont u take Zeinfeld and go "post" some food for that sheeps of yours ... cause /. is cleary too much for u 2.

THX.

Re:questions have been raised

[Dabido]

" Or, say I read 10 studies on how many shooting deaths there are in a year in various nations. For Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. I chose the lowest number out of all 10, and for the USA, I chose the highest number. All the numbers are "Facts" but its ethically wrong to pick and chose different studies."

Most places I have read where they quote STATISTICS on shooting deaths, they do NOT use studies. They use the figures from each nations Bureau of Statistics which keep accurate records of Shooting deaths and wounded each year. Governemnts are good like that. If you are going around reading STUDIES, I'd like to know who is doing these studies, when the facts are KNOWN and easy to get hold off from each Government.

Everytime I've seen the statistics of people shot per capita compared to people who own guns, the same thing becomes relevant. The greater the percentage of gun ownership in society, the greater percentage chance of people who get shot by guns.

As for people exagerating to make a point, I saw four months of propaganda by Bush, Blair and Howard before the war, with the media having a distinct slant towards the war (good for ratings probably), and a distinct lack of coverage of the Anti-war rallies. With little or no coverage of actual facts.

Moore probably thinks he is helping by exagerating towards the liberal views in his documentaries in order to counteract the obvious slant most of the media of the world have towards conservatives. After all, the media is run by rich men who want to remain rich by keeping conservatives in power who they can make even more money and get more power.

Meanwhile in Japan, the US has convinced Koizumi and others to change the Japanese constitution. The constitution at present doesn't allow Japan to declare war on any one who does not attack them. This was put into their constitution to stop a repeat of Peral Harbour and the like. Now that Japan wants a seat on the UN Security Council, Colin Powell has told them they MUST change their constitution so they CAN declare war on other nations.

Most Japanese think this is a step backwards from their Anti-war stance. The lawmakers in Japan though are hoping Koizumi will get it throough, as they want that seat on the Security Council.

How nice it would have been to have had a nation who had turned it's back on war on the Security Council in order to make sure ALL diplomatic means had been tried before a declaration by the UN to take out another country.

But, I digressed from the original intent of my post ... so much happening on SlashDot concerning this. :-)

Nani-mo hoshii mono-ga nai

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Moore often does even worse by not only removing the original context, but by implying a totally different, often contradictory context.

Would you like to give specific examples?

Re:questions have been raised

[dave420]

"because they thought that Gore had already won in Florida"

Got any proof that was the reason? Similar in irrefutability to the evidence of the 90,000 people illegally struck off the electoral register?

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm puzzled why you think that qualifies as a "lie". The point of that scene was to demonstrate that you can get a free rifle or whatever it was, simply by opening a bank account. It hardly matters whether you have to wait 5 minutes, a day or a week before you actually get a gun. The relevant fact is that the a firearm is being used for promotional purposes and that's really bizarre.

As to whether it was staged, well that's just one person's word against another, although as far as I can tell, no one who would actually be in a position to know has actually made this allegation. None-the-less Moore responds to this and other criticisms here.

Re:questions have been raised

[danheskett]

I think it is clear to the unbiased reader that there is at least the possibility that Katherine Harris' actions could meet that standard
I think I agree. There is clearly that apperance.

I am saying that to get out of the propaganda department though, what Moore needs to do is make a clear allegation.

It's an age old strategy: if you throw enough out there some of it will stick.

Re:questions have been raised

[stiggystiggy]

Sounds like the problem is yours, mate. It is YOU who is self-loathing -- not everybody else. Recognize the difference.

And to the hypocrisy:

And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one? Yes, they claim hypocrisy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?

What does "a mirror in their house" mean, anyway? The point is, do hypocrites who publicly decry particular behaviors and then privately engage in them have a mirror in their house?

It always seems that the lifestyle police "see the light" when it is their OWN family. Cases in point: Cheney realizes his daughter is a lesbo, and suddenly softens on his anti-gay-marriage position. Jeb Bush's daughter is arrested with drugs, and suddenly he's in favor of treatment, not incarceration. (BTW, the girl then smoked CRACK in rehab. Way to go!)

The list goes on and on. And, no -- I am NOT a hypocrite, and YES -- I have plenty of "mirrors in my house". It takes effort to be honest and recognize when you were wrong. Which is exactly the opposite of what a hypocrite does.

Coincidently, admitting when you are wrong (you know: "W" for "Wrong") is also something the present administration is incapable of doing.

Re:questions have been raised

[sonamchauhan]

Moore's editing technique of the election night segment is typical of his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, narrowly speaking, false. But notice how he says, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy..." The impression created is that the Fox call of Florida for Bush came soon after the CBS/CNN calls of Florida for Gore, and that Fox caused the other networks to change ("All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'")

This is the essence of the Moore technique: cleverly blending half-truths to deceive the viewer.

But don't stop there... read the rest of the Kopel's page, particularly this part of Deceit #3:

Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting
to show that Gore really won.
One article shows a
date of December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida
recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from The
Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But actually, the
headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a news article. The letter to
the editor headline is significantly enlarged to make it look like an article
headline. The actual printed
letter looked nothing like the "article" Moore fabricated for the film. The letter
ran on December 5, not December 19.
The Pantagraph contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office refused to comment.

And also his summary of Moore's response to this:
[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd. No explanation for The Pantagaph fraud.]

For the record, I'm not American, I am Asian. But Bush is the best candidate - I hope he wins the election.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

No...much of the world's media is making us the USA look like what you will make of us.

In reality, Bush is ALOT smarter than you think...and it's served him pretty well thus far.

That being said, he isn't a rocket scientist, either. I don't recall him claiming himself to be one, however.

Re:questions have been raised

[bonkedproducer]

YEAH! and... well, uh no it's not a racist statement to assume that all african-americans will vote with the party that most supports welfare and food stamps. Oh wait, did I just see the flaw in your armor?

Re:questions have been raised

[rs79]

Well, now ain't that something! "Many people", in this case, represents a tiny but annoyingly vocal segment of the American population. The vast majority has no desire whatsoever to ban gun ownership, and would never consider repealing the Second Amendment

Cite?

Re:questions have been raised

[chewmanfoo]

OK, then perhaps a documentary should instead focus on not telling so many lies. Hmm???

Lies are clearly "wrong" in documentaries, right? How many lies did Michael Moore tell in Fahrenheit 9/11?

Re:questions have been raised

[clambake]

2. Establish your principles and DO NOT SACRIFICE THEM FOR ANYTHING.

Nice try, but seriously? Don't sacrifice for ANYTHING? What if you find out you were wrong? You think it's a good idea to hold tight to your principles knowing full well that you're wrong? Sounds like idiocy to me.

Re:questions have been raised

[niktheslick]

Yeah... Not much point in arguing with a bunch of nerds with the "i'm smarter than everyone else in the world but I can't socialize with any girls because I think I might wet myself so I hate the rest of the world" attitude. Though I will give you that it is a lot of fun.

Re:questions have been raised

[pomakis]

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

Actually, according to this source, Bush's statement was taken out of context in that he wasn't talking about al-Qaeda terrorists at all:

Tuesday night on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

The Fifty-nine Deceits site also fairly (in my opinion) points out that "Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course".

Re:questions have been raised

[Glidedon2]

The 18.5 minutes of silence finally explained: Richard Nixon was reading "My Pet Goat"

Your an idiot. All that spin you complained about and then you qoute MM, there is no such book "My Pet Goat"

Re:questions have been raised

[Myopic]

Off the top of my head?

In F911 he says that the Bush family is closely tied to the bin Laden family, without saying that the bin Laden family long, long ago disowned their errant son, Osama, and denounced his tactics (that is, terrorism). I myself personally happen to know that ties to the bin Laden family in fact do NOT imply ties to Osama himself, but to a person who does not know that, Moore would have implied that Bush was somehow cozy with Osama, which is not only untrue but quite the opposite of the truth.

In BFC, he says that right after Columbine, the NRA swooped in and held a big pro-gun rally, even over the objections of the locals and the local politicians. Moore neatly leaves out the facts that (1) the NRA meeting had been planned for over a year (so it's not like the NRA said "hey, let's go have a gun rally where that shooting just happened"); and (2) that the NRA in fact DID cancel every part of their convention except one, a shareholders' meeting or somesuch, which was REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW to take place (that is, it is illegal to change the time and place of that type of meeting on such short notice). So in this case, in reality the NRA in essence did cancel their convention, but Moore leaves out that context and says that the meeting went on as planned, not mentioning the fact that the NRA's hands were tied by federal law.

Furthermore, in that same scene, Moore shows Charlton Heston holding up a gun and saying "from my cold dead fingers", implying that the quote came from the requested-to-be-canceled convention, but that quote actually came from a totally different gun rally years earlier. (There are lots of complaints about the cutting from clip to clip, in BFC, creating inappropriate contexts.)

That was just from my memory so don't take it as God's gospel. It's not hard to find lists of complaints about the contexts Moore creates which are opposite to the truth.

Perhaps I should be clear that I'm a hippie liberal and love peace and love and harmony; that I will be voting against Bush; etc. But I have a big problem with Moore because he uses half-truths and half-lies to push his agenda. It doesn't matter that I agree with his agenda; I dislike his tactics. I do have respect for Moore, though, since I saw an interview where he was asked "so is this movie a fair depiction of reality?" and Moore said "oh good lord no, it's only one side of the story". At least he's up-front about THAT. And also, it is true that Bush uses half-truths and not-quite-lies to push his agenda, too: which also makes me mad.

Re:questions have been raised

[Scrameustache]

Suppose we were discussing Adolf Hitler and I told you that:
3. He conquered most of Europe.
These are historically verifiable facts

I would inform you that CONQUER implies gaining mastery of the territory in question.
What he did was invade most of Europe, and then had it taken away from him.

[Moore] shows the portions of interviews and events that support his goal. It's not 'spin' or 'bias'. A half truth is a full lie.

Well, I agree that he only shows the part that support his point. But I don't think that is the same as a lie, not in his context. Its not the most honest thing he could do, but he's honest about his goals. He flat out says he wants to bring Bush down, so you know you have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

And say what you will, but the man makes entertaining flicks.

Re:questions have been raised

[severoon]

Yea, you're like, totally wrong. See, this is the type of thing I'm talking about...you're obviously not interested in the truth, or you'd have researched the matter before commenting on it in such an authoritative way.

The fact is, the NRA did cancel all of its meetings out of respect for the Columbine incident. They were unable to cancel one meeting because state law dictates that if an organization wants to maintain its status in the state of Colorado, it must schedule an annual meeting that must not be changed 6 months prior to the date set and must include such-and-such board members, blah blah blah. The point is, they had to have that meeting if they wanted to maintain their charter in the state of Colorado, and Moore artfully cut most of Heston's speech at that event because he spent a great deal of time explaining why they'd cancelled their other events. Not to mention the fact that he cut that hatchet job in with a totally different speech, the cold dead hands one.

My advice is that no one should trust a single source for information, especially if that source is controversial. You should even go farther than that if possible--you should seek out the controversial points of view on the issues in which you agree with the mainstream, and you should seek out the mainstream and opposite controversial points of view for those issues on which you are on a side. I don't mean just know them so you can shoot them down, I mean truly try to understand those points of view. Just don't keep such an open mind your brains fall out.

Otherwise, you risk what has happened here...an embarrassing display of ignorance.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind that many of those people were actually allowed to vote because several counties did not accept the felon lists of those who were not allowed to vote. This includes Palm Beach - felons in that county as well as several others (I believe at least 20) were allowed to vote so that non-felons were not disallowed.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend (a wanna be shrink, I think) observed that I'd react most severely to people that were like the part of me I was irresponsible with.

That's pretty accurate.

IIRC, it might have been Abe Lincoln who said to be wary of anyone who claims they have no vices.

Another anectodal point is that some marriage partners find out that their spouse is having an affair when their spouse suddenly starts getting suspicious of them (even accusing *them* of having an affair). As long as your faithful, you really don't think much about infidelity, but as soon as you start having an affair you get guilty and start to get paranoid about keeping it covered up.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

Well, I'm not lying, so I guess I'm badly misinformed.

I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer.

I've been informed that Israel is a liberal democracy. A little too socialist for my tastes, but with well-enshrined traditions of freedom of speech, etc. Its Arab citizens have representatives in Knesset. Meanwhile, Jewish legislators in Arab countries ... oh wait, there AREN'T any Jewish legislators in those countries.

I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries, and no indication whatsoever that Palestine, of all places, with its corrupt, thuggish PA, would be any different.

I've been informed that Israel alone has made the desert flower -- that if you take away oil, Israel's economy is more productive than all the Arab countries'. Not individually -- *COMBINED*.

I've been informed -- via a quick Google search -- that the Palestinians enjoy dressing their children up with guns and bombs. Does that sound like a people I'd want anything to do with?

I've been informed that the ISF *encourages* non-violent resistance, but *endorses* violent resistance, rendering the former utterly meaningless. I'm sorry, but I don't remember Ghandi endorsing violence, only condemning it. Contrast: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent." (Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, Palestine Chronicle, January 2002). That is NOT non-violent resistance as the term is generally understood.

I've been informed that if the Palestinians actually tried mass non-violent resistance, instead of paying lip service to it while they blow women and children into piles of hamburger meat with nail-packed explosives, they'd be frickin' running the place by now.

I've been informed that Palestinian leaders will look you in the eye and lie outrageously if they think it will make Israel look bad. This poses a problem for me, since I'm sure Israel *does* do some heinous stuff, but I never know when the alleged victims are lying or not.

I've been informed that, whatever the rights or wrongs, Israel is under a terrorist seige. Israel has a liberal democratic government that must respond to the needs of its citizens. The citizens have demanded that their government protect them from being blown into the aforementioned hamburger meat. Americans would demand the same thing -- so would the residents of any country, even if it meant declaring martial law or suspending some rights.

So do the Palestinians want my sympathy? Easily done, since I'm actually pretty open-minded about the whole thing. Stop murdering women and children. Period. End of discussion. Instead of revering the families of suicide bombers, throw them in prison. Launch a all-out war to crush the militants. Execute Arafat, for embezzlement if nothing else, and all his thugs. Show the world they have grown up and are actually ready to join the family of nations. Begin negotiating for land not only with Israel, but also Syria and Jordan.

- Alaska Jack

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing that sickened me, later, and unrelated to Moore, was watching Bush talk about killing in Iraq (shortly before the war began), while smiling and playing golf - actually answering a reporter's question in the middle of a swing. How sick...

I'm betting that you've never played much golf, especially in a business setting?

The whole point of it is the social networking (sorta like a "working lunch"). The more interesting part of the story would be *who* he was golfing with.

Re:questions have been raised

[cryogenix]

Actually no it wasn't fact. A fact is a known statement that is considered true. For example, he is being sued because he showed a news paper with a headline that they never ran. He altered the headline and presented it as fact, but that headline never ran. He presented the fact that Bush was responsible for getting the Bin Laden family out as fact, when it was Richard Clark that did this. Clark informed Moore of this long before his movie that it was he that authorized it and not the president and Moore chose to present the lie anyway. There are many more such examples of this film. He also takes many things out of contents and puts them together to deliberately give you an opinion that you could not possibly form if they were taken in context. And it's done in a way to make it look bad. Why this film does not fall under campaign finance is beyond me. This should be a 527 just like the swiftboat veterans ads.

Re:questions have been raised

[cryogenix]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html Bush won the recounts by the most acceptable standards. Do your own recount. http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/ recount/

Re:questions have been raised

[Crazy Eight]

Look at the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd. Their hatred is equally emotional and irrational. A bunch I know scream about him being a former alcoholic and alleged coke user. "He's no better than anyone else." Curiously, those that scream the most are the ones who refuse to get control of their own substance abuse issues.

There's nothing "curious" about that at all. Republicans have generally made quite a stink over the lack of character associated with substance abuse. These "ABB" people with drug problems you're encountering simply see him as a hypocrite.

And isn't it curious that the party that has made abortion rights a perpetual issue is accusing Bush of having one?

Which party are you talking about? Both parties have made a wedge issue out of Roe vs Wade. Why is it "curious" that there would be interest in an aborted child in Bush's past? He's against abortion. If the rumor is true (I see zero evidence) he would be a hypocrite. In fact, that particular manifestation of hypocracy would be extremely odious. Much of the energy devoted to pro choice activism stems from acknowledging that abortions would continue if the practice were made illegal. The difference is that they would be limited to the wealthy.

Yes, they claim hypocracy, but don't they have a mirror in their house?

Why would they need one? An aborted child in the past of a pro choice politician doesn't contradict the policies he or she would advocate for others.

It's pleasant to see the fundamental point you're making about self-knowledge get modded up out of anonymity, but it's pretty basic stuff. For the record, there's nothing so implausible about G.W. Bush having an aborted child in his past that the notion can only be entertained by loonies. What makes you think he was born infertile?

Re:questions have been raised

[o'reor]

IMO, until after ALL polls are closed [...], the media should NOT be allowed to "call" any state.

Actually, that's the way it works in France, and I'm pretty sure it also works this way in quite a few other countries too. But I don't know how you can make such a rule compliant with the Freedom of Information Act.

Re:questions have been raised

[True Grit]

Gore lost. It has been four years already

The posts above you show evidence that he didn't lose. Where's your counter-evidence?

A painful wrong is never easily forgotten by its victims, and considering what Bush has done for us in these last 4 years, *nobody* from the center out to the far left is going to soon forget how Gore's victory was stolen from him.

Re:questions have been raised

[drawfour]

The Freedom of Information act has to do with government documents being publicly available. What the media does is use "exit polls". They stand around outside the voting area and ask people who they voted for. They then use statistical probability models to determine who they think has won. Until the polls are closed and counted, there are no official government releases. Furthermore, I believe that the Freedom of Information act applies to the federal government, and even though it is a federal election, the STATES are the ones who count votes and direct their electorates to make the appropriate votes in the Electoral college. So the only information required to be released is the electoral votes. All they have to do is make sure they happen at the same time instead of being staggered (I'm sure officially they happen at the same time, after polls everywhere are closed).

Re:questions have been raised

[crizh]

"I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer."

ROFLMAO.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/barak.html

What the Palestinians want is for Israel to obey the United Nations. To return to them all the land they illegally stole in their war of agression (approximately 42% of contemporary Israel), allow all the refugees illegally forced from that land to return and to remove all the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. That territory would of course include all of East Jerusalem including the Temple Mount.

The International community has been demanding this, almost unanamously, from Israel for nearly sixty years now.

Only the obstinate support of the United States allows Israel to continue with the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Zionists and Nazis have a lot more in common than a z in their names.

A little 'word substitution' in most news reports about occupied palestine would demonstrate that. Try replacing West Bank or Gaza with the phrase 'jewish ghetto.'

Were the British government to fire Hellfire missiles into residential Catholic areas of Belfast in retaliation for IRA violence you would be incensced. Were they to persist in doing so despite being told to stop by the United Nations I don't imagine it would take sixty years to execute a 'regime change.'

Peaceful protest only works against regimes with respect for human rights and the United Nations.

It is about as effective against the Israelis as it would be against the Khmer Rouge.

ISM recognises the Palestinian right to legitimate armed struggle. That does not mean terrorism. Think DeGaulle, George Washington, Robert the Bruce. Actually forget Robert the Bruce 'cos he was without doubt a vicious terrorist.

ISM only uses non-violent methods.

Bear in mind that you support the right to legitimate armed struggle, as do most of the rest of the civilised world.

On the subject of lying try asking the Israeli government if they possess any nuclear bombs.

How much foreign economic aid do the Arab countries receive?

"I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries"

So?

I'm informed all the Arabs are Muslims. Does that make them inferior to all the Christians?

Re:questions have been raised

[c.ecker]

He's got answers, but most of his answers don't respond to the questions raised. In typical "Michael-Moore-Documentary" style, he evades, eludes and replies with answers that are fabricated by himself or others. That long winded expose on his site shows his concern that the movie is full of half-truths and outright fabrications!

To answer a challenge of a "fact" presented in his "Michael-Moore-Documentary" with an opinion , unsubstatiated allegation from another source is NOT AN ANSWER! However, most of these "answers" don't address the questions raised!

See David Kopel's excellent *NON-PARTISAN* run-down: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The reason he's not going for best documentary is that -- surprise -- even MM concedes its more Comedy than Documentary ('Did I mention it's a comedy?')

If it did come up for best documentary, that category would be forever tainted!

Fact is, Moore has come up with a formula of outrageous conspiracy theories that appeal to the cognitively challenged in society who also happen to have enough change in their pockets to buy a movie ticket.

I propose a new screen name: "Michael MooreMoney" He's finally got a way to fill his pockets -- something he's been unable to do on talent alone for the last 20+ years.

Re:questions have been raised

[Hiroto. S]

Good job on the analysis. I wonder if there is more authoritative way to verify the creation date of an 8XX number.

Anyway, I mailed the link to your comment to Mr. Kopel (I hope you don't mind) suggesting that he should take out that claim unless he can somehow verify that the number existed when the movie was created. Hopefully this will be corrected shortly.

Re:questions have been raised

[geoffspear]

Yeah, and the media should be forbidden from publishing polling results before the election, or discussing the election in any way, too.

And it should definitely be illegal for the media to suggest that John Kerry is supported by more than 1% of the people in Ohio, because that would just create confusion when Diebold's machines correctly report that 99% of the state voted for Bush.

There's nothing to see here, Citizen.

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, this is not true. The fact is that Gore did not win the state in any of the recounts. And when the media did their own recount, Bush won using every recount standard except for the one that his lawyers were arguing should be used if a recount was to take place." This is incorrect. Bush won based on the counts that Gore's lawyers asked to be done. However, based on the counts required by Florida election law (which requires that the vote be counted based on the intention of the voter, where possible) Gore won.

Re:questions have been raised

[TechniMyoko]

Yes he did.

Re:questions have been raised

[Alaska Jack]

I'm not an expert on the Palestinian/Arab conflict, and don't pretend to be. Also, I doubt anything I could say here would change your mind in the slightest. Nevertheless, allow me to make a few points. (UPDATE - This has turned into my longest post ever :^[ But at least it gave me the chance to think about the situation a little more than I had previously.)

1. First, a point about the United Nations. People who don't know very much about it, or how it works, seem to think it has some sort of moral authority, acting for the common good of all mankind.

However, it has been pointed out many times that a more accurate term than "United Nations" would be "United Regimes." Governments from all over the world -- many or most of them unelected, and many with absolutely appalling human rights records (see, for example, the Arab states) -- come together to argue for their own interests. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not totally dismissing it. The U.N. can serve as a useful forum for nations to hash out their differences. But to think it has any sort of moral authority is absolutely laughable to anyone who actually knows how it works.

Now, a "League of Democracies" -- that might actually have some moral authority. But of course, it would include Israel, and not a single Arab country.

2. I may have my history wrong, but I seem to remember the UN's 1948 resolution calling for separate states for both Jews and Palestinians. The Arab countries responded to this UN resolution by stating they would never accept a Jewish state, then banding together and attacking it.

3. I kind of agree with Alan Dershowitz (and believe me, I feel queasy saying that) on this. Every dispute about this matter always ends up with history being debated. It always boils down to a he-said-she-said involving people who are long dead and who were hardly impartial to begin with. The fact is that, on many of the historical questions, WE WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH. We just pick a side that seems most sympathetic to us, and decide to accept all their claims while rejecting all the others'.

So I've come to the conclusion that the PAST DOESN'T MATTER, at least to the extent that we cannot allow it to constrain our actions in the present. What matters is crafting a solution that will work for the future.

In that, the link you provide is just another dismal example of why we will never see peace in the region. Like I said, I am not an expert. But to refresh my memory about the Barak peace deal I relied on the International Herald Tribune, CNN International and other relatively reputable sources of facts. You, on the other hand, pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel. The settlement blocs "are like daggers tearing into the flesh of the future Palestinian state"? Give me a break. The site first admits that the Barak deal went further than any other, than immediately starts to quibble. It's not "exactly" 92 percent. This provision is unacceptable. That provision is not open to negotiation.

But in the big picture, THAT'S THE PROBLEM -- THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS THE PA CALLS UNACCEPTABLE. There WILL NOT BE PEACE until the PA recognizes that Israel is not just going to go away, and that it has to negotiate resolutions to some of these problems. I know that the "right of return," for example, is a big one, but the REALITY of the situation is that Israel is just not going to sign something that everybody knows would be its suicide note. It is foolish to think it would. On the other hand, whether the Arabs have "guardianship" or "control" or "functional autonomy" or whatever over this neighborhood or that neighborhood is not a death sentence for Palestine. Those things should be open to negotiation, and on some things, the Palestinians are going to have to settle for less than they want. But Arafat never even tried to negotiate. It's been widely reported that he made no counteroffer, and indeed barely even spoke during the negotiations.**

4. Were the British govern

Re:questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the war there were 5-6 thousand kids dying every month from starvation.

How long has this war been going on?

Do the math.

Re:questions have been raised

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Conquer was correct, the nazis gained mastery of (most of) that territory before it was taken away from them by an external force.

That was the OffTopic bit, I agree with the rest of your posting.

That logic also works for the US Government. They made it clear that they wanted to bring Saddam Hussein down, it was their justification that was made up of half-truths and some outright lies.

Re:questions have been raised

[crizh]

1. Regardless of whether the UN has moral authority it has legal authority. OBEY IT.

2. Who started the 1948 war is open to much heated debate. Regardless the 55/45 Israel/Palestine, internationally recognised, division ended up a 78/22 Israel/refugee camp division.

3. "You ... pick a 100% pro-Palestinian site that rages against Israel."

I did, yes. Deliberately. Gush Shalom are Israelis. Try finding a pro-Israeli site run by Palestinians. I fear I will also have to suggest that there is no such thing as a reputable news source, only those whose agenda is known to you and those whose agenda remains unkown. All information on this situation requires to be assessed with an extremely critical eye.

4. If one wants to "*limit* civilian casualties as much as possible," one does not fire military ordanance at unsuspecting civilians. There is a word for that in International Law. Terrorism.

Incidentally, I have recently come to the conclusion that the IRA were not terrorists. By always giving warning in advance and limiting attacks to military or security targets they, in my opinion, put themselves in the category of freedom fighters. Its a very thin line, which many splinter groups did cross, but is is one that almost all of our 'morally superior' democracies owe their existance to.

5. I don't think anyone ever claimed Arafat was a new Ghandi. Ghandi is not the internationally recognised standard here. The key phrase is 'legitimate armed struggle', which is what the citizens of any State have the right to engage in when their lands have been invaded by another State. The Arabs do not have to engage in peaceful resistance to retain moral legitimacy.

6. Again what has Ghandi got to do with this. Again as a citizen of one of the 'morally superior' democracies of the world YOU endorse 'legitimate armed struggle.'

I have loose ties to you, Slashdot and Linux in general. Does this means you are all culpable when I go postal?

7. You raised the Israeli economy. An economy bouyed by billions in US aid and investment. I'm fairly sure Egypt receives quite a lot of aid too, although not in the same order of magnitude I imagine, as a bribe to leave Israel alone.

I'm sure I read somewhere recently that the Israeli economy is in the shitter and has been getting steadily worse since Sharon started the second Intifada.

8. "If I was" Iraq, and one of my neighbours had nuclear weapons targeted on my cities and lied glibly about even possessing them, "my priority #1 would be to develop nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but it's true."

Your point was Arabs are lying scumbags, my counter was, Israelis are lying scumbags with WMD's.

9. "you seem to quite clearly be dismissing the idea that liberal democracy is inherently better than Islamofascist dictatorship or theocracy."

No. I'm pointing out that you have assumed that it is. In Arab countries the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it. In liberal (? lets not get into liberal/libertarian etc, etc) democracies the rich and powerful (the ones with all the oil) do whatever they want and their is almost nothing the little guy can do about it.

Clearly democracy is a morally superior form of government.

10. "I obviously believe much of that plight is self-inflicted."

Yes the Palestinians instructed the British Mandate to allow a third of a million Zionist Jews to migrate into their country, buy up all the decent land from absentee landlords in other States, throw the residents out and ban them from ever returning or buying the land they had worked for generations back.

At the end of the Second World War, after the resident Zionists had declared war on the British in an opportunistic attempt to steal the entire State of Palestine from the Palestinians, those same Palestinians suggested that a few hundred thousand of those Zionists friend

Re:questions have been raised

[aka-ed]

Relatively little effort has been made to examine Kopel's work for veracity. Kopel himself has made many changes in the document, softening some of the charges. One of the most glaring errors was a false charge that a charity engaged in distributing wheelchairs to war casualties was a money launderer for HAMAS. I pointed this error out on my web page months ago, but it remained in Kopel's document uncorrected until I finally write to him about it. He promptly deleted the accusation. But how did such a grievous error stand for so long? See my .sig for Kopel's own view of his errors versus Moore's.

Re:questions have been raised

[aka-ed]

The section of the film in which the statement appears is in the 2001 time period, a time during which, it is Moore's thesis, Bush was minimizing the Al Quaeda threat. The focus on Al Quaeda did not occur until the WTC bombing, and the quote appears in the pre-WTC segment, so obviously Bush was intended to be perceived as talking about terrorists in general, not about Al Quaeda at all. Have you seen the film, or are you just aping what you have read?

Re:questions have been raised

[ViperG]

Has anyone seen the documentary 911 In Plane Site? What are your thoughts?

Re:questions have been raised

[dnno]

I am not saying their is a black and white answer to anything in life, because I know from personal experience that their is very rarely a clear answer to anything. I was only attempting to promote discussion/dissection of what he said so that each person can form their own opinions about what was said with a more objective view on things.

Re:questions have been raised

[Doc Ruby]

"OK, Mr. Bank Teller, please put all the cash in the vault in this big sack. I intend to give it right back to you."

Good!

[iamacat]

It will get people to vote either to oppose Bush or to oppose people who are influenced by the movie. Either way, democracy wins over apathy!

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

The problem is that Michael Moore - a private citizen - has a right to get this on the air. But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

That's not very democratic.

Re:Good!

[rlglende]

Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

The manipulation of the mob is always easy, and modern media and concentrated media ownership has mad it even easier. Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.

The US Constitution also tried to limit government power to prevent a boob like Bush from doing great damage. Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.

Lew

Re:Good!

[rde]

Democracy is an imperfect process, in any country. There's no law that could be passed that would improve it without impinging on someone else's rights somewhere along the line.

Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign. That's not very democratic
In an ideal world, where advertisements are about truth and informing the electorate, you'd be right. But McCain-Feingold is a ruling for the real world, where no party is capable of informative ads; they're either misrepresentations or simplifications. The very fact that the ads are thirty seconds long should tell you that they're not capable of anything constructive. In that context, McCain-Feingold is a Good Thing.

Re:Good!

[malfunct]

And yet it feels like you support the 2 hour distortion of a politcal ad that is Farenheight 9/11? I think that it should all be fair game and it should be up to people to sort it out. I'm tired of laws being passed and judgements being made because its not going "thier way" whoever they might be at the time.

Re:Good!

[gfxguy]

McCain-Feingold is a restriction on political free speech, which is debatably the worst kind of speech restriction there is.

It doesn't matter if the commercials get ridiculous, and the spending ludicrous, and it seems, on the outside, that it's nice to reign things in a bit, the ramifications are ultimately quite bad.

And, as a supporter of President Bush this election, let me just say shame on him for calling on a ban of 527's... he's the one who signed M/F into law.

Re:Good!

[iamacat]

Republicans will have a chance to respond in whatever way Moore talks. Do you mean Christian Coalition hasn't made any decent movies during its whole existance?

Re:Good!

[rde]

And yet it feels like you support the 2 hour distortion of a politcal ad that is Farenheight 9/11

Not really. Supposing there were no limit; given the egregious [right|left]-wing bias of the media, it's be entirely possible to putting out stuff portraying Bush as a [leader|chimp] and Kerry as a [flop-flipper|guy with a plan]. Television would be totally unwatchable for months at a time. Oh, wait...

I'm tired of laws being passed and judgements being made because its not going "thier way" whoever they might be at the time
I'm utterly appalled at the number of people who support Bush just because he's their guy, irrespective of how much he's ruined democracy/freedom-o-speech/etc

Re:Good!

[stratjakt]

Gawd I wish people would realize that Presidential politics doesn't have to be flipping a coin. A or B.

Independants and third parties have sat in Congress, Senate and have been Governors. Why not presidents?

Bush's campaign message is "Kerry is a pussy and shouldn't be president"

Kerry's message is "Bush is a dummy and shouldn't be president".

Know what, they're both right! Neither should be president.

Voting for someone other than Bush/Kerry is most definately NOT throwing your vote away. That's old party propoganda, pure and simple.

No matter who wins this election, when they start to see that the amount of independant/3rd party votes is climbing in the double digits, they will shit their pants and you will start seeing real policy changes.

Remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

Republicans will have a chance to respond in whatever way Moore talks. Do you mean Christian Coalition hasn't made any decent movies during its whole existance?
No, actually they won't. If Moore gets his movie on TV the day before any election, Republicans will have no means to respond. Since they can't take out ads to refute his points, it seems unlikely that an individual republican without co-ordination from the RNC or the Bush campaign could put together a refutation, get it filmed, and get it to air between no and then.

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

Any damage Bush has done will be easily reversed assuming you have a willing Congress.

Two, maybe three days of work and basically you can erase the entire Bush presidency.

The problem of course from your point-of-view is that regardless of whether Bush wins or loses the Congress will, with 90% certainity, be even more Republican than it is now.

Re:Good!

[TGK]

The problem is that The Fox News Network - a so called "news channel" - has a right to get their opinions on the air. But[,] thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to fund a massively biased "news" channel doesn't have the ability to respond. Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

You say that, but the "Swift Boat Vetarans who lied for their medals too" seems to be doing quite well at getting their message out.

Re:Good!

[Frequanaut]

Your post makes no sense:

" But thanks to McCain-Feingold, another individual who doesn't have the money to produce and publicize a documentary doesn't have the ability to respond."

You state the (hypothetical I assume) person can't respond due to lack of money, but blame that lack of money on McCain-Feingold? McCain-Feingold in no way prevents that persons ability to respond on a similar scale. It's that persons lack of money preventing this.

But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?

That sounds downright socialistic. Why don't you go back to communist Russia you socialist pig?
(Wait...this isn't fox is it?)

If you're looking for some sort of democracy in action, look at the throngs of ill thought
responses here on /.

Re:Good!

[Planesdragon]

Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

Au contrair. Democracy is the best form of government. The problem is that any sizeable form of government either becomes ineffective (a'la the Articles of Confederation) or too tyrannical (a'la King George.)

The Founding Fathers created a Federalist System in which the basic democracy of the people was minimally compromised but the larger government--the "alliance of democracies"--was both effective against threats to liberty and segregated enough to not be itself such a threat.

The "bad idea" isn't a move to Democracy, it's a move AWAY from democracy caused largely by the breakdown of the basic community-unit.

As to your last point--the Constitution, while it contained limits on power, was not by design necessarily limited. It was known that power would creep regardless of the form of government, and as such the necessary process was to divide the power as much as possible.

Considering that the SCOTUS just checked the President's treatment of foreign prisoners, and the POTUS has had to get Congressional approval at regular intervals in the War on Terror, we're hardly ignoring the Constitution.

Re:Good!

[Rei]

Yeah, because we all know that all of the money is in the hands of those plutocratic democrats ;)

Seriously, are you aware of how many conservative think tanks there are out there constantly sending reps to the news? Dems *really* need to catch up with this, it has allowed Republicans to keep TV anchors repeating their talking points.

People:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/all_people_public .php

Recipients:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/recipients.php

Funders:

http://www.mediatransparency.com/funders.php

Re:Good!

[iamacat]

And if republicans must have time to refute F911, surely democrats must have time to refute the refulation... this way we never get to vote, huh? What I mean is that Michael is allowed to air F911, republicans will be allowed to air some movie that supports their worldview at the same time. "Pashion of Christ" or pro-american documentary of 911 and Iraq war or something.

Re:Good!

[SpaceLifeForm]

Advertisments by individuals and parties will be greatly restricted that late in the campaign.

Is that why the veep started the fear-mongering yesterday?

I predicted this crap would happen over a year ago. You have to be a really sick desperate administration to stoop so low. For those that missed it, Cheney basically said to the American people: If you don't vote for us this election, the terrorists will attack again, in worse ways.

Mr. Cheney, how do you know that?
Mr. Cheney, are you financing the terrorists?

Re:Good!

[nine-times]

Democracy is an unstable form of government. That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea...Too bad we ignore those parts of the Constitution, also.

And too bad we don't study up on the Federalist Papers, especially the parts where they talk about how the government they were setting up would only work so long as there were several small factions. If the political system ever got to the point of being dominated by two major parties, they said, the whole thing would go to crap. Oh well, since we won't tolerate a third party, I guess we have to go back to arguing about whether you want your butt-raping from the GOP or DNC.

Re:Good!

[rlglende]

True, the Articles of Confederation failed to give the advocates of powerful government what they wanted. How else did it fail?

The FF's commented on the problems of unrestricted democracy (rule by the mob) many times.

We have moved toward Democracy in many areas, e.g. direct election of Senators.

The Constitution enumerated the powers granted to government. Without a Constitutional amendment, the congress and executive have assumed nearly unlimited powers. 90% of the Federal government rides on the Supreme Court's re-interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

WRT the treatment of foreign prisoners, I bet it makes a hell of a big difference in the outcomes that SCOTUS took their side.

Lew

Re:Good!

[4of12]

Democracy is an imperfect process

It's like guaranteeing the right of free speech to encourage the open debate of ideas.

But then only letting some people up onto the speakers podium that can afford the fee.

We're not getting the full open debate of ideas and the sooner we realize it the better off we'll be.

Re:Good!

[Lord Kano]

But thanks to McCain-Feingold,

Which is exactly what we were saying when the "Campaign Finance Reform" debate was going on.

We were called paranoids. The media are neutral. The only report facts. It's stupid to think that they might try to help the candidates that they prefer.

Now that it's law, what we said would happen is happening. Hollywood liberals are producing propaganda films and portraying them as documentaries.

There's even a Documentary on AMC about how Republicans in Hollywood are blacklisted, like Communists in the McCarthy Era.

LK

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, even a boob like Bush can succeed.

And twits like Gore and his lawyers could nearly corrupt and manipulate the the enitre process.

Ahh, I feel better now, don't you.

Re:Good!

[megarich]

yea the constitution was an experiment that worked well for awhile but now is failing big time. all forms of government though are infallible...

Re:Good!

[dotslasher_sri]

Insightful comment. Sometimes democracy can be a bad thing too. Especially when leaders play with peoples emotions. This election is turning so ugly the people on either side just dont differ on their opinions, they loathe each other. While bush is playing with emotions saying that he is a wartime president, showing 9 /11, Kerry on other hand is riding on outsourcing, Iraq war deaths etc. While bush hasnt done much for "war on terrorism", i am not sure what kerry is going to do about outsourcing, or on Iraq.

And the worst thing about this is americans dont have a reasonable choice.

Re:Good!

[gfxguy]

The problem is that, as a Bush supporter, I don't think you can blame him for ruining democracy (since it's not been ruined) or ruining freedom of speech (the only thing he's done to infringe on free speech, IMO, is first signing McCain Feingold, and subsequently saying that 527's should be banned... can't have it both ways).

Perhaps we should be asking, though, what John Kerry would have done in George's place... it's then that I truly realize that, with the problems I have with George Bush, I think Kerry is much worse.

In fact, the ONLY reason I see for supporting Kerry is a hatred for Bush... anything else is ignoring Kerry's shortcomings while exaggerating Bush's shortcomings simply because you don't like him.

Re:Good!

[Net_fiend]

So, with what you have said would you listen to advice that: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.."? This excerpt is from George Washington's farewll address. He advocated isolationism for the United States. We know that this is near impossible. Especially with people like Saddam and Osama. The fact still remains that neither should be left free to roam the country sides of the Middle East. As far as Bush being a "boob", sure he has done some things that have not been seen as "good" in the public eye. Name a president that has not done the same. You'll be hard pressed. Every president has done or said something that either upset the public or went against what they had promised.

The point is who would be better at running the country as a whole. And just to clear things up. The Constitution never really says that political parties are needed to run the government. Those cropped up due to the government as a whole having thier own agendas which imo have polluted our governing system.

Re:Good!

[LurkerXXX]

Cool!

In three days we can get our 1000 dead soldiers back?

In three days we can have the 9000 wounded soldiers healed?

In three days we get our $200,000,000,000 back that we spend on a war based on a lie?

We get our international respect back in only 3 days? SWEET!

Oh yeah, sorry I got carried away. It turns out you are wrong. It will be decades before any of it is fixed, and some parts are unfixable.

Re:Good!

[Slime-dogg]

Yeah, I think it should be on TV too. I might even watch it. I sure wasn't going to contribute to his next movie by watching this one in the theaters.

Re:Good!

[maxpublic]

Television would be totally unwatchable for months at a time. Oh, wait...

The problem here isn't that television is being manipulated to push political agendas, but that people consider television - especially commercials - to be a credible source of information at all. No amount of legislation will 'fix' the problems of political ads on TV when the respect that Americans give to TV itself is the fundamental problem.

Max

Re:Good!

[maxpublic]

Democracy isn't and never has been the best form of government. Our founding fathers weren't interested in democracy and saw it as nothing more than a dictatorship by a mob in place of a king.

That's why we have a REPUBLIC. That's why the Constitution clearly limited the powers of government AND OF THE PEOPLE TO OPPRESS THEIR NEIGHBORS. Because that is precisely what unchecked democracies will do: oppress those who don't have the votes to block the will of the majority. The Bill of Rights wasn't just about limiting the powers of elites within government, but also of limited the powers of the majority to inflict harm on the minority via the tool of government.

You might want to educate yourself by reading "The American State Papers" and "The Federalist" to see what our founders thought about democracy and why they were so adamantly in favor of a republic in it's place.

Max

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy n. A form of government. ex.:"Two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Re:Good!

[Planesdragon]

Democracy isn't and never has been the best form of government.

Democracy is the natural form of government. All other apparant forms of government are simply more informal about thier elections, occasilly to the point that the people must take up arms to enforce their will.

While I support your ability to pursue this partisan semantical insistence, you're logically wrong.

The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.

Without the American respect for personal liberty, an indirect democracy ("republic") could be as tyrannical as an unfettered direct democracy. Because of this, the right-wing's occasional insistence on calling America a "republic" and not a "democracy" is nothing more than partisan squabbling.

The important thing is that we are democratic - that power flows from the people. If we forget that most basic of elements, then we start down the road to the very tyrannies we've fought against. Every major foe we've had since the Spanish American War has considered itself a "republic."

Re:Good!

[Black Acid]

True, the Articles of Confederation failed to give the advocates of powerful government what they wanted. How else did it fail?

The Articles failed to contain Shay's Rebellion and failed to raise enough money to pay off our debt from the war. The decentralized government's ability to put down Shay's Rebellion was indictive of its weakness in enforcing law and order. To other nations, the US did not appear as a coherent, single country--hurting our foreign policy.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny- at first I could have sworn you were talking about Moore.

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

We get our international respect back in only 3 days? SWEET!
Yes.

In three days we get our $200,000,000,000 back that we spend on a war based on a lie?
Yes.

In three days we can have the 9000 wounded soldiers healed? and In three days we can get our 1000 dead soldiers back?

No. Of course not.

Of course the damage that is done is done. But as far as to undo the damage, ie, to undo the laws, regulations, etc that people disagree with? That'll take not more than 3 days if they wanted it.

But none of that matters. Congress will still be Republican (very likely, maybe more than 90%, but at least, 90%).

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

But, you are right. It's not democratic, it *is* capitalistic though. What would you prefer? That the government pay for some sort of rebuttal?
No, no, it's not capitalistic.

McCain-Feingold says that even if you have the money, if you not on the approved list of persons allowed to buy tv-time, you can't buy it.

It's not democratic, and it's not capitialistic. Michael Moore gets a pass because his political ad is in the form of a documentary, which is more expensive to make than a political ad. Get it now? If you get 100 people together, and each donates 1,000 to buy a poltical ad, those people are unable by law to buy that ad, but Michael Moore is allowed to.

Re:Good!

[LurkerXXX]

Exactly how do we get that 200 billion back? Got a magic lamp?

You think a simple switch of leaders is suddenly going to get rid of all the ill-will we have generated around the world? You are dreaming. Bush pissed away our international reputation, that will take many years to rebuild.

Re:Good!

[Frequanaut]

So..I still don't understand why someone else with a different viewpoint can't do just what Michael Moore did?

Re:Good!

[BlewScreen]

I think the point is that the person lacks the money to produce a documenatry and air it. If I've got enough money to buy 20 seconds of prime-time and run an ad, I can't. Instead, I'd need MORE money - i.e., enough to produce a documentary.

So, M/F is responsible, because it sets the amount of money you need to be much higher that it should be...

This is the antithesis of capitalism. The gov't now regulates what can and can't be said, not by allowing the market to dictate what costs will be, but by restricting what you can say based on the content of what you want to say.

I can buy an ad that says "pepsi sucks, buy coke", but I can't buy an ad that says "vote for XYZ, not ABC", all other things being equal.

-bs

Re:Good!

[Dr. Manhattan]

I was in Ireland a couple months ago; the campaign commercials were much longer, and clearly subsidized. I'm not sure I'd want a BBC-style organization for the airwaves in the US, but I acknowledge that there is a tradeoff.

Re:Good!

[nine-times]

It was more than Shay's Rebellion. There were several lawless areas that the government couldn't do anything about. The military was a mess, partially because it wasn't clear that a New York captain outranked a Virginia private, partially because the Confederate government had no ability to enforce tax collection, meaning they didn't have money to pay soldiers or buy equipment, or really, do much of anything. At that point, they were faced with the decision of whether to form a stronger federal government, or go their seperate ways, because the Confederate government was pretty useless.

Re:Good!

[maxpublic]

The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.

That simply isn't true. The founding fathers publicly and repeatedly stated that they thought direct democracy to be a very bad idea. I've already told you where to look if you want to confirm that, which you're welcome to do at any decent public library (or perhaps online, by now).

I repeat myself, but they said that direct democracy was nothing more than a tyranny of the majority, and no better than the tyranny enforced by a single man - a king. The Constitution specifically limited government power through the First through Fifth Amendments, and later the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, to keep the majority from ever using the tool of government to oppress the minority.

All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.

Max

Re:Good!

[nine-times]

The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.

That's simply untrue. Have you read anything written by anyone who helped form the US government? The setup was chosen for a number of complex reasons. First of all, the states wanted to maintain autonomy while forming some sort of a confederation. The breakup of the federal/state governments was a compromise.

The founders of the US were concerned about the possibility of a monarchy becoming a tyranny, or an aristocracy, or anything else. They were also afraid of the often termed "tyranny of the masses", i.e. democracy, and the Representitive form of democracy was, again, a comprimise.

In fact, almost every aspect of the formulation of the US government was aimed at dividing power and limiting power as much as possible without making the government useless. They wanted the government to be just about useless. Almost useless. Pretty much so that nothing could get done unless, by some miracle, a number of different well-educated men from distant places and different backgrounds, with no shared allegiances, upon discussing the matter, came to a generally satisfactory course of action.

A couple founders were of the mind to have a real democracy, and it was considered by many to be foolish. The main reason being: the masses make bad decisions. Who will run the government better- a bunch of uneducated people who are busy with their daily lives and have no time to think about governmental action, and don't understand how economies and governments work, or a group of educated men, small enough to be able to converse and talk their concerns out, who spend all day focused on the problems that the government must solve?

The United States was meant to be a "natural aristocracy". Aristrocracy, meaning "ruled by the best", but "natural", because it would differ from other aristocracies in that it really would be the best men who were chosen to govern. At least that was the hope.

Anyway... All this to say that, whether you agree with them or not, the founding fathers of the USA did not think a true democracy was good.

Re:Good!

[Planesdragon]

All of this is public record and should have been taught to you in high school. I find it surprising that your education has been so lax and so full of misinformation. But you're perfectly capable of going to the source and correcting these deficiencies yourself, which I encourage you to do.

Three ad hominem attacks in a row -- and none of which back up your original allegation.

To dive into a flame war: you must be a Republican. No one else in the whole world has miscreants among their number who not only are so uncivil that they attempt to refute any description of their opposite party's name as an adjective of the larger government, but also take up unfounded attacks as something passing for reasonable discourse.

Your party must be ashamed of you, but thankfully their leaders are too polite to either let you steer the path or embarass themselves by responding to you.

Re:Good!

[node 3]

Democracy is an unstable form of government.

Democracy is something that requires effort to maintain.

Unstable != undesirable.

That is why the US Constitution specified a republic, and why the move to and adulation of DEMOCRACY has been a bad idea.

They in fact did specify a Democracy. We democratically elect our representatives. As you pointed out, this is all outlined in the Constitution. Thus we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

The move away from, and popular disfavor of, Democracy has been a really bad idea.

Re:Good!

[Zork the Almighty]

"DC 9/11 : Time of Crisis". I saw a few minutes of that, bwhuhahahaha

Re:Good!

[maxpublic]

No, I rather despise the DemoRepublican party and all that they stand for.

Your education is lacking, and sorely, if you think our founding fathers were in favor of democracy. THEY WERE NOT. They said so, time and time again, and their words have been immortalized in a wide variety of publications.

I learned this in school; why didn't you?

But I'll say it again. You can confirm this yourself. The American State Papers, the Federalist, Jefferson's abundant ruminations on the nature of democracy and the republic - THEY'RE ALL PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. NO ONE IS HIDING ANYTHING FROM YOU.

Not a single one of our founding fathers thought democracy was a good idea. They all - each and every one of them - favored an extremely weak republic tightly restricted by Constitutional decree, where individual freedoms outweighed public desires.

What the hell do you think the 9th and 10th amendments were all about, anyway?

Max

Re:Good!

[ThisNukes4u]

Parties and factions are not the same. No matter how many parties you have, the system will goto crap because people in a party are more loyal to the party than to the country. The constitution was designed for temporary FACTIONS, which is where politicans get together on a certian issue, and then dissassemble as soon as that issue has been resolved.

Re:Good!

[danheskett]

You think a simple switch of leaders is suddenly going to get rid of all the ill-will we have generated around the world? You are dreaming. Bush pissed away our international reputation, that will take many years to rebuild.
You outta take a few moments and think about why Bush has pissed off so many world leaders while Clinton was so loved by so many world leaders.

If you start thinking personality than stop, that's not it.

Why would so many world leaders hate Bush?

Re:Good!

[Planesdragon]

*sigh*

I'll repeat. The Federalist Papers et al were discussions about the NATIONAL government. They weren't even state-level considerations.

For more than a 100 years the constition only limited the federal government. If Massachusets wanted to force folk to be Puritain and randomly search households, it was MA's right to do so. And no one had a problem with that, because the Commonwealth of MA was presumed (at the federal level) to be more responsive to the will of its citizenry than a federal government ever could be.

Re:Good!

[drunkenbatman]

The fact that the federal and state governments are formed as republics isn't a due to idealism or even cynicism -- rather, it's one chosen because of the impossibility of direct democracy at anything other than the very local level.

You're way off here, and need to read some of Jefferson's writings. "Of the cities, by the cities, and for the cities" is what you'll want to look for.

McCain-Feingold

[russotto]

Wouldn't McCain-Feingold effectively prevent this?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[pHatidic]

Well this isn't a political ad. It is just critical of bush but doesn't support anyone else, so I don't see what the conflict of interest would be. /voting for Nader

Re:McCain-Feingold

[danheskett]

No, it would only prevent people taking out ads to refute the airing of the documentary. Since this isn't technically a political ad and doesn't endorse or mention a "candidate", it's a-okay. But mind you, the RNC or a Bush supporter can't take out ads to refute the points raised in the film.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[HebrewToYou]

Yes, it most certainly would.

Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary. If you doubt this claim, visit http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ and read about all his shortcomings, fibs, misinterpretations and misdirections. Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement (especially since Moore has publically stated his support for John Kerry).

As such, there is no way a major broadcast network could aire the movie before election. As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.

On a side note, as a conservative who is most certainly voting for George W. Bush, I must say that the movie is very interesting. Watching the Marine recruiters in action certainly blew my mind. But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is. Enough armchair quarterbacking -- I'd like the man behind Canadian Bacon to just be forthcoming.

Shame on Michael Moore for stooping so low.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[ImaLamer]

I'm not sure about McCain-Feingold but I do know that the reason you don't see any more commercials for the movie is because it violates laws about commercials featuring candidates. (Being that it's a for-profit venture, as opposed to "527's")

I agree with that view somewhat, and so does Moore from what I understand... but the movie (in DVD/DVD-R) form has already hit the Internet's piracy sites (NFO file) and plenty of people are already got it. Moore has stated that he doesn't care about the money when it comes to this movie so 'piracy' is welcome in his eyes

I've got my copy but handing it out would be like preaching to the choir...

Thing is... who would air the film? I'm sure that advertising revenue will make it attractive but I don't think stations will risk the tax break suicide if Bush does get re-elected.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

Repeat after me.

Money is not speech.

Advertising is money.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[haxor.dk]

"Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one."

Seems fitting for such a trashy unworthy piece of propagandistic motion picture if you ask me.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

By your own reasoning, The West Wing should be regarded as a political statement because it is fictional yet depicts political opinion. Should The West Wing not air for weeks before an election?

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Have any of the networks challenged it? I suspect that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court, but which of the networks will actually challenge it and take all the bad press about it?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[flossie]

But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is.

Would that be the seven minutes when someone should have been deciding whether or not to shoot down planes full of civilians? The seven minutes when someone should have been gathering all available facts and providing leadership when it could possibly have made a difference?

Re:Mccain-feingold

[LordNimon]

Advertising is not money, it is speech. The fact that most people have to pay to have their ad printed or broadcast is irrelevant. If I print my own newspaper and distribute it myself, that still costs me money. A newspaper printing my ad is just a middleman.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Eslyjah]

Have you really thought that out? Scalia makes a pretty powerful case, IMO, that money is sometimes speech. Perhaps you should read his dissent.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mattkime]

Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement.

Please, point to a documentary that doesn't have a political stance of some type. You can't have documentary without some sort of perspective that someone else will find unfair. Certainly, Moore has his views. However, he does present compelling evidence which he does stand firmly behind.

I agree with you, its unlikely that F9/11 will air on a major network - too risky. But it may land on a cable channel with large viewership.

(and why do you defend a commander-in-chief that takes seven minutes to respond to "sir, the nation is under attack"?)

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Alzheimers]

I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central)

Well, considering that they already have one of the best (not to mention, most trusted) sources of news in the business, I'd say that'd be a pretty good idea!

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* http://trackerwww.prq.to/download.php/3236643/Fahr enheit.911.DVDR-AURA.torrent *cough*

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't the douchebag just host a bittorrent seed, and run around spamming it all over the internet? Let people know it's OK to download and view it.

That would get it out there. Most people aren't going to get into the whole "warez scene" to see a political documentary.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Le Marteau]

But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is. Enough armchair quarterbacking

I think Moore should have pounded Bush even MORE than he did for Bush sitting on his ass in front of grade schoolers looking like a jackass. The man is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the ARMED FORCES, not a goddamned SCHOOLMARM. He should be impeached just for that! Just for not leaving the room, graciously, like any of his generals would. The man is a disgrace to the armed services and a fool, and he showed it that day. That episode was deriliction of duty, and had any general on the front lines had acted as irresponsibly as that, he would have been court martialed.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Russ Nelson]

Uhhhhhh, if I want to get my opinion out to people, I have to present it in the same forums in which advertising appears. That takes money. Restrictions on political speech are the most unconstitutional restrictions.
-russ

Re:McCain-Feingold

[say]

Since his movie is no documentary, it must be considered a political statement.

This is, as far as I'm concerned, the most illogical and biased statement I've seen since kindergarden.

First: illogical. So, you are going to let a court decide what is a documentary and what is not? I take it you believe quite strongly in right and wrong, black and white, true and false. Well, the world ain't boolean.

Moore's movie, no matter if it is a documentary or not, is obviously a statement. Any human being who is trying to depict anything will add some subjective bias to it. By explicitly saying so, or by subconciously (sorry my spelling, I'm Norwegian) being selective about which parts of reality you focus on.

Because of this, everyone who opens their mouth on national TV is subjective. Journalists are the best example: the way the editors depict the candidates on the election day has a really huge potential for subjectivity. A smiling, strong-looking Bush first, and then a shorter clip of Kerry, looking worried. That, my friend, is really effective means of making a few votes for your personal favourite.

As such, Michael Moore is a lot more clean-cut. If you watch Moore's film, you know you're going to get flooded with arguments for not choosing Bush. Hardly anyone in the US do not know who Michael Moore wants you to vote for.

My point is: you can't be objective about this. One man's objective truth is another man's outright lie. Fox' coverage of the election is different from ABC's (I'm not too familiar with your TV stations, but I've understood that Fox is rather conservative). And what is the right way to depict anything?

I find the rule that political parties can't advertize on election day quite all right. It treats everyone equally. But that is quite far from having some kind of censoring that decides what is political and what is not. Maybe the only way to do this would be to outlaw mass media until the elections are over?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[HebrewToYou]

(and why do you defend a commander-in-chief that takes seven minutes to respond to "sir, the nation is under attack"?)

Part of being the commander in chief is being a figurehead. Panicking in front of children and TV cameras is not what a figurehead ought to be doing. Besides, what could he have done? He needed to get to a location with the proper resources for commanding, and the additional seven minutes he spent were trivial.

No president would have ordered the planes with US civilians shot down. It just wouldn't have happened. Sorry if you disagree, but that's just the way I see it. Bush acted like a leader should have -- he was prudent, understanding and acting with caution. Don't read anything else into it; that would be foolish.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the right-wing psychoes around here (Twirlip of the Mists, I think) actually posted a West Wing quote in order to make a point the other day. If righties can port President Sheen's insight from a totally fanciful story, can't lefties use Moore's insight from another totally fanciful story?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[TamMan2000]

As far as airing on cable, that is another matter. I imagine he could find some movie channel (or perhaps Comedy Central) that would be willing to aire the film before November. I truly doubt that such an action would do much since I'd wager most folks with access to said cable channels have already seen the movie.

WTF!?!?

Why do you say that? I know many people who have never seen any of moores work, not for lack of financial resources. They do not want to see any of it, because they are convinced that it is all lies. They then go on to say such witty things as "if guns are the problem, then why does Canada not have so many murders?" when attempting to slam BFC. The idoits have obviosly never seen the movie, moore brings this up in the film, repeatedly.

There is a large portion of the population that is willfully ignorant.

I respect you for being a conservative Bush voter (although I find little conservative about Bush) who saw the movie, and was aparantly able to look at it honestly. Unfortunalty, you are the minority.

On a side note, it should be easy to look at the ticket sales of F911 and the cable subscription rates, and get some sence of the accuracy of your statment, but I lack the time and motivation to do so...

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

Speech is a power commanded by just about every citizen.

Speaking into the homes of just about every citizen requires a LOT of money, and having a lot of money is not a power commanded by just about every citizen. Therefore, that power should indeed be held to a higher standard of fairness and restraint, most particularly when we're talking about influencing people's votes.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Sloppy]

Thanks for the interesting link.

(I still haven't made up my mind on this one.)

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

I think it would be much better to stop pretending like advertising is a political forum.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[magefile]

Moore said he doesn't care ... but I'm pretty sure Lion's Gate Films does, and they're the ones with (sole?) distribution rights.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[HebrewToYou]

The West Wing is fiction.

Aaron Sorkin made sure of that, although he enjoyed using real-life events to mimic modern political experiences. He is no longer with the show now, likely due to his drug bust in CA.

Michael Moore's film is nonfiction.
It is not exactly truthful, but it is not meant to create an illusion of the real world. He merely sees things differently than myself and others. Bad comparison.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mattkime]

Besides, what could he have done?

He could have immediately said, "Sorry children, I need to go and do the things that a president needs to do. You should all come and visit me at the Whitehouse!" Then he should have left and started informing himself. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he should have considered options and come to that conclusion. Instead, he sat and read a children's book.

Those seven minutes are Bush's most indefensible of his career. You may have your reasons for support Bush, but I can't believe how he acted in that moment is one of them.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[HebrewToYou]

I think you're looking for any possible excuse to defame the man. And for that you should be ashamed.

But at least you're educating yourself on current events, no matter how trivial. I'm glad to see that.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[ImaLamer]

Moore said he doesn't care ... but I'm pretty sure Lion's Gate Films does, and they're the ones with (sole?) distribution rights.

You've got a very good point.

IMHO, the problem with Napster, Kazaa, et.al. was the fact that they were distributing music without the distribution rights.

I don't think the copyright was the issue, it's two different things, it's the right of one company to distribute the music. The artist has signed with one company, giving them sole rights to make copies available.

Maybe they are one in the same when looked at from a distance, but an album could have 0 copyright value but at the same time it could have been promised to one distributer... I guess. I'm confusing my self.

If Moore was cool he'd just put the movie in the public domain. (GPL/FDL? But that would allow changes...)

Re:McCain-Feingold

[dafz1]

If Michael Moore pays a network to air the movie, it would be a violation of the McCain-Feingold act. Sect. 101, sub. b, Part 2, Line iii bans:

"a communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office (regardless of whether a candidate for State or local office is also mentioned or identified) and is made for the purpose of influencing a Federal election (regardless of whether the communication is express advocacy)."

note: express advocacy, as defined by the McCain-Faingold act includes(Sec 201, Sub B, Part 20, Line iii)

"expressing unmistakable and unambiguous support for or opposition to 1 or more clearly identified candidates when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, such as proximity to an election."

While no one would argue F9/11 refers to GWB, the loophole is that as long as no one pays a network to air the movie, they are not in violation(IANAL).

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Rei]

They absolutely can, so long as they're not promoting a political candidate.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Cro Magnon]

90% of the REAL political ads don't support anyone else either! They just say "Bush/Kerry sux!".

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless somethings changed more recently, the post above incorrectly says that ads for the movie are no longer being aired because it violates laws about commercials featuring candidates.

A conservative group did petition the Federal Election Commission to bar commercials about the film, but according to a Reuters news story (archived on michaelmooore.com) the US agency, "found no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law or that distributors of the film intended any violations in the future."

more info: http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=127

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mattkime]

I think you're looking for any possible excuse to defame the man.

If I was looking for any possible excuse to defame him, I might point to his past of alcoholism or coke use. I might point to his many failed business ventures. Or his low grades and acceptance into Yale based on family history. I might point to how he sells himself as a Texan even though he's from the east coast. Or his incredibly poor public speaking. Or how he thinks God wants him to be president.

Yet I set this all aside when making an argument against re-electing him.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[istartedi]

If they were printing ads on dollar bills and handing them out, you might have an argument.

And furthermore, money doesn't win elections either. Just ask Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and the (IIRC) Rockefellers.

Yeah, if the candidates are tweedle-dee and tweedle dum, the richer tweedle might have an edge, but that's about it.

If I had an opportunity to violate McCain-Feingold, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Only people that violate this trash legislation are real Americans. Everybody else is an imposter.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Cro Magnon]

You mean the 7 minutes where Bush's subordinates WERE gathering facts? Or did you expect Bush to jump to his feet and make an immediate decision with absolutely no information yet?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

He dosen't exactly say piracy is okay with him. He disagrees with copyright law all together, and that he would actually like as many people as possible to see his movie, regardless of exactly how they got it--if they borrowed it from the library, a local friend, a friend over the internet, or from a complete stranger over the internet. It's all the same to him.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[magefile]

Ah, but if he PD'd it or GPL/FDL'd it, he still couldn't distribute it ... and the fact that *anyone* could then distribute F911 would probably violate his contract with Lion's Gate. He would've had to PD/GPL/FDL it *first*, then get Lion's Gate to distribute it ... which would've been pretty dang hard.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

These advertising campaigns only serve to a) enrich the networks and b) price a bid for political office beyond what a Real American can afford.

Ideally, I'd a) abolish political parties, b) forbid any corporation from paying money to any candidate (although people who work for that corp can certainly contribute to whichever candidate they may feel best represents them with after-tax dollars) c) make political advertising a civic duty of the networks. Have the candidates (or the people who want to air their political speech) pay the production cost of their ad, and have the airtime donated.

(there would need to be some sort of mechanism in place to keep the cranks from monopolizing the forum, but that should be a soluble problem)

Anyhow, I agree with you on civil disobedience, and I don't think that McCain-Feingold is a good law by any metric. But I do believe that campaign financing is seriously uffed up, and needs an overhaul.

My favourite part of the McCain-Feingold bill is the one that specifically exempts McCain's constituency. (That is, the native americans he's gotten casinos for) Your tax dollars at work, my friends.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[flossie]

You mean the 7 minutes where Bush's subordinates WERE gathering facts? Or did you expect Bush to jump to his feet and make an immediate decision with absolutely no information yet?

No, I would have expected him to jump to his feet and immediately start familiarising himself with the available information so that he would be in a position to make a timely decision (if required) regarding the fate of the civilians that he is sworn to protect.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Tiroth]

Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary.

Actually, I was pretty impressed at how Moore debunked the myth that Canada has less gun violence due to having less guns. If he were really spreading baseless propaganda he would never have included that segment, because it challenges one of the major arguments for gun control.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

There was only one thing wrong with this fact. When Mr. Bush was in the class room, there was no evidence that what happened to the first tower was anything other than a terrible accident. As such, there was no reason to imagine any type of military response. Of course, hindsight makes it look like Bush made a mistake here, but given the facts know at the time, his actions were appropriate. I consider this another piece of Mr. Moore's bias, he never bothered to mention that there was no way for Mr. Bush to know that this was anything other than an accident. While I can fault President Bush on many other things, I think his response entire appropriate here.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[cayenne8]

"Please, point to a documentary that doesn't have a political stance of some type. You can't have documentary without some sort of perspective that someone else will find unfair."

Ok, here's one, Gimme Shelter documentary of the end of the Rolling Stones tour at Altamont. Very powerful...but, no political overtones, nor opinions expressed through the movie..only events as they happened.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Most election finance laws only apply if you accept federal matching funds. It's the same way we have a national drinking age, it's tied to federal highway funds. You don't have to follow the laws if you don't take the money. It's like contract law.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[William Tanksley]

Care to explain how it's a dereliction of duty? The President's duty is deliniated by regulation and custom; Bush, unlike many previous presidents (but like his father), has been very succesful at meeting both.

Charges of dereliction of duty have to be backed up by specifics of what the duty WAS. By that definition, Bush was NOT committing dereliction.

Now, charges of irresponsibility don't have the same standard -- but without ANY standard, all you have is armchair quarterbacking. Yes, I'm sure Kerry says he would have done better; but WHAT would he have done? How would the results have differred? And how many of those "I would have done this" statements are based on after-the-fact knowledge?

The fact is, seven minutes more of reading did not make any difference in the outcome. There WERE actions that could have changed things, but if anyone (including Bush) had taken them and thereby changed things, the changed state would be seen as worse than the old state of things.

-Billy

Re:McCain-Feingold

[dorsey]

So, at what point exactly does "valid criticism" become "defamation"? I'm just curious...

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod +5, Had To Explain The Obvious

Re:McCain-Feingold

[gfxguy]

Are you implying those facts weren't being gathered? Or do you think that, as commander in chief, Bush should have somehow had access to all the nations air traffic control systems, being an expert on them, to assess the situation?

Look, it doesn't matter what he did - Moore would have made it look bad. Let's assume he leaped into action, ripping off his shirt and revealing the big "S" on his superhero costume underneath...

Moore: "Shame on you Mr. President for leaving those kids, scared, not knowing what's going on, maybe even thinking a nuclear weapon was headed their way. Is that any way to present yourself as a cool, calm, commander in chief?"

The whole issue is just silly... it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The whole "war on terror" is the same way, and frankly it would be regardless who was president...

Either you preemptively strike, or you get struck... either way the sitting president gets roasted by "the other side."

Re:McCain-Feingold

[gfxguy]

Really? And I suppose you know exactly what his advisor told him at that particular point in time?

Maybe "...we have no reason to believe there are any more."

Perhaps "...but we believe the situation is under control."

Frankly, I like the fact that he stayed calm and proceeded to do what he was there to do... and let his people assess the situation to give him a full report when all the information is in.

It comes down to our perspectives... I certainly think he's done a lot worse, but I really shudder to think what Kerry would have done... but then that's also just speculation on my part, isn't it?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[HebrewToYou]

When you second guess a decision that was not really a decision at all.

Those seven minutes are not a matter of criticism -- they are merely used by Moore and other fanatical AbB folks to make him look like an idiot. Criticize policy -- not the actions of the man for seven minutes on the morning of 9/11/01. That is just petty.

But, look, I'm willing to accept that some folks do think he was seriously fucking up when he refusing to storm out of that book-reading session. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs....I just think there are more important issues at hand.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[daveo0331]

I think this would have to be the case. Otherwise, Rush Limbaugh would have to go off the air, 60 minutes couldn't air their interview with the guy that got Bush out of going to Vietam, etc. In fact the entire Fox "news" channel would have to shut down for 2 months before the election. I don't see how this is any different from any other 2 hour TV show that advocates one or the other of the candidates.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mattkime]

Thats an interested way to resolve the problem. I sure hope if I ever make such an ass of myself before the country, that i'll have so many people making up excuses for my actions.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[flossie]

Are you implying those facts weren't being gathered? Or do you think that, as commander in chief, Bush should have somehow had access to all the nations air traffic control systems, being an expert on them, to assess the situation?

By the time he heard about the attacks, there most certainly would have been plenty of information available for him to hear. The fact that he is not an expert on all the systems which would have been providing information is exactly why he should have been familiarising himself with the situation straight away. How could he make the necessary decisions without being aware of what information was available and without an understanding of how it all fitted together. To gain the necessary understanding, he should have been speaking to those who knew, not reading a children's book.

Moore: "Shame on you Mr. President for leaving those kids, scared, not knowing what's going on, maybe even thinking a nuclear weapon was headed their way. Is that any way to present yourself as a cool, calm, commander in chief?"

It would have been perfectly possible for him to excuse himself without frightening the children.

The whole issue is just silly... it's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The whole "war on terror" is the same way, and frankly it would be regardless who was president...

But it was this president who decided to have a "war on terror"! (Followed by an unjustified war in Iraq while the rest of his government launched their "war on civil liberties")

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Le Marteau]

Yes, I'm sure Kerry says he would have done

I'm not. I really don't give a flying flip WHAT Kerry would have done. All I'm saying is that an airplane flying into the apex and culmination of American Civiliaziton, even if it looked like an accident at the time, is just a TAD bit more important than reading "My Little Pony" to a bunch of snot-noses, even for seven minutes. It shows a tremendous, stupifying lack of common sense, and a general unfitness to be Commander in Chief, and the bum should have been fired just for that. I don't CARE who would be next (be it Kerry, or Cheyney, or Bozo the Frickin' Clown for that matter) all I'm saying is Bush is an embarassment to the military, has no common sense, and, it seems to me from the way he talks and behaves, suffers from alcohol abuse induced brain damage.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[istartedi]

If they wanted to have a constitutional ammendment that limited campaign spending, I might support it if it were worded properly.

That's a core part of our problems--issues that ought to be addressed by constitutional ammendment are just being legislated on. You may not agree with the anti-gay-marriage thing, but at least they are taking the proper route in asking for a CA. Same deal with prohibition, yet pot is illegal without a CA. Go figure. Which reminds me, since prohibition left the sale of "intoxicating liquors" up to the states, what would happen if somebody tried to make a drink out of pot plants? It's a liquor. It's intoxicating. Therefore, it ought to be regulated by the states. :)

Re:McCain-Feingold

[gfxguy]

So many people? Interesting.

Anyhow, it's funny that, at the time, polls showed overwhelmingly how good a job most people thought the president did on that day... and the first time I ever heard anyone complaining about those first few minutes was in Moore's movie...

Suddenly it's become a major issue with the left when it wasn't even on the radar three years ago. I guess desparate times call for desparate measures.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

Well, the power to spend money is also commanded by every citizen.

But The Rich have more, you say? True, but the power of speech is every bit as unevenly distributed as the money is. If Tom Hanks speaks out on an issue it gets heard much more than if you or I did. And consider this: Barbara Streisand can speak (or sing) at a fundraiser for free instead of insisting on the $500,000 (or whatever) she would ordinarily be paid. That constitutes a very valuable donation to a political campaign that you or I cannot match. Anyone proposing banning that?

Someone who makes money in a non-media business can't draw an audience like that, so they have to hire publicity, but they are limited by law how much and where they can spend. Therefore the effect of current campaign finance law is to shift power from flinty patricians to trendy entertainers. How is that an improvement?

Face it. The only may for average joes to make a political impact is for groups to pool resources and/or find a sympathetic sponsor (like the Swifties did). Campaign finance laws, if anything, impede that process.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mattkime]

at the time, polls showed overwhelmingly how good a job most people thought the president did

at the time, people were stocking up on bottled water and duct tape to prepare for the coming terrorist attacks. Just because it wasn't analyzed at the time doesn't mean its not a weakness. It was talked about before F911, although it might not have made itself know to you specifically.

I guess desparate times call for desparate measures.

Critiquing the job the president has done is always fair game. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.

...and as far as desperate is concerned, how about Cheney saying we'll be attacked if Kerry is elected?

Re:McCain-Feingold

[gfxguy]

...and as far as desperate is concerned, how about Cheney saying we'll be attacked if Kerry is elected?

You're absolutely right (and thanks for not railing on my mispellings)... a lot of the comments from the right are basically pretty stupid and pointless... just like a lot of comments from the left...

However, unless you are arguing that two wrongs make a right, I'm not sure what bringing up what Chenney said has to do with the critique of President Bush's reaction during the first few minutes during the 9/11 attacks.

In other words, while I think there are some valid criticisms of President Bush, I think this one is pretty petty and pointless... like I said, you can look at it as if he had a calm cool reaction, or you can look at it as if he was a wide eyed and vacant as a deer staring into oncoming headlights... I can play with the video of it to show either position, and I can't understand why this is now such a major issue.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Overzeetop]

c'mon Sandy, baby, loosen up!

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mikestro]

No, the 527's can. The campaigns themselves cannot. And specifically, if they (the campaigns can't, then the 527's shouldn't be able to either).

Ahem.

That's right.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mikestro]

No, he was cool under pressure. Kerry himself said he sat at his desk for 30 minutes not know what to do.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[mlc]

The campaign-finance thing was, I think, struck down. A more likely explanation for why you don't see any more commercials for the move is that it isn't in theaters anymore, it isn't on VHS or DVD yet, and it's generally considered a waste of money (under capitalism) to advertise a product that cannot be bought.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[flossie]

No, he was cool under pressure. Kerry himself said he sat at his desk for 30 minutes not know what to do.

Kerry wasn't Commander-in-Chief.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[William Tanksley]

Seriously. Really. You literally don't care about what else would have been done; you merely don't want THAT to have been done.

The only motivations I can guess at for your attitude are:

1. A deep hatred of kids.
2. A deep hatred of Bush.
3. A personal knowledge of what should have been done.

The first two elements are clearly present in your screed, judging from the words you use to describe the two. The third element isn't present in anything you've said; my guessing at it is relatively unjustified (although to be fair, I do suspect that you actually have something, even though you haven't hinted at it yet).

So come out with it. What SHOULD have been done? And why should Bush have known that this was the right thing to do, and that it was exclusive of staying in the class for the remaining 7 minutes? You MUST be able to answer both questions in order to make the argument you're making; since you're making the argument so strongly, your answers had better be equally strong.

Keep in mind that presidents HAVE been "fired" before for dereliction of duty (well, only one that I know of). The military can't kick someone out of office, of course, but they can and have removed clearance to see things like nuclear plans.

-Billy

Re:McCain-Feingold

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And maybe that's why it needs to stay that way.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

Take a look at post 10189822, (not my own post) above. It links to Scalia's dissent on McCain-Fiengold. His remarks on the history of restrictions on advertising used to squelch political dissent , mere decades before the First Amendment, are particularly damning.

If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

I am working my way through Scalia's dissent, and he certainly makes some very good points.

However, I do not agree that advertising==speech, and should not be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny.

If we had a populace that actually had access to the political process, rather than a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, I would be more persuaded by Scalia's argument.

Corporations are not people, and have no rights. The fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with me on this topic does not dissuade my opinion.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

I'd a) abolish political parties

Quickly now....name a functioning national democracy that doesn't have political parties. None in modern history. We have ancient Athens, but that was small: Socrates was convicted 280 to 221 for example. Ancient Rome had a republican form of gov't for a while. But both of those democracies failed. Athens fell to the Spartans, whose small population should have been easily defeated. And Rome after the Punic wars slipped into oligarchy, then monarchy, then autocracy, then anarchy.

I'm not thrilled with how parties behave either, but they do seem necessary for democracy to scale beyond a thousand people or so.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[PixelScuba]

I'm sure Clarence Thomas will be the one to find them.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

I should have been more clear.

I would like to destroy the American political parties' total ownership of the election process. Having only two voices is not a sufficiently good model of the American populace.

Re:McCain-Feingold

[ImaLamer]

Well, if you want to get technical, it's still being shown in places... (some places it's just now getting shown).

But in reality the commercials were pulled before it was done with it's first run.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

Corporations are not people, and have no rights

No they are not...that is simply a convenient legal shorthand. But stockholders are, and do, so the rights of corporations should not be so cavalierly dismissed. To a certain extent stockholders have a right to exercise their rights through a corporate entity.

Let me give examples of what I consider appropriate and inappropriate corporate political speech.

Stockholders in the big media companies have an interest in getting good return on their investment, but they are consumers of recorded music as well. Therefore, stockholders have a dilute (or even negative) interest in copyright extensions and such. The company managements, however, have a much stonger vested interest in copyright extension so they lobby toward that goal with great zeal. This form of corporate politcal speech is inappropriate because it constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty to spend money counter to the interest of the stockholders.

Now consider this case. The Federal government has been attempting to dredge the Hudson River for PCB's at GE's (enormous) expense. GE disputes the scientific merit of such an endeavor and has fought the case not only in court, but in public opinion with a PR campaign. Few of GE's stockholders are dredging companies so no breach of fiduciary duty is present here. In this case, GE's behavior is no different than that of a local restauranteur (either a proprietor or a corporation) pushing for favorable zoning. To claim that a corporation cannot even present its case is an anethema to stockholders' freedom of association.

In the end, it seems that the cure for inappropriate corporate political speech is not campaign finance law, but better enforcement of stockholder interests.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

The stockholders themselves are of course free to bring whatever cases before whatever courts they want. But they should not be permitted to hide behind the corporation's rapacious need for more profit to keep their own hands clean.

Let me put a finer point on it. If there are PCBs in the Hudson, I believe the GE stockholders are personally responsible to clean them up.

Limited liability has gone way, way, way too far.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

If there are PCBs in the Hudson, I believe the GE stockholders are personally responsible to clean them up.

You are skipping over the step of proving that dredging is the appropriate remedy & that GE (who never made PCB's but used them in capacitor and transformer manufacture) is the appropriate entitiy to pay for it, as compared to, say, Monsanto, who made PCB's, utility companies who bought the products, or local governments who required the use of PCB's in their building codes. GE's claim is that the discharge levels were within legal levels of the time and that a much cheaper motitor-and-spot-clean-as-necessary approach is more appropriate. But my point here is not to defend GE, but to say that GE is acting perfectly within the normal charter of its business to engage in a political debate which affects the company's interest. To expect over a million separate shareholders to spontaneously organize into PACs every time a political issue impacts a $350 billion company is ridiculus.

I think you underestimate the good effects of having limited liability corporations. Before the corporate form was introduced, capital intensive businesss like canal bulding, banking, and insurance were the domain of super-wealthy patricians. (In the case of banking, it was a tight-knit group of Jews because Thomistic Christian theology prohibited collecting interest; we are still stuck with lingering conspiracy theories from that). In Roman times these patiricans would hire private armies, intimidate courts, and take over provincial governments. Limited liability corps permitted the middle class to pool resources and give these aristocrats some competition, and as such consititute a great progressive political reform. Would you prefer that Bill Gates personally owned Microsoft? Would you want to buy fire insurance from Marcus Crassus?

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

So corporations should be free to do whatever they want, and shit where I eat, just because they should be free to pursue a profit?

I don't trust GE to monitor and spot-clean. As you point out, GE is not the only entity responsible for the pollution. I do indeed think that everybody who makes a profit at all points in that chain is responsible to clean up their own damn mess.

I'm not talking about eliminating limited liability entirely. I'm talking about removing the person-hood of a corporation, and forcing its stockholders to take responsibility for the actions of their financial construct, both good and bad.

Would I prefer Bill Gates personally owned Microsoft? Yes. Then putting him in jail might force him to follow the law.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

The people who personally benefitted from GE's business using PCB's, the stockholders of the 50's & 60's, are not the same as the stockholders of today. Many of them are dead. The problem here is that the hazards of PCBs were unknown and GE's actions were legal at the time, so a long period of time has elapsed. It has nothing to do with corporate personhood. We don't tolerate illegal activity by corporations, and those who use otherwise legitimate corporations as a screen for committing crimes are prosecuted as individuals (despite depictions to the contrary in Hollywood movies).

And in a hypothetical plutocracy, who is going to put Bill Gates (and his private army) in jail? To suggest such a thing is naive. Without the freedom to coordinate as corporations, and vote with their wallet for above-board businesses, the regular folk are simply out of the game.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[Moofie]

Don't be ridiculous...we tolerate illegal behaviour by corporations all the time. And when we DO finally catch the people actually responsible for defrauding stockholders, we wave a ruler at them and tell them very sternly not to do that any more.

Hard time for white collar crimes. Financial responsibility for cleaning up the messes you create. Rule of law for everyone, not just the people who can't afford to buy legislators.

Re:Mccain-feingold

[The Conductor]

Prison time for white collar crime has been the norm since at least the 60's when GE & Westinghouse executives were imprisoned for price-fixing. Granted, enforcement is uneven, and particularly powerful & wily characters like Bill Gates/Clinton can scrape out of perjury that would put you or me in jail for 6 months. Conversely, some white collar crimes are over-prosecuted; Martha Stewart's ham-fisted legal defense got her a sentence way out of proportion to the crime, and technical bookkeeping infractions got Michael Milken years of prison time because his business was unpopular (the nature of his business put lots of people out of work).

But none of that is peculiar to white collar crime. The average murder defendant doesn't get OJ Simpson's legal team.

Not Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Fox News, that's for sure...

Re:Not Fox

[WindBourne]

Actually, I could see Fox doing it. They go for money. By running the movie, they would control all the ads that are displayed and they could come on with commentary about the movie. IOW, turn it from semi-documentary to a true mocumentary.

Re:Not Fox

[dafz1]

I agree that Fox would be the only "major" network to undertake something like this. Then, for entertainment value, have Moore and Bill O'Reilly debate. Or better O'Reilly and James Carville debate!

Re:Not Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you need to see the movie. Fox would not even contemplate ariing this film. They have very tight aliances with the man with q room temperature IQ (Bush), and are huge supporters of murdering thousands of innocent people in the name of Oil(A.K.A the Iraq War). Moore brings to light some very negative facts about Fox...somehow I can't see them airing his movie.

Re:Not Fox

[mandolin]

By running [F9/11], they would control all the ads that are displayed and they could come on with commentary about the movie.

There would also probably be some heavy editing involved "to fit time constraints and decency standards".

Re:Not Fox

[rindeee]

Oooorrrrr...Michael Moore vs. Tonya Harding in Celebrity Fatso Boxing!!!

Re:Not Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Just be sure to throw some illegal below the belt punches in by Bush/Cheney

Wait, slightly confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[dirvish]

It probably doesn't. He's just stirring things up.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[dirvish]

Actually, the answer is in the article:

The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[SemperUbi]

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Because in order to qualify for Best Documentary, the film must not have been shown on television prior to the award.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[phrostie]

it was never a documentry to start.
this is just an excuse.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[bios10h]

From oscars.org:

No television or internet transmission shall occur at any time prior to, or within the nine months following, the first day of the qualifying exhibition, and not before completing the minimum four-city two-day theatrical runs. Any documentary which is transmitted anywhere in the world in any version as a television or internet program within this period will automatically be disqualified from award eligibility.

http://www.oscars.org/77academyawards/rules/rule12 .html

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[andrew_j_w]

From Rule Twelve of the Offical Rules.

No television or internet transmission shall have occurred at any time anywhere in the world in any version prior to the qualifying run or furthermore contrary to section III.2.B.1. or III.2.B.2. of these rules.

I'm not sure what is meant by a 'qualifying run', but it could well make him ineligable for the documentary award. I don't think that applies to the Best Picture award though.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[Glidedon2]

No way would this film get best documentary , because it's not a documentary by the rules. Bowling for Columbine was not a documentary but it won, go figure.

Now he could win a best editor oscar :-)

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[cryptochrome]

Oddly, that rule does not apply to regular films... I'm really not clear on why this rule exists at all, except maybe to prevent documentaries made for television from competing - having started on TV and then upon success a limited run in theaters to qualify. Even then that seems rather unnecessary.

Well, it's not the only inexplicable/stupid thing about the Oscars.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[EnderWiggnz]

>because it's not a documentary by the rules.

why would it not be a documetary? which rules are you referring to?

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[dirvish]

Bowling for Columbine was not a documentary but it won, go figure.

I'll play along and say it doesn't follow the rules (where do you get this crap?)...if Bowling won w/o following the rules why wouldn't Fahrenheit win? Did it break different rules?

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[LilMikey]

Any documentary which is transmitted anywhere in the world in any version as a television or internet program within this period will automatically be disqualified from award eligibility.

So I guess by downloading the VCD of FH9/11 we kind of took him out of the Oscar running. Seriously... maybe they should try to narrow that rule down a bit.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[adawg]

Michael Moore is willing to sacrifice an Oscar to get his movie shown on television. From www.michaelmoore.com:
The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction).
Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast -- and the chances are they probably won't -- I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it's the night before the election.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[Glidedon2]

Rule Twelve Special Rules for The Documentary Awards

I. DEFINITION 1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

2. A film that is primarily a promotional film, a purely technical instructional film or an essentially unfiltered record of a performance will not be considered eligible for consideration for the Documentary awards.

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[Gamasta]

"No (...) internet transmission... "

Including P2P? ;-)

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[Procrastin8er]

How can F911 be considered for an Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary, when it not really a documentary? Now if there was an award for "Croqumentary", well I think F911 would have a chance. I think MM needs to lookup the definition of "documentary", and then he can lookup the definition of "journalism" and pass that on to his friends in the mainstream media, like CNN (Clinton News Network).

Re:Wait, slightly confused...

[dirvish]

It seems to fit this discription perfectly!

Voters don't think

[fred3666]

This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.

Re:Voters don't think

[Shisha]

And I don't think there can be much question as to whether F 9/11 is a propaganda or not.

If a movie (book, article) presents strictly one side of the view, tries to piece together facts into tenuous conspiracy theoris (yes, Mr Moore, everyone know everyone else in the big bussiness world, if not personaly then they certainly have a common acquintance) then it is, by definition, propaganda.

And propaganda is always bad, even if it's trying to be for a good cause.

Re:Voters don't think

[Nos.]

As a Canadian, I find American politics to be... disturbing. It seems most of the media is about politicians attacking each other rather than promoting themselves. Growing up in Canada I don't remember seeing this here, but lately its started to become the same thing here. Rather that promote their plans for the future, they basically take the stance of, well at least we're not doing what the other party is.
I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

If the GOP can have Fox News, we can have F9/11. Not exactly fair or balanced, but hey!

Re:Voters don't think

[revscat]

It's propaganda if it doesn't provide contrary evidence. What contrary evidence wasn't provided? Did, perhaps, Bush Jr. and Sr. NOT meet with Saudi officials? Is this not a particularly damaging piece of evidence?

In short: what is *factually* not true about what Moore presented? And please, try to use your own words.

Re:Voters don't think

[grunt107]

Since the first time an image attack ad succeeded, elections have been pushing issues away. Just look at the 2 massive marketing exercises called the 'National Conventions'. Very little substance, mostly fluff intended to tug at the heartstrings or ring the fear bell. The only way substantive presentations (bring back the charts!!) will return is when voters throw out the candidates w/the attack ads (and little else).

Re:Voters don't think

[Moofie]

Right, because an "Us vs. Them" mentality is really the right place to start a political discussion.

I guess I'm just naive.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> right place to start a political discussion

Discussion? This is way past discussion. It's political Sidewinder time!

Re:Voters don't think

[rd_syringe]

As an American, I find your Canadian government...disturbing. :) For instance, regardless of what you think about Fox News, the fact that your government actually *chooses for you* that you can't see it is a bit frightening.

Re:Voters don't think

[FroMan]

Isn't 9/11 an issue Bush can run on? And his subsequent response to
it? I see no issue with Bush pointing out that we were attacked, the
attack came at a time when our economy was still burdened with the
dot-bomb and a couple corporate fiascos. So, it does pertain to his
handling of the economy and our national defense.

What pray tell is Bush's options to run for reelection if he cannot talk
about his handling of the economy and national defense?

Re:Voters don't think

[Skye16]

That's an oversimplification at best.

Propaganda isn't always bad, but it should always be treated by the viewing public critically. When everyone treats propaganda as suspect, their mind invariably turns to what are the flaws, where are the gaping holes, and what are possible rebuttals to this propaganda. In essence, it feeds a critical thought process that has been dulled by our ordinary, mundane travails through an advanced, post-industrial consumer-based society.

In essence, it wakes the mind up. By being inflammatory, it (in effect) requires our overworked and overstressed minds to focus on the subject matter at hand, forming their own thoughts, rather than accepting those prepackaged by the conservative/liberal/communist/fascist/whatever media.

The more blatant propaganda we have, the better. Maybe then people will start making up their own damn minds.

Re:Voters don't think

[demachina]

"by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

God forbid that should happen...

Dick Cheney yesterday saying if you vote the wrong way there will be another 9/11 attack (translation a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda)

Swift Boat Vet ads.

Zel Miller at the RNC. In fact the whole RNC which was designed to stoke peoples fear of terrorism and that their grandchildren would be in danger if Kerry would be elected.

In 2000 the Bush campaign smearing John McCain in South Carolina with charges he fathered a black baby.

The Bush campaign deserves everything they get on the propaganda front because they dish it out non stop. Its just leveling the playing field for Michael Moore and MoveOn.org to give it back to them in kind. If it weren't for them the Kerry campaign would be dueling without a pistol.

Re:Voters don't think

[Shisha]

And please, try to use your own words.
Excuse me? Are you trying to suggest that I didn't write the above myself, that someone is speaking for me? I'm offended.

Anyway, have I said that anything presented in F 9/11 is not true? I was just saying that by presenting only one side of the argument, it falls into the "propaganda" category, not "documentary" category. I didn't say the film does not have strong and good points, I didn't say that it shouldn't be aired and I certainly want to see Bush out of the White House ASAP.

Perhaps my point was that F 9/11 could have been stronger if the aim was to make an _objective_ documentary, because as it is, many people would dismiss it as propaganda and won't bother watching it at all, which would be a shame.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.

When what we really need to focus on is turning the corner, moving the country foward, optimism, and restoring America as a beacon of hope.

Re:Voters don't think

[Atzanteol]

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...

Re:Voters don't think

[fred3666]

Actually you misunderstand the situation. Fox News is not allowed in Canada not because of its right-wing viewpoint but because of its lack of Canadian content. A Canadian company would not be prevented from saying the exact same things as O'Reilly. Fox News was blocked by the CRTC because Fox chose not to adapt to Canadian content restrictions. All they'd need to do is interview someone from Alberta once in a while and include a few more diatribes against French Canadians.

Failing that, they could just have O'Reilly hold a hockey stick and wear a toque during his monologues.

Canadians must be protected from American culture, lest our own culture would wither away. And that would be a trajedy for Rita MacNeil. Who would buy her music?

Re:Voters don't think

[flossie]

This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.

It may not have been about the usual domestic issues, but surely the president's handling of events during and after an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is a serious issue. Would you want the same person in charge if it happens again? Do you think the same person could prevent it from happening again?

Re:Voters don't think

[jstave]

As an American, I find American politics to be disturbing. However, I don't think this is a particularly American problem. I've gotten the distinct impression that the problem of a grotesquely uninformed electorate is a universal one.

It just seems that for the vast majority of people, determining the veracity of what's being said is either too much trouble or too painful (if it turns out that one's pre-concieved notions are incorrect). Its just easier to believe whatever feels good and to move in the direction that's less frightening.

Re:Voters don't think

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure everybody outside of the states finds our method of politicing disturbing. Especially when one party wants to tie religion into state.

Re:Voters don't think

[TGK]

Let me just be frank up front. I'm a Liberal (note the caps on the L). I believe in universal health care, clean air, clear water, a safe and reasonable working environment, all that other good liberal stuff that we take for granted.

I also think G.W. Bush is about the worst thing to happen to this country since Jefferson Davis.

At the same time, I recognize Moore's film as what it is. It's not propaganda, but it's not exactly objective.

First and foremost, it's important to realize that propaganda isn't just one film, one tv program, or one leaflet. Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth and to impose a particular viewpoint as the only viewpoint.

If you want to get technical, Fox News is the closest to Propaganda this country has come in the last 50 years. Fox is as close to a ubiquitous news source as we have in this country and it's view point is very clear. Nonetheless, Fox pitches itself as being "fair and balanced," something it is patently not. Deceptions like this are what constitute propaganda.

In contrast, Moore's film (even ignoring the fact that you can't create media saturation with two hours of footage) is very clear on its objectives and viewpoints. Moore himself is even more vocal, and has made no bones about the liberal bias in his film.

Nonetheless, factual inaccuracies are something he, as a professional documentary maker, has avoided at all costs.

It is worth noting, however, that Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate. He never states anything untrue or inaccurate, but he does not prevent his audience from making assumptions.

Example: We hear a great deal about how the Bin Laden family was evacuated in the days following September 11. We know they weren't interviewed by the FBI (this is true). We know planes around the country were grounded (this is also true). We know the Bin Laden family was in the air and on its way out of the country while a lot of other planes were on the ground (also true). We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.

Documentaries are not always without an agenda. Personally, if the GOP wants to push to have Moore's film counted against the advertising budget of the DNC and Kerry I'm all for it. I'd expect the Kerry campaign to have a similar lawsuit pinning the entire operating budget of Fox News (and indeed the Rupert Murdoch media empire) on the RNC in short order though.

Bottom line: quit your bitching. F911 isn't propaganda. Before it can be labeled as such we need to figure out where Rush, Sean Hannity, and O'Riley fit into the definition.

Re:Voters don't think

[strider44]

No, it's just you. The Australian election hasn't been like that, where current issues are headline tv news, as opposed where the candidate is at a particular moment, or who did what fifteen years ago. Even Mark Latham's very "checkered" past blew over in a week or so, and it just got down to issues.

Re:Voters don't think

[stratjakt]

Why would it be about issues?

They have the same stance on all of the "issues". That would be simply the line people want to hear. Education good, taxes bad, etc..

Two-party politics will always be about "that guys a bigger asshole than me!"

Which is why the message needs to get out that voting third party or independant is NOT a waste of a vote. At the least, it's a message to the incumbent republicrats that people are getting sick of the status quo.

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Not at all. When you live next door to the 900-pound gorilla that is the USA, you have to take steps to preserve your culture. This is not an issue where laissez-faire capitalism is to the service of the country.

As such, we have a certain number of slots available for non-Canadian programming. CNN and Headline News got in first; they're the US news channels we get.

The CRTC recently turned down an Italian language entertainment channel because there was already enough Italian language programming available. We did take al-Jazeera, ostensibly because we had no Arabic-language news programming.

Canadians have overwhelmingly polled such that they would prefer cultural protectionism over a free market media.

And, besides, anyone who *really* wants FOX News can get it by grey market satellite.

Re:Voters don't think

[ageoffri]

Why is this insightful? So the original is saying the election is about the actions Bush took before/during/after 9/11 while he is the Presidenter or Kerry nearly 40 years ago? I'd like to have Bush during 9/11 compared to Kerry's voting record for the last year.

Oh wait, just how many times did Kerry vote, guess he was too busy doing other things.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that seperation of church and state is the exception and not the rule, don't you?

Re:Voters don't think

[TopShelf]

Would you want the same person in charge if it happens again? Do you think the same person could prevent it from happening again?

Good questions, but incomplete. The question is whether Kerry would represent an improvement on those fronts, as he is the only realistic alternative to W. I'm not a fan of the current prez, but Kerry is a whoppingly poor candidate who is hard to pin down on any issue. This will be my 5th presidential election to vote in, and I couldn't be more disappointed with the choices!

Re:Voters don't think

[Zoshnell]

Hasn't it always been "Us vs. Them" throughout history? Going back to the the 70's and 80's, it was Us. vs the Reds, and before that Us(whites) vs them(blacks or vice versa), and before that it was Us(USA) vs Them(Germans and Japanese). Going back further provides even more examples of this thinking. In my own conjecture, I think that boiling everything down to black and white, us and them is fundamental to the human being. It's difficult to hate a person, but much easier to hate Them. I think at one time or another we are all guilty of this, myself included, but what makes us human is our abilityh to recognize this and try to reach above the baselessness.

Re:Voters don't think

[ageoffri]

What is not factually true is newspaper headlines Moore showed in his work of fiction. The newspaper stated something along the lines of "Gore should have won recount in Florida", yet that paper never aired that headline. If he is willing to fake something like that, what else has he lied about? Moore wouldn't know the truth if it reached out and smacked him.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not at all. When you live next door to the 900-pound gorilla that is the USA, you have to take steps to preserve your culture."

Huh? When did Canada ever develop culture (outside of hockey, of course)?

Re:Voters don't think

[say]

If a movie (book, article) presents strictly one side of the view, tries to piece together facts into tenuous conspiracy theoris (yes, Mr Moore, everyone know everyone else in the big bussiness world, if not personaly then they certainly have a common acquintance) then it is, by definition, propaganda.

...and your post: even more so.

Re:Voters don't think

[revscat]

I largely find myself agreeing with your post, but I did want to address the following:

We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion.

Why do you think there was no special exception? The flights out of the country to Saudi Arabia happened during the time that all other flights were grounded. Many -- but not all -- were members of the bin Laden family. Take this in conjunction with recent revelaations that actively sought to suppress an investigation:

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.

All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment.

Re:Voters don't think

[mattkime]

You're right, it is disturbing. Strangely enough the bashing is being lead by our elected leaders. The Republican National Convention was mostly a Kerry-bashing rally. (When it wasn't a Reagan love-in.) People giving away band-aids mocking Kerry's purple heart. Just the other day Cheney has started saying that electing Kerry would bring a terrorist attack because it would be a display of weakness. WTF?? Kerry tried to lead a clean campaign for too long and its hurt him, now he's swinging back.

Re:Voters don't think

[strike2867]

Politicians have a job to do. Their job is to be elected. And if studies show that telling lies and deceptions about your opponent will give you a better chance at winning than if you tell what you want to do, guess what they're gonna do(long sentence over).

Re:Voters don't think

[DAldredge]

I find canada spending over 1 Billion on a gun registry to be...disturbing. Hint, the fact that the gun isn't registerd will not stop someone from killing someone else.

Re:Voters don't think

[richieb]

What pray tell is Bush's options to run for reelection if he cannot talk about his handling of the economy and national defense?

Please, let him speak of his record of handling the economy and national defense.....

Why don't you start and outline his achievements?!

Re:Voters don't think

[Moofie]

See where that's gotten us? Think it might be time to do things a little differently?

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Typical knee-jerk anti-Canadian rhetoric.

Watch CBC Newsworld (available through many US cable plans) for a couple of months, and try telling me that our culture isn't astonishingly different from that of the US.

Re:Voters don't think

[Rei]

You know, the FCC also chooses what is allowed to air and what isn't in America. They grant licenses, they approve or disapprove of mergers, they issue fines for content that they don't approve of, etc. And lets not get into how we censor media *overseas* in areas that we occupy....

Re:Voters don't think

[jez9999]

The British elections aren't like that either. Although there is the occasional attack on opposition party leaders, these piss me off/turn me off politics a lot, as I'm sure they do a lot of other Brits, and political parties actually seem to be noticing this. Hopefully they'll stand by their rhetoric and continue to campaign on progressive proposals, not negative ridicule.

Re:Voters don't think

[DAldredge]

What does damn near 24/7 coverage of trials have to do with the GOP?

FoxNews:

As we cover the nuclear attack on ...*FOX NEWS ALERT*... MJackson has driven to the grocery store!...Cue COMMERICAL.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

"Typical knee-jerk anti-Canadian rhetoric."

But you're missing my point. Canada is really just a big nothing stretched over 4 time zones. How can someone be anti-nothing?

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of the US?

Believe it or not, it's not a homogenous culture. North/South, Coastal/Interior, Black/White, etc. Some of these are as antagonistic as French/English, Quebec/Sane, or Hockey/Curling. ;)

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we censor occupied media. You think we don't suspend writ of habeus corpus?

It's debatable whether the writ would even apply to foreign territory. Regardless, in a war zone, local free press is not the norm.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Webster's:

Propaganda:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

How is F9/11 not propaganda?

Re:Voters don't think

[hey]

Nearly all Canadians think Bush is an moron and bad for the USA/world and we don't understand why our American neighbo[u]rs don't see this too. Normally we are very good at understanding the behavour of Americans. In fact we're usually better than Americans at this. Way better than the Brits. I think its like when your sister is dating some guy who is a bit mean or rude and you wish she'd drop him since she can do better. Talking to her won't help -- you know that. You just hope she grows out of him. Good luck, sister.

Re:Voters don't think

[ciscoboy]

Yet Al Jazeera is going to be able to sling their filth on Canadian TV....perhaps there is another agenda

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Oh, I get it. You're just *trolling* in that stereotypical self-important "America is all that there is" manner.

You can fuck off now. Buh-bye.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian, I find American politics to be... disturbing.

As an American, I find your your statement very unamusing and irresponsible. You're not exempt on the issue of "disturbing" American politics. We have thousands of nukes to prove it...

I find it ridiculous that people suggest actually moving to Canada as a viable option for a better life. Like if we just leave all the stupid republican gun-nuts here to further solidify the police state nation and fight the self-fulfilling prophecy of "terrorism", then everything will be alrite, eh?

Actually, if the rest of the world had any guts, they'd realize that most the people in the U.S. are being scared by their government into thinking that countries that are opposed to their "war on terror" are bad (see: France). Therefore, staying in your country and opposing our views is futile. And if anybody should move anywhere, the high-and-mighty non-U.S. citizens (I'm looking at you Canada...) should move to America to help have some influence in our out of control democracy.

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Their filth? How do you mean? They've been warned that they'll be off the air faster than you can say "al-Jazeera" if they air anything anti-Jewish in Canada.

And other than their occasional lapses into Israel-hating, they're an extremely well-balanced and informative news source.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

And that would be a trajedy for Rita MacNeil. Who would buy her music?

My parents still would. Ugh!

Re:Voters don't think

[labradort]

I'm with you brother. They are getting politics
very very confused.

Soon democracy will soon be a mere installment of
the fear factor or the world's greatest race or
whatever they call it.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell'em commrade.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with either extreme. What was it about two wrongs? That being said, I don't want Bush to win, and Kerry seems to be doing a poor job of defending/promoting himself.

Re:Voters don't think

[jayp00001]

Isn't leading your target audience to a specific conclusion by not presenting all the pertinient facts about a topic the very definition of propaganda? Where others fit into the defnition of propaganda is irrelevent because they are not claiming to be creating a "documentary" from dictionary.com:

propaganda
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

Re:Voters don't think

[Methuseus]

Speaking of that, is it hard to get a resident alien visa (or whatever it's called over there) prior to citizenship? I'm not sure how much longer I can stay here as the average US citizen isn't as pissed off as I am about the personal attacks in elections.

Re:Voters don't think

[linuxelf]

This is what I've been saying. Whenever I talk about what a total asshat Michael Moore is, people assume that I'm a huge Bush supporter. Fact is, they both suck. They both lie. Neither one is fit for office. And, strangely enough, they're no different than any other president we've ever had.

Re:Voters don't think

[St. Arbirix]

Fox pitches itself as being "fair and balanced," something it is patently not.

Don't flame me for asking, but is there anywhere
I can go to find examples of this being true? It's such a common theme that I feel really out of the loop.

--Matthew

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Zing! I must've really struck a nerve. You know you've really hit a tender spot if you can make a Frenchman humble, a German cry, or a Canadian become rude. Don't take it too badly, though. Maybe I'm a troll but then so is this whole story and so is Michael Moore (though real trolls probably have better hygeine).

Re:Voters don't think

[revscat]

Of what being true? Fox only telling one side of the story, or lying?

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Most days Al-Jazeera is about as anti-Israel as Haaretz.

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Nope, no nerve struck -- unlike you, I am not so sensitive about the supposed weakness of my culture that I have to denigrate other cultures in favour of my own.

You can fuck off because you're not contributing. This isn't rocket science. Shrug.

Re:Voters don't think

[jacoby]

If the Democrats can have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the LA Times and the Washington Post, then the Republicans can have Fox News.

Re:Voters don't think

[ManxStef]

Not that you're going to get a balanced view (in the other direction) from these guys, but check this out:
http://moveon.org/front/

(scroll down to "Taking on Fox")

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox represents both points of view with liberal guests on with conservative guests, thus the "fair and balanced" slogan. How many other news stations represent both sides? Oh, I forgot - there is only the "correct" side that is always reported by non-Fox news (no need to have any conservative counterpoints).

Michael Moore says plenty of things that aren't true. Here's just a few (paraphrasing):

- Bush was reading a book titled "My Pet Goat" when it was actually a story in a workbook called "The Pet Goat". Moore can't even get a simple detail right.

- Moore said that nobody had seen the inaugural protests like Bush, when Nixon's inauguration during Vietnam had over 3 times as many protesters.

- The Pantagraph article (okay, he didn't say it - he just put up a fake news article on the screen).

- Moore says Bush's limo was "pelted with eggs" when the BBC said "one protester threw an egg". Again, no little detail goes unspun.

There is a video clip on alt.binaries.multimedia that has the first 20 minutes of Fahrenheit 911 with factual "enhancements".

It is NOT TRUE that the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country without being interviewed - they were (ask Richard Clarke). It is NOT TRUE that the Bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country while other flights were grounded (they left on Sept. 14th when the restrictions were lifted on the 13th).

Fahrenheit 9/11 IS propaganda by definition, as is a lot of media. We usually don't label it "propaganda" until it tries to manipulate the viewer by not giving you all of the information (omission) or by giving you wrong information (misleading or lying). Fahrenheit 9/11 fits this bill.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition you provided is perfect: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine..." A 2-hour film is not "systematic propagation" of anything.

I think the point is that anything that simply expresses an opinion or supports a cause can be considered "propaganda". By that broad definition, every single comment here is propaganda (possibly excepting those moderated "Funny"). But, in general, the sort of propaganda that's worthy of being labelled as propaganda is the large-scale, systematic type, ie. information forcefed en masse as "the only" information. F9/11 does not fall into that category. It's one man's opinion, which happens to resonate with a whole lot of other people.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?? Kerry tried to lead a clean campaign for too long and its hurt him, now he's swinging back.

This is the biggest load of crap. Democrats have been attacking Bush vehemently since the beginning of the primaries. I can still remember Dick Gephardt saying, "This president is a miserable failure!" or how about Al Gore, "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!".

Kerry is the one who brought up his Vietnam service trying to run as the "war hero". I am sorry to say but he pissed off a lot of people during those days with some of his actions after the war. He should have known this and should not have tried to make it an issue.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/foxbias.htm

from http://www.cleburnenews.com/opinion/2004/cn-column -0722-0-4g22l0558.htm:

The questions in a University of Maryland study were: Has evidence been found that Iraq was working closely with al-Qaida? Have weapons of massdestruction been found? Did world opinion support the war?
The answer to all three is "no." A significant majority of those who got their news primarily from commercial television got at least one question wrong, including 55 percent of CNN viewers.

Except for Fox devotees, 80 percent of whom missed at least one of the questions. "Most striking was a finding that among those who primarily watch Fox News, the people who paid more attention were more likely to have misperceptions," the study reported.

Imagine if this were 30 years ago and you didn't have many sources for news available at all times.

I await the elephant-funded troll who will inevitably try to say one or all of the above questions is true.

Re:Voters don't think

[ManxStef]

Excellent post; I'll tag something vaguely related on to it. I'd recommend that everyone watch Brian Springer's documentary "Spin", it's a fascinating insight into how media is used and abused in a presidential race. Now go get yourself a motorised sat dish and watch some pre-air broadcasts ;)

Re:Voters don't think

[goldspider]

"All evidence points to Bush giving Saudis special treatment at a time when they should have received no such treatment."

Except that it was Richard Clark who authorized the flight. Clark himself said the decision never got higher up in the chain of command than him. But Moore presented the story as if Bush had hustled the Saudis out of the country himself.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Examples of Fox News being everything but "fair and balanced":
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Spread the word.

Re:Voters don't think

[Arethan]

I'll be frank up front too. I'm an Independant, with a capital (I). I believe in clean drinking water, not totally fucking the eco system, keeping the economy rolling, keeping my gun rights, moving away from fossil fuels, nuclear energy, electric cars, the space program, an adequate military budget, and all the other stuff from both sides of the fence that actually make sense.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, explain to me how Fox News is actually sided in the political schema. Seriously now, I'm not being sarcastic. I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.

Let's look at their primetime lineup....
Brit Hume - The serious looking old guy. Covers news he reads off the cue-o-matic machine, doesn't add any of his own comments.

Shepard Smith - Appeals to the ladies, the guys think he's funny. Covers new (cue-o-matic! (tm)), adds his own comments, but they're always smart ass remarks trying to be funny.

Bill O'Reilly - The big O. This is the funny one. All the Dems swear he's pro Rep, and the Reps swear he's pro Dem. Independants (like me) like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions, rather than simply believing hype. If someone proves him wrong, he admits his fault, and re-evaluates his position on a subject. I've even seen him change his opinion on the air (rarely happens as he is quite well informed, but it does occur from time to time). He's said plenty bad about Bush, and plenty good about him too. Same goes for Kerry. Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.

Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat. They share a show so the world can watch them argue over issues that they feel are important. Sounds like fairness and balance to me.

Greta Van Susteren - Supposedly one of the best trial reporters around. Why you'd have a reporter specifically for covering trials, I don't know. Do I care what the atmosphere of the Kobee Bryant courtroom was like today? Not really. In fact, I don't even care what the outcome is. Someone else's trial in some other state, does not directly mean anything to my life, so why should it be my business. She doesn't seem to go out of her way to get into political issues.

So let's see now. We have a bunch of news shows that cover (imagine this) the news. None of them really going out of their way to bring politics into the mix as far as I've ever seen. And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C. The Democrats do seem to be saying that Fox News is pro Republican lately. Personally, I chalk that up to the upcoming election. I have noticed a liberal slant to CNN, and I'm sure they'd much rather people watch that instead.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Don't worry, I don't believe him, either.

He's got more half-truths and misinformation on his site than in every Moore flick ever made.

Re:Voters don't think

[sonicattack]

And propaganda is always bad, even if it's trying to be for a good cause.

I'm just curious, what exactly, is your definition of the word "propaganda"? I see a lot of suspicious (mis?)use of that particular word in several comments, and even in the blurb itself! (truth or propaganda)

The definition I found (and which I believe is correct, but not fully used here) is the following:

propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Surely we are not using the same definition of the word when you say that propaganda is always bad!

Re:Voters don't think

[charlesbakerharris]

Before it can be labeled as such we need to figure out where Rush, Sean Hannity, and O'Riley fit into the definition.

I don't see what Canadian rock bands have to do with F911...

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

If the GOP can have Fox News, we can have F9/11. Not exactly fair or balanced, but hey!

Perhaps you should clarify "we". From a moderate viewpoint, the "bleeding-heart, Bush-is-a-terrorist, Michael Moore crowd" is just as ludicrous and uninformed as the "bible-thumping, big-business, tax-breaks-for-the-rich" side of the GOP. I am not a supporter of W. But I don't need to put out a propaganda film that would make Joseph Goebbles blush to prove my point. MM does *nothing* for informing the American public by putting out his drivel. He's only playing to his own crowd of "loonie-lefties". As a moderate who does not want four more years W, I find F9/11 to be insulting and counter-productive. Anyone with half a critical mind will dismiss it (like Fox news) for what it is: distorted partisan crap.

You want factual ammo against W? How about this:

• The defecit he's created is the largest in history. This coming off a four-year surplus under Clinton.
• Support the War in Iraq or not, we went there under bad intellegence (WMD, Al-Quaida link). That means that either a) Our intel agencies are horridly inept and incompetent, or b)We were lied to. Both of these warrant a new president, either through elections or impeachment.
• W promised 5 million new jobs. To paraphrase John Kerry, "he's about 6 million short". My mother-in-law, who has 10 years experience as a network admin was forced to take a job paying $10 an hour once her unemployment benefits ran out.
• Millions of good-paying, highly skilled jobs are going overseas. W's response: "The economy's getting stronger".
• Wages for American workers have been flat for the past year, while worker productivity has skyrocketed. Avarage fortune 500 CEO compensation has increased 20% in the past 12 months!!
• I am fortunate enough to be one of the minority who has decent medical coverage. However, in the four years since W. took office my out of pocket medical expenses have increased 250%
• Halliburton, Enron: Did Bush/Cheney do anything unethical or illegal in thier recent dealings with these companies? We need an independant counsel to investigate this. Call it a witch-hunt if you will, but if either of these two made a personal profit off of the war or by bilking American workers out of their life savings, they need to be prosecuted.

"Am I better off now than four years ago?" Hell no!!! I feel like I've been given the job in this administration that Monica Lewinsky had in the last one. It's amazing: we'll impeach a president over lying about a blowjob, but let the lies, deceit and broken promises of this current adminstration go unpunished. Those of us who are against W don't need a shitslinger like MM, we need someone who is capable of tearing him down with facts not propaganda.

Re:Voters don't think

[Insightfill]

Personally, if the GOP wants to push to have Moore's film counted against the advertising budget of the DNC and Kerry I'm all for it.

Ironically enough, since Moore's film has shown a profit, it would be the rare case of it enhancing the DNC/Kerry advertising budget.

Re:Voters don't think

[J. T. MacLeod]

There was every reason for the Bin Laden family to receive special treatment.

After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US. Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage the Islamic world, do you think it's a good idea to keep them in the country?

Re:Voters don't think

[stephanruby]

"Example: We hear a great deal about how the Bin Laden family was evacuated in the days following September 11. We know they weren't interviewed by the FBI (this is true). We know planes around the country were grounded (this is also true). We know the Bin Laden family was in the air and on its way out of the country while a lot of other planes were on the ground (also true). We are lead to assume (but never actually told) that the Bin Laden family was flying as a special exception to the faa's ban on air travel. This is not the case, and while Moore never states it, he leads you to the conclusion."

Please get your facts straight. You might be a liberal, but you've been relying way too much on corporate-publications like the Newsweek. Here is the real scoop on the flight of the Saudis after 9/11.

How Many Mistakes Can Newsweek's Michael Isikoff Make?

by Craig Unger

How many mistakes can Michael Isikoff make? In his zealous campaign to discredit Fahrenheit 9/11, Newsweek's star investigative reporter has already made at least seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information.

Let's take them one by one.

1) In his first Newsweek piece attacking the movie, "Under the Hot Lights," which appeared in theJune 28 issue of the magazine, Isikoff asserts that I claim "that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI." Isikoff proceeds to attack me for that claim. Unfortunately for him, I never made it. Isikoff's assertion is a complete fabrication.

2) The same article also erroneously reports that the Saudi evacuation "flights didn't begin untilSept. 14--after airspace reopened." As House of Bush, House of Saud notes, however, the first flight actually took place a day earlier, on September 13, when restrictions on private planes were still in place. Isikoff knew this. I even gave him the names of two men who were on that flight-- Dan Grossi and Manuel Perez-- and told him how to get in touch with them. Earlier, Jean Heller, a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, took the time to follow up on my reporting. She called Grossi, and in her subsequent article wrote, "Grossi did say that Unger's account of his participation in the flight is accurate."

Rather than try to refute or corroborate my reporting, however, Isikoff omitted it entirely. The facts interfered with his argument.

It is worth noting that Jean Heller was also able to obtain verification of the September 13 flight from other sources as well. Heller reports that the flight from Tampa, Florida to Lexington, Kentucky, has finally been corroborated by authorities at Tampa International Airport--even though the White House, the FBI and the FBI repeatedly denied that any such flights took place.

3) A week after "Under theHot Lights" appeared, Newsweek apologized for fabrication number one in its print edition of the magazine. But the error remains uncorrected online where it continues to be desseminated by other media.

Worse, in its "apology," Newsweek amplified the distortion it made the previous week. This time, the magazine admits that the September 13 flight did take place. But the editors again omit crucial information in order to suggest that the flight is a red herring, asserting that the flight "took off late on Sept. 13 after restrictions on flying had already been lifted," Newsweek says.

In fact, some restrictions had been lifted--but not all. Commercial aviation slowly resumed on September 13, but at 10:57 am that day, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a Notice to Airmen stating that private aviation was still banned. Three planes violated that order and were forced down by American military aircraft that day. (See House of Bush, House of Saud, p. 9) Yet the Saudis were allowed to fly on the ten passenger Learjet. Far from being irrelevant, the Tampa to Lexington flight is vital because it required permission from the highest levels of our government. Once again, all this information is in the book, and Isi

Re:Voters don't think

[Keebler71]

Nice post although I presonally disagree with much of it. In agree that the definition of propaganda involves something 'larger' than one documentary. However, FOX news is not propaganda either,... it is biased reporting, just like CNN, NPR and Al Jazeera are biased reporting to various degrees. The difference is that by your own admission, in F911 "Moore leads his audience to some conclusions which are not accurate". While some here seem to think that intentionally misleading someone using only facts is "ok", it is at a minimum "deceptive" and according to dictionary.com may still be a lie (definition 2 of the noun meaning). Thus while F911 is not propaganda, it is certainly a "piece" of propgaganda as would Swift Boat or MoveOn.org ads (provided that they are similiarly deceptive).

I'll admit that Fox is biased, but disagree that it is deceptive. I do agree that if it were deceptive, that it could constitute propaganda due to its scope.

Re:Voters don't think

[stanmann]

two trick questions and a meaningless question.

Question 1 should read "Has evidence been found that Iraq was working with Al-Qaida?--- Answer YES

Did WMDs exist in Iraq prior to the war extending to the present? Yes again

Does world opinion in any way trump national sovereignty in choosing to finish a twelve year war? -- finally a no.

Re:Voters don't think

[throbbingbrain.com]

You don't vote for an individual, you vote for a party. And there's only two choices.

Re:Voters don't think

[JWW]

Hasn't it always been "Us vs. Them" throughout history?

Yes it has always been this way. But right now we have Repbulicans seeing Us vs. Them(terrorists) and Democrats are seeing Us vs. Them (Republicans).

... I know I'm really asking for the karma hit on this one! ...

Re:Voters don't think

[Corbets]

I find it amusing that Zel Miller went from ardent Clinton support to ardent Kerry hater. Personally, I don't like either one, but if one of the Dem's boys is speaking up at the RNC, y'all have got a problem.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

F9/11 isn't enough since 60 minutes is again bringing up Bush's war record. 4 times just isn't enough. I don't see 60 Minutes running to get Swift Boat's comment about Kerry's record.

Re:Voters don't think

[fork420]

Dick Cheney said no such thing. Go read the transcript, and not the report from the Associated Press. Yes this Associated Press.

AP Version:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Actual not-edited-for-political-purposes quote:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war."

So reading the Vice President's words, in context, one can easily see that Cheney was not saying "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda", but he was stating that Kerry would not respond as Bush has. One can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but it is *not* what you (and the mainstream media, including FoxNews) are accusing.

Given that John Edwards was first to jump on this comment, taken out of context, I now know everything I need to know about John Edwards.

As to your other complaints, if 200+ vets come together to voice their opinion about a candidate, who are you to say they're wrong?

The RNC wants people to know that Kerry is the wrong choice. You expected them to go easy on him? You must be new here.

As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on Bush's behalf at the RNC. In fact, he spoke quite well. Go to the iTMS and download the speech.

Re:Voters don't think

[maxpublic]

Political discussions almost always devolve into "my god is better than your god" arguments. Your god is always right, always true, always possessed of superhuman qualities, while the other guy's god is scum of the worst sort.

The political atheists among us realize that neither god is actually a god, but just a charlatan posing as divinity. A charlatan with an army of believers willing to turn off the critical faculties of their brain so they can overlook the not-so-divine aspects of their deities.

People aren't idiots; if they were, evolution would've wiped them out a long, long time ago. But it appears that a great many people work very, very hard to become idiots, and let others do their thinking for them.

Max

Re:Voters don't think

[Fascist Christ]

It's all about the advertising. We are not voters. We are consumers. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, but all other cola is kept in the back.

Re:Voters don't think

[Corbets]

Actually, if you'll look, you'll find that most media outlets are biased to the left - choosing to pick on Fox because of their right-wing leaning (which I think is fairly moderate, not as excessive as you imply) is unfair. Of course, in fairness I need to point out that I do tend to have conservative/libertarian leanings myself, so my viewpoint is likely skewed. Total objectivity, IMHO, is impossible for anyone.

And while people such as Sean Hannity are admittedly right-wing, Fox does attempt to balance that by putting him together with Colmes. O'Reilly... while I like watching his show, I don't think he's biased so much as blind (perhaps overzealous?). He sees what he sees and doesn't really consider other possibilities, but some of what he sees is much more liberal than it is conservative. Rush... there's no excuse, and I apologize for him.

I no longer vote on issues so much as I do character. I won't vote for a liar, even if he claims to support my view - how would you know for sure? On the other hand, if someone believes in something I don't, but (so far as I can tell) honestly believes it's the right thing to do (ie isn't doing it just to gain the minority vote or the protestant vote or whatever) then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better than a man who will say anything to get elected. Which (if any) candidate that is, well, we'll see.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see politicians telling us what there plan is rather than spending their air time making suggestions about who inhaled while they were in college.

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
http://www.j ohnkerry.com/plan/

It's there for the reading, but it's hard to argue which is the better plan when you doubt the credibility of the sources.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

What's wrong with FoxNews? They have pretty standard reporting (which the topics they cover are still generally left-wing-interest), and analysts on both sides, and a few in the middle.

Of course, these days telling both sides must mean that you are a right-winger :)

On the other networks, you have reporters who are working _for_ the Kerry campaign. It's rediculous.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

I think you're the first anti-Bush person I've found to have _real_ reasons for not wanting Bush. I disagree with some of them, but it's not the mindless drivel that seems to be coming out of the Kerry campaign. Thanks for a good perspective!

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know you represented nearly all Canadians. How did you get this title?

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

I don't see why you don't think Fox News is fair and balanced?

O'Reilly is in the center. Hannity is weighted by Colmes. Those are their big ones. Greta is on the left. I'm sure there are others but those are the ones on during my TV watching times.

Re:Voters don't think

[Foamy]

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Noam Chomsky and 10 being Grover Norquist/Limbaugh/Coulter psychos.

Brit Hume (8) So partisan it is not even funny. I guess if they put Rush in his spot it might be a little more right wing and a lot more shrill.

Shepard Smith. (7) May no be a blatantly partisan as Hume, but I've never heard him say anything remotely Liberal in a good tone.

Bill O'Reilly. (7.5) This guy is entertainment and he know's who his audience is...right wing Republicans. He has the audacity to call himself a "traditionalist" whatever that means. He might have 1 or 2 "liberal" points of view, but 2 out of 1000 isn't very liberal. Plus he's a fucking asshole.

Hannity (9). He's almost in the Rush/Coulter psycho league...he just needs a little more practice.

Colmes (5). He wants to be a Liberal, but he's too much of a pussy and alwasy acquiesces. He's basically a doormat that Hannity wipes his shoes on and an excuse for the Fox slogan.

Greta (6). She was definitely more liberal when she was on CNN, but her right turn has been slow and deliberate. And who cares about Scott Peterson.

So in my estimation the Fox hosts you mentioned have an average rating of 7.08 which is pretty damn conservative. Add in all the other jingoistic crap they spew and round it up to an 8 which pretty close to the psycho 9-10 level.

Re:Voters don't think

[Zoshnell]

I do, but another tragic human flaw is to repeat it's own mistakes. All i can do is hope I can teach my children to follow their minds and hearts, and not rhetoric from anyone who claims to have their interests in mind.

Bah enough pontification. BOOOBIES!!!!!1111oneoneonetwo.

Re:Voters don't think

[Blankzoid]

Well, I for one appreciate the concern of our Canadian big brother and while we may throw a little fit, I think Canada should do what any self respecting big brother would do: Catch our stupid boyfriend-president alone at school and let him know that if does not stop making us cry Canada is gonna kick his ass.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

Man, you're preaching to the choir. I agree with all your points, and don't personally care much for MM either. I just posted that as a little take on Fox New's slogan, nothing more. I recently got a chance to watch Outfoxed and find that topic a lot scarier than MM's stuff.

> I feel like I've been given the job in this administration
> that Monica Lewinsky had in the last one

One of my favorite bumper stickers reads something like "W: now we're all wearing the blue dress".

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

We Canadians have NOTHING to crow about. Just about every Prime Minister has been a Socialist Slug bent on bankrupting the country, taxing to death those of us who actually labour to make a good living!

Vivent longtemps l'ouest, vers le bas avec les grenouilles!

Re:Voters don't think

[Sevn]

If you get a chance, see:

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism

Unlike F/911, the footage pretty much does all the talking. You'll understand why Fox isn't really news so much as a lot of angled tripe. It will actually piss you off, and make you feel stupid for not recognising the tactics they employ.

Re:Voters don't think

[WNight]

But that's all true. Bush handled the 9/11 aftermath badly, look at Afghanistan and Iraq for many examples of when a clearer purpose, international support (not as hard to get as he said) and less lies would have helped.

And at least Kerry showed up for his military service.

I'm not a Kerry supporter, but I find it amusing that the Bush campaign is making a big deal of Kerry's political record.

Of course, to the extreme right, Kerry's questioning of the reasons for the Vietnam war are tantamount to treason.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> What's wrong with FoxNews? They have pretty standard reporting

"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor doesn't strike me as "reporting" so much as rah-rah cheerleading. And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal.

Re:Voters don't think

[freeweed]

Yeah, I'll second this. Only the very old, anything-liberal-is-bad types will say one good thing about Bush Jr. up here. We're all sitting waiting for someone to nuke half the US somedays, and praying there's no south wind blowing. That man is seriously destroying the US.

It's funny. In 2000, I really didn't see much wrong with him. I could understand why Americans voted for him. But today? I can't see him garnering more than maybe 5% of the vote, due to fringers and nutcases. The man is a lunatic, plain and simple. Example off the top of my head: he wants to ammend the Constitution, the single most important piece of judicial writing in the country, to prevent gay people from marrying? THIS is an issue that ranks up there with freedom of speech, women voting, emancipation of the slaves, etc?

I didn't honestly believe ANYONE in the US actually supported him anymore, regardless of polls. Then, last weekend, I drove down to Minnesota for a bit of shopping.

Every other car had a "Vote Bush and Cheney" sticker on it, plus a "support our troops" yellow ribbon thing.

I guess if Americans are really that simple-minded, to think that those two things go hand-in-hand and cannot be separate... I fear he's going to win another 4 years. I pity Americans. Enjoy living under a "terror alert" FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's see now. We have a bunch of news shows that cover (imagine this) the news. None of them really going out of their way to bring politics into the mix as far as I've ever seen. And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C. The Democrats do seem to be saying that Fox News is pro Republican lately. Personally, I chalk that up to the upcoming election. I have noticed a liberal slant to CNN, and I'm sure they'd much rather people watch that instead.

With Fox it's what they do cover and what they don't cover. For example, other networks covering the Democratic National Convention aired Gore's speech. Nearly all aired the entire speech. Fox aired 45 seconds of it and then had O'Reilly counterpoint it.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> It will actually piss you off, and make you feel stupid
> for not recognising the tactics they employ.

Unless of course you fully agree with their agenda and believe in the same definition of "democracy" being when everyone agrees with you and the rest are punished.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

Kerry tried to lead a clean campaign? On what planet?

Anyway, I don't fault Kerry for it - in fact I think that critical campaigns are positive, because who else is going to point out flaws of your oponents? Certain issues are below-the-belt, but not ones relating to character and issues. Swiftees barely make the above-the-belt cut because the issue is whether or not Kerry lied to gain his purple hearts, which he regularly refers to in his campaign. However, I don't really think that his speech before congress about war crimes is relevant, because he was reporting what others told him to congress. Isn't that what you're supposed to do? I think the fact it was aired internationally was a problem, but I don't think that's Kerry's fault.

I think Bush's Vietnam record is open-season, because it goes to his truthfulness (NewsMax has a great story on this). I really don't see this campaign on either side going very much in the "too far" range, although I am perturbed that Kerry doesn't seem to have a vision.

Re:Voters don't think

[zCyl]

I'll be frank up front too. I'm an Independant

I'm also an independent, and I support most of the same things that you do. However, your analysis of Fox News is missing most of the details.

I'd really like to know why you believe that channel has a Republican agenda.

The news editor of Fox news is a hardcore republican, who sends all of his newscasters a daily list of issues they are required to talk about, and sends them what viewpoint they should present about these issues. His news reporters then either present his viewpoint or stop becoming his news reporters.

How does a fair and balanced news organization support a controversial war 100%? Shouldn't a news organization instead cover a war, debate its reasoning and necessity, and interview the politicians who support and disagree with the war?

Bill O'Reilly ... like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions ... Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.

Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.

When was the last time you saw Larry King yell at a guest, turn off a guest's microphone, or kick a guest off the show?

Hannity & Colmes - Hannity is openly a Republican, Colmes is openly a Democrat

Hannity is a talented and skilled speaker. Colmes is the most sniveling tiny-tiny human they could get to possibly host a news show. It would be wonderful if the two were matched and they had equal ability to present their viewpoints. Hannity is given the vast majority of microphone time, Colmes occasionally gets to express a minority opinion in a poor fashion.

And two shows that actually specifically cover political issues. One is Bill O, and the other is H & C.

Yes, precisely. Greta Van Susteren is probably one of the better reporters on Fox News, but she is usually never given political assignments.

Re:Voters don't think

[caswelmo]

That's weird. What happens if in 25 years CNN is practically non-existant & FOX News is by far the most popular channel (already happening)? Will they keep CNN because it "got there first"?

Whatever, at least you guys let me drink earlier than I could here! :^)

Re:Voters don't think

[scowling]

Popularity isn't part of the criteria of selection.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Dick Cheney yesterday saying if you vote the wrong way there will be another 9/11 attack (translation a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda)

Actually, Cheney was supporting Kerry and attacking Bush with that statement. After all, who was the sitting president when the 9/11 attacks occurred?

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

'"One hundred days until Bush is reelected" from a news anchor '

Who?

"And "shut up!" very rarely qualifies as a rebuttal."

Are you referring to O'Reilly? He hardly ever says shut up unless the guest is making up facts. O'Reilly doesn't like liars and theives. What's wrong with that? He is fair to people who are making valid points, and he is a bulldog to those who only use propoganda to make their points.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

The problem with footage is that it can be easily manipulated. Get the cuts right, and you can get "true" video to say almost anything. I'd be more interested in a written piece (in fact, that's how I like my news, too). It is easier to check facts and has less of a "false reality" to it. If you see it on video you assume it's true, even though it's just as easy to lie with video. Reading involves more skepticism, and is harder (but not impossible) to be fooled.

Re:Voters don't think

[jez9999]

It's probably pretty easy to get in here, especially if you're American. Having been born in the UK, I don't know too much about the immigration process though.

Re:Voters don't think

[i_should_be_working]

are you reffering to the Canadian system?

because, yes we vote for a party. a party that has already elected it's leader who will become prime minister if that party wins. the same way Americans vote for a party that has already nominated a leader who will become president if that party wins. and we have at least 3 viable parties (which have all ran the country in my lifetime) and 2 more with actual power. it's in no way a two party system

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

"his record of handling the economy and national defense....."

After inheriting a recession (yes, the recession started while Clinton was still in office), then falling victim to an extremely large terrorist attack on some of our key financial centers, followed by the collapse of some of our biggest companies (who had been corrupt for years before GW Bush got there), Bush manages to make it only a recession (not a depression), and the economy is surging back. I like it!

As for national defence - have we been attacked again on our soil? There's several things that he's not doing (like border patrol) but Kerry hasn't said he'll do them either.

The minimalistic number of US casualties from the two wars we've been in show that he is either a great military leader or at least knows who to hire/listen to.

I think he's done a great job, overall. He's way too liberal for me in general, but the issues that have counted in the past 4 years he's come through on.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

Well, I rest my case. You are a classic product of The World According to Murdoch--I mean Fox News.

Re:Voters don't think

[Flumph]

Colmes' job is to be the token liberal, he never calls Hannity on his crap. He's the straight man, so Hannity can get his conservative digs in. Nothing balanced about that show, to me. That's the show on Fox I know best, I imagine the rest of your analysis is of similar quality.

If the Fox coverage isn't biased, then why the poll results showing Fox viewers have hugely more conservative understanding of the "facts" than viewers of any other network?

I'm also an Independent, favoring many of the same stances on issues you do, wondering how long these two parties will do their death-spiral dance -- will they remember they're there to govern before we have another revolution, or not? Tune in absolutely nowhere for good reporting on this question.

For anyone thinking "revolution, what a crock!", ponder that the two parties aren't fighting over issues or how best to govern the country, they're fighting for power, and the alleged "issues" being discussed (when they are) are mere props, given none of the respect or consideration they are due, treated as trinkets to distract and manipulate the voters.

The real business of governance is being largely ignored, and the two parties have done everything they can to prevent any other political force from gaining a toehold, or any possibility of governing. So much so, in fact, that no other political party can have enough influence to even keep the Rs and Ds honest.

You get the government you deserve. We need to learn how to deserve better. (Instant Runoff Voting, or the slightly better variation Condorcet Voting, is one step in that direction.)

Flumph

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

It would be nice if you backed up your case with facts, so that third parties could decide on the evidence.

Re:Voters don't think

[Chapium]

Comfort yourselves with the knowledge that most of us did not vote for Bush.

Re:Voters don't think

[Coryoth]

No, it's just you. The Australian election hasn't been like that, where current issues are headline tv news, as opposed where the candidate is at a particular moment, or who did what fifteen years ago. Even Mark Latham's very "checkered" past blew over in a week or so, and it just got down to issues.

Of course you still managed to elect Pauline Hanson, so you don't have too much to crow about.

Jedidiah.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

You know, the FCC also chooses what is allowed to air and what isn't in America.

CNN and FoxNews are cable. They don't "air". The FCC doesn't control them.

what isn't in America.

The FCC only has jurisdiction in the USA, not America.

Re:Voters don't think

[Slime-dogg]

After all, who was the sitting president who had information of 9/11, but willingly left his seat so that another could take the fall?

At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us. We'd also still be sitting ducks for Bin Laden. It's our capitalism and media that Osama hates and wants to destroy, and that would have been the same regardless of who sits in office.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war.

Of course, that was HIS mindset. The Clinton administration treated al Qaeda as a war-like matter, by deploying lethal military force whenever possible (and Gore had planned to continue). But the Bush team decided to basically call off the hunt. They did more than treat it as just a criminal matter, or even ignore it entirely- they actually started funding the Taliban!

and we're not really at war.

Good. Because the USA hasn't declared a war since 1942. If he wasn't to be at war, he's got to at least go through the motions...

Re:Voters don't think

[ArsonSmith]

hehehe Canada isn't a big brother that's concerned he is a little geeky/nerd brother. Don't think he's going to threaten to kick anybodys ass.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

it's not the mindless drivel that seems to be coming out of the Kerry campaign.

Incomprehensible. The bullet-list he posted is practically cut & paste from Kerry-Edwards literature. Those factoids ARE Kerry's stump speech! (He even listed them in the same order as on johnkerry.com)

Maybe you don't actually know what's coming from the Kerry campaign, but have a viewpoint warped by filtering through 2 or 3 layers of media pontificating.

Re:Voters don't think

[fazookus]

Dude, you've been listening to too many Bush speeches.

Actually I suspect that Bin Laden wants us to take our capitalism elsewhere... he probably doesn't long for the good old fashioned Imperialism (yes, that kind, with the capitol "I") of yesteryear, either.

Ain't gonna happen, of course, but you can't kill a guy for trying. (Joke).

Faz

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

After 9/11, the Bin Laden family would take CONSIDERABLE risk by staying in the US.

Wrong. An FBI safehouse (or max-security federal penitentary) would be safer than flying, and safer than being anywhere in Saudi Arabia. And I'm not just saying that on general principles- in 2002, Al Quaeda murdered a high-rank Saudi before he could rat on them.

Now, when they pose no threat and can provide no information and their demise could unhinge the Saudi economy and enrage

He didn't know they were no threat, he didn't know they had no information, and he CERTAINLY couldn't prove either of those things.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

Propaganda refers to a blanket of misinformation that is produced and distributed in such a way as to obscure truth

No, that is not what propanganda is. Propaganda is a politically biased message, but it is not by-definition untrue.

F911 isn't propaganda.

Yes it is. You simply don't know what that means. In 1943, the USA produced much propaganda vilifying the Nazi empire. They happened to be correct, but it was still propaganda.

Re:Voters don't think

[Blankzoid]

Well, yeah but remember, the presedent is only one guy. Even with his whole cabinet/posse I think that say the starting line of the Leafs would be more than a mach for him.

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

> It would be nice if you backed up your case with facts,
> so that third parties could decide on the evidence.

What case is there that requires facts? Your statement was:

> O'Reilly doesn't like liars and theives. What's wrong with that?
> [...] he is a bulldog to those who only use propoganda to make their points.

It is YOU who is simply making assertions (that his guests are "liars and theives") without backing them up (if he disagrees with guests and has valid rebuttals to their lies and thievery, he wouldn't have to cut off their mike). And by him being a "bulldog" you mean him telling guests to shut up, or cutting off their mike. I don't have to present any facts other than quoting you, since I merely claim that what you call news and reporting isn't really. And I am also claiming that Fox News' approach to reporting leads to the unquestioning and hook-line-and-sinker-swallowing mindset that you so nicely exemplify. And to quote an old cliche: that's how Nazi Germany started.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Support the War in Iraq or not, we went there under bad intellegence (WMD, Al-Quaida link). That means that either a) Our intel agencies are horridly inept and incompetent, or b)We were lied to. Both of these warrant a new president, either through elections or impeachment.

The rest of the world is laughing at you for not seeing any other possibilities. A college education would be enough to understand that a link between Al-Quaida and Saddam is totally unlogical. Watching Powel in the security council, presenting undisputable evidence in the form of dubious letters, meaningless tapes and unclear images, made me feel embarrased on behalf of the americans. Everybody could see that even he himself didn't believe a word of what he was telling.

The real problem is that the Bush-administration can get away with saying that they did not know. And that most americans actually seem to believe that they did not know. They killed ten thousands of people (many of them women and children) and admits they lied to you about their reason, and you are still voting for them to run your country. I don't get it....

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

Sorry, bad wording on my part, s/Kerry Campaign/all of the individuals I know of who are actively supporting of John Kerry/;

Re:Voters don't think

[WNight]

I find F9/11 to be insulting and counter-productive. Anyone with half a critical mind will dismiss it (like Fox news) for what it is: distorted partisan crap.

Yeah! I completely agree. Many of my leftist friends don't understand how I can dislike F9/11 even though I dislike Bush. Like you, I simply want to point out the true problems with Bush (and Kerry, etc) instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore.

Re:Voters don't think

[J. T. MacLeod]

A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family. A safehouse or penitentary would be both inappropriate and damaging.

The Bin Ladens are a very public family at the heads of enormous businesses in a volatile region, and they are on good terms with the US. They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain. To suggest that they should have been, when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is ludicrous.

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

You haven't mentioned anyone by name that O'Reilly was unfair to. If you did that, it would be a good conversation. It would be silly for me to sit here and list the people that O'Reilly _wasn't_ unfair to, or to recall a conversation where I though that O'Reilly was acting fairly. If you have instances of O'Reilly being unfair, please present them.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

if someone believes in something I don't, but ... honestly believes it's the right thing to do ... then I may wind up voting him into office, because a man trying to do the right thing is infinitely better

Vote Laden-Hussein in 2008!

than a man who will say anything to get elected.

A typical "libertarian" response is to favor the least-principled candidate, on the theory that his flip-flopping will cancel itself out and approximate a weaker government overall.

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

A tremendous amount of Saudi business revolves around the Bin Laden family.

Oh. So they're too rich to arrest, huh? If OJ Simpson had been 10x richer, then I guess they wouldn't have had to bother with a trial even.

They are NOT anyone the US had any right to detain.

The USA doesn't care much about rights when it comes to detaining foreigners.

when merely keeping them in the country could have been disastrous is

No it couldn't have been. They were at NO RISK. The US government could keep them completely protected. The American military can provide far better protection than they'd get even at home in Arabia. (But I already explained this, and you ignored it, so I can't expect you to listen this time)

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because some people in a certain part of Canada are *still* upset with Trudeau over the gas thing (and I'll agree that his expansion of Ottawa's role in economic affairs was excessive), let's be realistic. Nobel peace prize-winning PM Lester Pearson brought in our distinct national flag, introduced national health care, and negotiated peace abroad, all while maintaining strong economic momentum.

I sincerely doubt that any of our PMs, even Mulroney, came into power "bent on bankrupting the country".

Aussi, votre petite commentaire est plus séparatif que n'importe quoi j'ai reçu des nouvelles des politiciens au Québec.
Vive le Canada uni!

Re:Voters don't think

[uradu]

Jeremy Glick.

Re:Voters don't think

[javiercero]

That wasn't bad wording on your part, now you blame it on other people no matter what (first was Kerry's campaign, now is Kerry's supporters... blah blah blah)

Re:Voters don't think

[Myopic]

well, 50.2 percent of us see it your way

Re:Voters don't think

[Moofie]

Agreed on all points.

Yay boobies.

Re:Voters don't think

[Myopic]

The Bush campaign deserves everything they get on the propaganda front because they dish it out non stop

i don't like bush or moore for this reason, but you are totally correct

Re:Voters don't think

[metamatic]

yes, the recession started while Clinton was still in office

If you're going to lie, you might at least attempt a slightly convincing lie. The NBER web site has a nice summary of the official government figures showing when the recession began. It began in March 2001. If you don't believe that page, download the original data and graph it yourself with GNUplot (yes, I have done so) and you'll see that the first dip began in December 2000 just after the elections, with the downswing as W took power in January, and the official recession starting in March.

Re:Voters don't think

[gobbo]

It's all about the advertising. We are not voters. We are consumers. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, but all other cola is kept in the back.

There is no Coke, there is no Pepsi, there is no Spoon (TM). There is only one Real Product (TM) in the USA, and that is The Audience. You are the product. Have a pill, the red ones are nice.

Seriously, one of the tenets of media literacy is that the real product of mass media is not the program, newspaper, or magazine, but the audience. Revenues come from advertisers, not audiences; what is being bought is attention, not entertainment.

A poster above points out that democracy is not viable in such an environment, and because I'm a rabid egalitarian I have to agree. But maybe democracy would be better than anything run by a Bonesman. Skull-and-Bones Society: not a paragon of democratic virtues. Kerry and Bush both continue to be members: the only obvious conspiracy this results in is that they will strive to fulfil their blood oath and hire as many of the other 500 active Bonesmen as they can. But that's bad enough, when things look like a republic on the surface and like a kleptocracy underneath.

Re:Voters don't think

[mgblst]

I am not sure you can blame the political system. It seems to me that you should place your blame with the Media, for they choose what to focus on. And they are really in a race against each other for ratings, so maybe you can blame the people who watch the majority of the media, and are so easily swayed towards sensationalist stories.

Re:Voters don't think

[demachina]

"So reading the Vice President's words, in context, one can easily see that Cheney was not saying "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda"

I said "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda". I was just exposing the cutting edge just underneath the surface of what he was saying.

What Cheney said,

"If we make the wrong choice".

I would translate that as voters choose Kerry assuming this is Cheney's idea of "the wrong choice". Many people would define "the wrong choice" as reelecting Bush/Cheney which would put a whole new spin on this :)

I dont care how you try to parse this, "then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" he is saying if you elect Kerry then the U.S. will suffer another devastating attack. Its not might be attacked or the chances are higher of being attacked or the response to the attack might be weak, its a danger of a devastating attack.

No matter how you slice it, it is the worst kind of fear mongering.

Problem #1 there is no way in hell he can assure us there wont be another devastating attack if the U.S. makes the "right" choice and reelects Bush/Cheney. They really don't have total control of the situation.

Problem #2 there is no way in hell he can have the smug confidence to say there will be an attack on Kerry's watch. Zel Miller shredded Kerry for tearing down the commander in chief. Well Cheney is doing exactly the same thing to a potential commander in chief. Hypocrites.

"As to your other complaints, if 200+ vets come together to voice their opinion about a candidate, who are you to say they're wrong?"

Uh the vets that were actually on John Kerry's boat and served under him for starters. One of the Swift Boat Vets in the ads is on video tape praising his courage under fire eight years earlier. If you side by side that tape with the Swift Boat commercial its obvious he is lieing in one of them.

But I'm not gonna defend Kerry's record, it is kind of pathetic. All I ask if he is going to be raked over the coals for it then George W. deserves the same treatment. He was arrested for Cocaine possession in Texas, he got off with six months community service thanks to connections and it was wiped off his record. If it has been a black guy or a poor guy it would have been a felony conviction and his political career would have been over before it started.

He used family connections to get in to the Air National over hundreds of better qualified applicants, he apparently flunked the pilots aptitude test, scoring 26.

He moved to Alabama without getting it approved with his Texas unit. In Alabama he was mostly partying, drinking, doing coke and not fulfilling his service. When the Guard instituted drug testing as part of the physical during this time he refused to take it since he would have been nailed for cocaine use. Refusing the physical resulted in his grounding and should have bounced him out of the guard and in to regular military service. And of course Bush political operatives were given unsupervised access to his Guard file so the docs on this really embarrassing stuff disappeared from his file.

"The RNC wants people to know that Kerry is the wrong choice. You expected them to go easy on him? You must be new here."

Wrong choice is one thing. Fear mongering and smearing is another. It just shows you what kind of hopeless pit of dispair this country is sliding in to because fear mongering and smear campaigns usually work, especially when the Bush team does it because they are EXPERTS at it. I really would prefer candidates campaign on their record and their platform, not on one cheap shot after another. Bush's record is pathetic, so is Kerry's so I guess it follows we get, as Joe Trippi calls it, "six second sound bites of mutual assured destruction" instead.

"As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on

Re:Voters don't think

[Kazoo the Clown]

Bill O'Reilly ... like him because he walks both sides of the fence by making logical decisions ... Good show, people should watch it, even if they don't like it. You'll change your opinion of the show after a month or two, I guarantee it.

Watched it for over a year, it's one of the worst shows on news. You must be thinking of a different Bill O'Reilly than the one on Fox News. He shouts down his guests, refuses to let them speak (in particular when they disagree with them), turns off their mics when he disagrees with them, and thinks with one of the most emotionally based irrational minds possible.

Bill O'Reilly is just Wally George without the peanut gallery (which frankly, was the only thing that made Wally George worth watching).

Interesting that it is the conservative talk-hosts who find it necessary (and appropriate, apparently) to cut off those they disagree with-- apparently unable to muster effective counterarguments. Rush on the other hand, doesn't even have enough confidence in his arguments to put himself in a position of having to defend them in the face of a live person-- instead preferring to caricature, misrepresent and take out-of-context sound bytes and video clips and argue against them. It's easy to win arguments when you get to invent your opponent's opinions.

How anyone can see any of these guys as anything but complete buffoons is probably the most serious indictment of our educational system that anyone could possibly make. Too bad such mass buffoonery is going to make all our kids have to cover the multi-trillion dollar debt we're building up at breakneck speed, no doubt either in raised taxes or reduced social programs (probably both).

And yeah, so Saddam Hussein was a real asshole, but a tin dictator that really wasn't worth 100+billion and 1000+ lives (so far) to take out. Now our military is far more stretched thin than ever, and more vulnerable to any real threats-- if an enemy wanted a good time to go after us when they know we're struggling to find the manpower and money to cover the mess we're in, we'd be hard pressed to give them a better opportunity.

After the election, no matter WHO wins, I expect the economy is going to take some serious hits. Right now the conservatives are doing everything they can to keep things propped up so it doesn't make Bush look bad. They've got their gut sucked in so hard they're turning blue, trying to look sexy for that babe, the electorate. After the election though, all hell is liable to break loose. The real hard decisions are ahead-- how to keep the debt from killing the country (hmm... maybe that's been Osama's plan all along) and where to find the manpower to staff the Iraq effort (can you spell D-R-A-F-T?), both which are likely to kick our economy in the privates, and no amount of Viagra is gonna fix it...

Either Bush knew there were no WMDs and he misled us, or he SHOULD have known and is incompetent. But liar or incompetent, we really like him because his heart's in the right place...

Re:Voters don't think

[demachina]

"After all, who was the sitting president who had information of 9/11, but willingly left his seat so that another could take the fall?"

I have no clue what you just said there.

"At least Bush has the stones to do something about it...."

Maybe Cheney or Rumsfeld has the balls, I doubt George does. If you recall when George first heard about 9/11 he sat like a deer in headlights for a half an hour reading "My Pet Goat". He continued his deer imitation for seven minutes after he was told there was a second crash at the World Trade Center making it obvious it was an attack. Cheney was actually running things during this period. If you recall George went from there to Air Force One and spent the rest of the crisis running and hiding at various obscure air force bases.

I'm amazed people think Bush actually is in charge. Cheney and the rest of Bush's staff are the ones with the brains that make his decision for him, he just picks one of the options. His speech writers are the ones that put the words and catch phrases in his mouth when he is reading the teleprompter. Everytime he has to ad lib he tends to turn in to a gibbering idiot. Its a tribute to his staff that they can coach him on all the predictable questions so he holds it together at press conferences as well as he does.

He is an empty headed figure head. He has the name, and the family, and he has a likable demeanor especially to his base. He is electable. Its not like he actually knows what he's doing or is really running things.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

The bullet-list he posted is practically cut & paste from Kerry-Edwards literature. Those factoids ARE Kerry's stump speech! (He even listed them in the same order as on johnkerry.com)

I was just at johnkerry.com and failed to see the list you're referring to. Any similarity between my points and Kerry's platform is wholly coincidental. This is the short-list of why dubbya lost my vote. Gods forbid this campaign be about the issues that are really facing this nation, not who deserved what medal 35 years ago.

Maybe you don't actually know what's coming from the Kerry campaign, but have a viewpoint warped by filtering through 2 or 3 layers of media pontificating.

The points I cited come from either personal experience (as I stated), or from official Dep't. of Labor statistics/congressional reports/SEC releases. Google for them if you doubt their authenticity. If you have any counterpoints for what I brought up, please let me know. I'd love to hear how deficit, rampant unemployment, flat wages, and coddling up to big business can be good for this beloved nation of mine.

Re:Voters don't think

[G-funk]

Don't worry, you're safe, the system will prevent ms hanson from ever having power, no matter what the people want. Personally I think she's an idiot, nobody with half my iq (which isn't that high) should be in office anywhere. But her political opponents financed a slur campaign and bogus investigation to put her behind bars.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

so what do we get for CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN?

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw one similar "Bring back Monical Lewinsky"

Re:Voters don't think

[J. T. MacLeod]

Too rich to arrest? They had not done anything.

They WERE at risk just by being here. Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued. There were reasonable exceptions made to the no-fly issue, and certainly the Bin Laden family, on whom the region's economy might hinge and who had no information to provide on Osama (with whom they don't keep contact) warranted an exception.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

"Dick Cheney yesterday saying if you vote the wrong way there will be another 9/11 attack (translation a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda)"

I'm from Australia, and I heard that statement. My first impression was "my god...it's like he's actually threatening americans to do it himself if they don't vote Bush back in".

It amazes me to see how many rational, intelligent people there are across that big blue ocean (thanks to /. making it obvious), and yet still hear things like "bush is probably going to win". Is the rest of America really that stupid?

We just throw cheese at our prime minister's feet if we think they've had their run http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040903/ap/d84ru0n01.htm l , but I reckon if someone did that in the states they'd be body tackled quick smart and labeled a "terrorist" (god that's another thing/word that needs something mouldy thrown at it).

Re:Voters don't think

[DisKurzion]

First off, I'd like to say I respect you for actually listing facts, and beginning a legitimate discussion. However, I personally feel those facts are taken a bit out of context. I've taken a few economics courses, so I am by no means an expert, so if there are any econ majors out there, please enlighten me. Also, it's kinda late (both in hours and in the discussion), so exact formulas , theories, or whatnot are not to be expected. Also, my points might be muddled a bit cause slashdot doesn't deserve much more than rough drafts.

I'd like to start off by refuting all your points in general because of a little macroeconomics concept called "implementation lag." Implementation lag basically says it takes time for economisists to find a problem, and for politicians to react to it. There is also "impact lag," which is how long it takes for the market to respond to new implementation. Tax cuts have longer lag and implementation times than say, lowering the interest rates.

Bush did not cause the recession. It was a combination of 9/11 (bad news almost always causes problems) and Clinton/Gore policies. Granted, he might not have made the best economic policy ever, but then again, I'm a firm believer in the private sector, and dislike relying on govt jobs. The job market isn't 100% bleak (90% of Penn State IST majors (University Park) got jobs avging 55k within 4 months of graduation), and if outsourcing is causing so many creative intellectuals to lose their jobs, maybe those intellectuals should find work for themselves.

These concepts apply to everything in politics, including everything to driving laws to inteligence failures.

Bush was in office all of 8 months when 9/11 happened. We have now had 3 years to scrutinize those 8 months, and hindsight is always 20/20. I personally believe that intelligence falures did occur, and Bush is not the one to blame. It is unlikely Bush would have seen anything wrong with the system, since that's how he inherited it from the last president. If you want to blame intelligence/security breaches, blame Clinton for shrinking intelligence budgets and not reacting sternly to international crises.

Everything else...eh, I can't refute that now (other to sling some mud and say that neither side is gonna do jack squat about it), so I won't.

Re:Voters don't think

[jmv]

Bush is an moron and bad for the USA/world

Bad for the US, sure, but I'm starting to think that he may not be that bad for the rest of the world in the long-term. The faster he destroys his country, the less the US is a threat to other countries.

On a different topic, if F9/11 can't be on TV because it's biased, then better close Fox News right now :)

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

I agree that we can't pin all of our economic woes on the President (but let's admit it, we all do from time to time). Many of my beefs listed are the result of corporations exploiting their power - the same corporations that channel hundreds of millions of dollars into W's re-election war chest. I admit the bubble was going to burst regardless of who was elected in 2000. I am not an economist either, but your arguments sound valid. I'm not blaming Bush for the recession. My complaint is with how he is handling the results of it.

If I may provide an anecdote: I live in the Metro Phoenix area. We are home to many corporations with large vested interests in technology and IT. American Express, Honeywell, McDonnal Douglass, General Dynamics, Intel and Motorola all have a fairly large tech presence here. Needless to say, when the bottom fell out, our community was hit harder than many. Continuous layoffs, offshoring, and for those of us who were lucky enough to keep our jobs, we were faced with cancelled bonuses and severing of many significant benefits. The tech job scene here pretty much sucked for three years. One day, in 2003, the president paid a visit to one of the local community colleges do discuss his economic "vision" of the future for the Phoenix valley. That was the day that dubbya irrevocably lost my vote. His answer to our high unemployment rate: "More hi-tech education!!" At that moment, I realized that not our president has not a fucking clue about the current plight of the American middle-class technology worker. Tell the half-dozen or so PhD's that my company alone laid off that the solution to our problem is more education. In the four years of Bush's presidency, I haven't heard him mention once the issue of good, high-skilled, good paying jobs being shipped to Bangalore (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a symptom of his greater problem; he runs away or avoids issues dealing with the economy. Anytime someone mentions it, you'll hear the same canned response: "our economy is strong, and my tax cuts are working". I called bullshit when he first said it, and I call bullshit nearly four years later as he keeps repeating it. I'd have more respect for the man if he would simply acknowledge that there are problems that need to be fixed.

Sorry if that turned into a rant, but it is getting kinda late over here :)

Re:Voters don't think

[Progoth]

Colmes (5). He wants to be a Liberal, but he's too much of a pussy and alwasy acquiesces.

umm... what do you think the definition of a liberal is?

Re:Voters don't think

[Minna Kirai]

Why would I even bother responding to someone who's only trick is argument by assertion?

Nonetheless, even if there were no risk, you don't screw with an entire region's economy just because someone important happened to be in the area when the no-fly was issued.

Ahem, the economy of 100s of different regions was "screwed with" by denying flights to millions of important someones who were totally beyond suspicion. Why some people who were plausibly close to the crime were given a special exception makes no sense.

But don't bother responding, you'll just do the same thing as all your posts- repeat something you wish were the truth, without anything to back it up.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a poll:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSer ver?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971 358637177&c=Article&cid=1094681412360

Re:Voters don't think

[Magius_AR]

First lemme say that I respect a liberal who can recognize that 9/11 is garbage.

I just want to dispute a few of your facts though, as most of them seem to be economic related (deficit, jobs, out-sourcing, wages).

Most economic arguments regarding presidents are silly and irrelevant. All-in-all, no president really has THAT much control over the freight train that is the economy.

For example, Clinton served under a booming economy (think dot-com bubble), and did not have to suffer much of the backlash of the bubble bursting. Clinton also didn't have any wars during his administration. Argue all you want about Iraq, but Afghanistan was an unavoidable war, and wars cost lots and lots of money.

Now that said, I don't like W that much. Sadly, I don't like Kerry either, so I have no clue who to vote for. But I don't hold the economy against Bush. It's not totally his fault.

Re:Voters don't think

[bckrispi]

First lemme say that I respect a liberal who can recognize that 9/11 is garbage.

Ack!!! Libertarian who wants bush out of office, yes. Liberal? Hell no :)

Most economic arguments regarding presidents are silly and irrelevant. All-in-all, no president really has THAT much control over the freight train that is the economy.

Agreed, the cause wasn't his fault, but I do blame him for his total lack of action in getting it back to where it should be. The administration has the power to regulate offshoring while still operating in a free global market - notice I didn't say *stop* offshoring. Our government tightly regulates trade in goods through tarrifs and incentives to "most favored" nations. Offering nice fat tax incentives to companies that keep a certain percentage of their tech workforce stateside would be a good start.

Yeah, I'm pissed about the disparity between the worker slaving to pay his mortgage and put his kids through school without even a raise to match cost-of-living expenses, and the CxOs of his company voting their own salaries through the roof. Threat of layoff = higher productivity for less pay in the short term. Higher productivity leads to greater output leads to higher shareholder value. As long as the shareholders are happy, they won't bitch when CEO Joseph J. Whitey gives himself a $350,000 a year raise. This kind of economics works for Bush. His campaign contributors are made rich. And he can use the rising stock cost as "evidence" of an "improving economy", while ignoring more relevant figures like consumer confidence (in the toilet), and employment (First President since the Depression to come out of his term with *fewer* jobs than he went in with!!) Can he regulate how corporations mete out their payroll? Probably not. But how can a *moral man*, as he claims to be, tolerate and even encourage this type of, perhaps not illegal, but certainly unethical behavior??

and wars cost lots and lots of money.

Ok, you're saying big war = big defecit. I guess you got me there :) Putting on my flame-retardant suit, I'll say that I did support the invasion. But I certainly hope that Dubbya delivers on his promise to have the cost of reconstruction and security covered by Iraqi oil exports. Pardon me for not crunching the numbers, but IIRC, the projected cost of the War is but a fraction of the estimated budget defecit for '05. Feel free to slap me down if I'm wrong.

Now that said, I don't like W that much. Sadly, I don't like Kerry either, so I have no clue who to vote for.

I seldom vote "the lesser of two evils". That's why I wrote in Dave Mustaine in '96.

Re:Voters don't think

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause if they don't, they'll have nobody far enough right to make everyone else look like they're left...

Re:Voters don't think

[johnnyb]

I read the transcript. I agree with you that O'Reilly did not give his guest a fair shake. But it's an exception, and it's not worse than what is often on Hardball for example.

Re:Voters don't think

[jacoby]

They looked left on the merits before Fox News was created.

Re:Voters don't think

[Edax Rarem]

Support the War in Iraq or not, we went there under bad intellegence (WMD, Al-Quaida link). That means that either a) Our intel agencies are horridly inept and incompetent, or b)We were lied to. Both of these warrant a new president, either through elections or impeachment.

Or c) we had the correct intel and ignored it. Because W and dick want that oil.

I know why

[metallikop]

Mostly because the facts are so skewed that this can't be placed in Documentary.

Re:I know why

[dave420]

Got proof?

Re:I know why

[mrsev]

As I come form the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean (Europe) I find it difficult to understand what the fuss is about. The headline says"...whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote."

The show 9/11 clearly states a point of view(In this case from Moore), dont like it make your own film. And so what , you have the freedom of speech and he has the right to use it. As regards the idea of truth. Are we to assume that all other shows, that night, depict the "truth".

Maybe because I come from a country where political debate is common and the people represented by a spectrum of views, I find this kind of pro/anti arguments a little strange.

The communist party says one thing (and most people laugh) the center-left says another, the center-right another. Nobody would expect a film to depict the Truth(Tm). Only with actual news programs are facts expected to be proved(editorial and comments are not).

I always get the impression form the US that they consider themselves to be the world experts on Democracy. To be quite honest I see little to be impressed about.

Re:I know why

[metallikop]

It's not that I don't like the movie at all. In fact I think it's an eye opening film that depicts another point of view, one that NEEDS to be pointed out. I used to work for a media outlet, and still have a good number of friends who do. It IS true that media is biased, though that's not the way it is supposed to be.

Newspapers, TV news, etc., should all be as fair to all sides of any topic as possible. This is not the case. Michael Moore has leveled the playing field on most aspects. My earlier comment " Mostly because the facts are so skewed that this can't be placed in Documentary." was directed that this is no fair documentary by any means. This is not a documentary in the literal sense " Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film".

Firstly there is a great deal of editorailizing that Michael Moore has done. More accurately, his documenting consists mostly of other outlets' source and portraying it as his own with an overlay of criticism. There have been a NUMBER of reports that agree with Moore. Michael Moore is not the first to come forward with these facts, he just has the financial backing and reputation to be able to pull this off in this scale.

Let's get back on the subject of this being placed in the Best Picture category and not Best Documentary. Unfortunately I don't know offhand what Moore's competition would/will be in the Best Doc. category, but I would imagine a National Geographic-esque/Discovery Channel type documentary to be more "fit" for the role of Best Documentary.

To the previous comment to my post, no, I don't have proof. In fact, I have proof that most of what Michael Moore says is true. But it IS totally biased. There is no debating that, none. He made his point, he wants a wide audience to see it, I don't blame him... I commend him. I'd like to see an equally biased "documentary" on Bush's contender. It would certianly help level the playing field once again. Can Moore turn this election? I doubt it, but he will push a few extra votes to Kerry.

Re:I know why

[feepness]

The show 9/11 clearly states a point of view(In this case from Moore), dont like it make your own film. And so what , you have the freedom of speech and he has the right to use it. As regards the idea of truth. Are we to assume that all other shows, that night, depict the "truth".

There is no problem. The film can say what it likes, and anyone can say what they like in response. Then someone else responds to the response. That's called political debate and free speech and it goes both ways.

I personally am a little disappointed more people aren't laughing at this film though.

Re:I know why

[jcr]

Disappointed, sure. Suprised? No.

-jcr

Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

ths dude is a subversibve charactor, this movie is designed to be decieving and subversive...

Re:Michael Moore

[fpillet]

At least he asks questions and raises concerns. Maybe you're expecting Rush Limbaugh to ask them? Hrmm...

Re:Michael Moore

[mbullock]

Deceiving perhaps. Deceiving in the way that any propoganda piece is. But subversive? In what way? Part of freedom of speech includes the freedome to present political propoganda. The film is no more nor less subversive than the adds being aired by both the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Subversive is a dangerous word to use.

Re:Michael Moore

[brxndxn]

So who do I vote for if I support nuclear warfare?

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm very sorry that you are useing the "subversibve" word, in were I live (Argentina - South America) more people were killed than in 9/11 in the name of that word.
Sorry for my bad english.

Re:Michael Moore

[jbeiter]

You would vote for Kerry. He will decimate our military as his voting record and political lobbying has demonstrated.

The militant Islamics will be emboldened and [surprise!] not walk down the happy-happy-joy-joy path of peace and harmony with us as liberal myopia would dictate, but take our castorated military as a gift from Allah... as *they* demonstrated during the Clinton years. The whole "balance of power" concept is not going to work in the hands of a moslem. Why? Allah wants you either Islamic, or dead. Every moslem that helps accomplish either gets a dozen sexy wives in paradise. Why do you think they're lining up to strap on ball bearing bombs?

I haven't seen F911 but it sounds like a bunch of emotional puff and blow. Anyone I talk to that is struck by it, can only recall the tearful mother who lost her son, and the accusation that Bush lied.

Want nuclear hell? Vote Kerry. He can deliver the *only* thing they want. Our stones on a silver platter.

Re:Michael Moore

[isaac]

People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda.

Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful.

I believe you've got it completely backwards. People hate substantive discussion of issues. People hate nuance. Nuance and intelligent discussion = nerd. And people really hate nerds. Take Al Gore, please!

Pro wrestling has more fans than "Meet The Press" and image triumphs over substance every time. Unfair propaganda works.

-Isaac

Re:Michael Moore

[Viking Coder]

Start quoting some sources for those things you think liberals say.

I'll match you punch for punch.

The right says ridiculous things about the left, like Preisdent Clinton murders people who get in his way.

It's all nuts.

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

F9/11 was shown as the cause behind an unexpected spike in Bush's poll numbers directly following its release.

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look at all the ridiculous things [the left] say[s] about Bush... that he wants to poison everyone..."

Nobody on the Left says that. The Right *says* that the Left says that!

Context: an environmental group (I forget which) put out an ad months ago which decried Bush's loosening of controls on mercury in lakes and streams. The ad said, truthfully, that mercury can be poisonous, and is particularly dangerous for pregnant women. Then the Right spun this into an unfounded claim that the group said Bush wants to poison pregnant women.

Show me a quote where a bona fide liberal claims Bush wants to poison anyone.

Re:Michael Moore

[Morganth]

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

Re:Michael Moore

[Arthur Yossarian]

Oh, please. Right-wing commentators are far more viscious than almost everyone on the left, and they get more exposure too. Dennis Hastert recently said that Democratic contributor George Soros acquired his fortune through narcotics, Anne Coulter called liberals traitors, Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, and you're saying that people like Michael Moore are spouting "weird crap"? The right has been like this for years, too; during the 1988 elections, the Bush camp spread rumors that Dukakis's wife burned the flag, etc. It's true that the left can say some pretty outrageous things, but they're not nearly as bad as right-wing attackers.

Re:Michael Moore

[cryptochrome]

Not to mention Fox "News".

Re:Michael Moore

[Morganth]

I used the word "content" when I meant to say "contest." I don't know why, but I apologize :-)</embarassed>

Re:Michael Moore

[Tycho]

Barry Goldwater in '64. Seriously, Barry Goldwater actually advocated using low yield nuclear weapons to defoliate Vietnam to make it harder for the VC to hide.

Re:Michael Moore

[Overzeetop]

Oddly, there seems to be a very small proportion of _truly_ undecided voters this cycle to influence. People either agree with Bush or they don't. Those that don't have no other (effective) choice. I've found strikingly few people who will vote for "anybody" but John Kerry...they all want to vote for Bush for various reasons.

My wife recently remarked that Bush stands for his values unwaiveringly, and he should be respected for that alone. I decided that an argument wasnt't in my best interest, but I would admit she was half right. He _does_ stand for his values, and he's immovable about them. It just so happens that I disagree with almost every ideological stand he takes, so it makes my choice not to vote for him easy. More importantly, I can elimiate voting for a third party because I know the election will be close, and to oppose GW Bush effectively I must regiter a vote for his closet rival, John Kerry. The fact that I know that Bush will never listen to a point of view which does not agree with his makes my choise so easy.

By the way, every American I know is FOR keeping America "safe" and providing good education, and making sure grandma and grandpa can make ends meet. Those aren't ideological stands.

Abortion is. State support (financial or otherwise) of religion is. Keeping America safe by invading every country which may pose a threat is. Spending more money than you make, whether by over-spending or under-charging, is, too. They all have real consequences.

Oh, and I think if we really want to make a military statement, we SHOULD use Nukes more often. Partially because little bombs are so inefficient, but mostly because if you're just crazy enough to use one every once in a while, it keeps everyone on their toes ;-)

Re:Michael Moore

[avandesande]

nuance is only quantifiable by lawyers. say what you damn mean

Re:Michael Moore

[isaac]

nuance is only quantifiable by lawyers. say what you damn mean

The world is complicated and precise language reflects its complexity. Precision and nuance are not only important to lawyers, but they're regrettably lost on most people these days.

-Isaac

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists

At least once? More like once per week, I think.

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

He _does_ stand for his values, and he's immovable about them.

Au contraire. During the 2000 campaign, he said at various times that he didn't think it was the job of the U.S.A. to be the world's policeman. Four years later, it's worse even than that -- we're the world's Schutzstaffel.

And even though he's ostensibly clean and sober now, Bush used to value alcohol quite a bit. Possibly even cocaine. Hardly immovable, Bush's values.

(Okay, that was a cheap shot, I admit.)

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992.

You don't have to look that far back. Just look at the official Bush web site a few weeks ago:

The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.

That is, an official ad, not one that was posted to an open forum and then deleted by the moderators.

link

Re:Michael Moore

[Reality Master 101]

I wasn't even really speaking of the Democrat party, I was speaking of leftists. The subject was Michael Moore, after all. The radical leftists sabotage the Democratic party. The people in the party are (usually, but not always) smart enough to not go overboard in their rhetoric.

Look at any of the recent political posts on Slashdot, and read some of the idiocy against Bush. People accuse Bush of EVERYTHING. I mean, stupid stuff, like he only invaded Iraq for the oil, so he could make money in some grand conspiracy.

Hell, look at Michael Moore's own idiocy, where he throws out innuendo that some tenuous tie to bin Laden's family means that Bush is somehow responsible for bin Laden's actions.

It's obvious stupidity like that that alienates the middle.

Re:Michael Moore

[Kethinov]

The problem with the movie is that it's information overload. The point Moore was attempting to make was that Bush led the American people into a war with Iraq under false pretenses. Those pretenses being that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq directly supported the terrorists who attacked America.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq was impotent of any such weapons, which all U.S. intelligence confirmed, and that Iraq had nothing to do with the said terrorists. These two points obviously lead to an ulterior motive on Bush's part. This is where Moore's movie starts to suck. Moore went in great detail explaining just what he thought Bush's motives were. This is where all the speculative criticism comes in. I postulate to Moore: WHO CARES?!

I really don't give a shit what Bush's business relationships are like or why he tricked America into war. The facts are clear. Bush grossly abused his power to misled hundreds of millions of people. That's all I, or anyone needs to hear. Get him out of office. Now.

Re:Michael Moore

[sheldon]

The left seems to do this far more than the right.

No. The left seems to worry about it much more than the right.

Hitlery
Feminazi's
Paul Wellstone with a Red Communist flag in the background
Max Cleland morphing into Osama bin Laden
Willie Horton
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Ann Coulter flip-flopping between comparing Democrats to Stalin or Hitler
Same with Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell blaming 9/11 on the queers, kikes, dykes and jews

and so on, and so on, and so on

The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle.

I am the middle. I voted for Dole in the '88 Iowa caucuses. I was deeply disturbed by Pat Robertson's campaign. I was even more disturbed by Bush's willie horton ads. At the last week, I pulled the lever for Dukakis even knowing he'd probably lose.

Then we had the Anita Hill smear campaign.

This was followed up during the Clinton years by some of the most venomous crap I have ever seen in my life. Claims which were just clearly pulled out of someone's ass, etc.

We saw it in the 2000 campaign, when they portrayed Gore as a liar and an cheat.

and sadly you know what the Right has learned? This shit works.

So what do we have in 2004. We have Kerry going around trying to talk about substansive issues.

And Bush going around calling Kerry names, and using his Swift Boat veteran surrogates to make up shit about him.

Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.

Where is this alternate reality world that you live in? Maybe you ought to start paying attention to what the Right spews out on the news networks.

Go into a bookstore and buy anything written by Ann Coulter.

No, I'm sorry. I don't have the lack of morals that Republicans do and I'm not willing to just make shit up. But I'm not willing to back down, and I'm going to call a Spade a Spade. And I don't want John Kerry to do it either, just because a few little Republicans are whining that we're being mean to President Bush.

Well, the fucking leader of the free world ought to be able to handle a little bit of criticism. And maybe if he opens his god damned mind for a bit, he'll take the criticism to heart and stop being a fucking idiot.

I am the middle, and I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it any more.

Re:Michael Moore

[Myopic]

"The Right" says plenty of totally kooky stuff.

didn't "The Right" complain that Clinton was a potsmoking draft dodger in 1992, before running a cokesnorting draft dodger in 2000? didn't "The Right" champion States Rights so people could drive fast, before refusing States Rights so people could smoke weed in peace? didn't "The Right" directly cause the Enron/Worldcom mess by pushing deregulation? didn't "The Right" say that our government was too big and too expensive before they gained control of THE ENTIRE FEDERAL LEGISLATION PROCESS (both houses of congress and the White House) and grew the government even bigger?

I, personally, am still mad about the Republican Revolution. Shit, the only good thing to come out of that was Workfare.

Re:Michael Moore

[FunWithHeadlines]

I enjoyed your comment very much, and don't want to argue or anything. But this sentence struck me funny:

"My wife recently remarked that Bush stands for his values unwaiveringly, and he should be respected for that alone."

A lot of people think that, so it's not surprising she does. Of course the reality is that he "flip-flops" more than anyone, but hey, facts shouldn't interfere with propaganda, as I'm sure you know. No, but what I thought was funny about seeing this common idea actually put down in print is this: So do two-year-olds. They also stick to what they want/believe unwaiveringly. Right or wrong, they stick to their guns and no matter what you tell them they say, "NO!"

We don't respect two-year-olds for refusing to budge. Why people like that in Bush is beyond me. Give me an emotional adult who can see a situation, figure out where he needs to learn, learn and grow and adapt. Hey, sorry to lecture you. I agree with you. I'm just talking out loud based on what you wrote and the way it struck me.

Re:Michael Moore

[hmbJeff]

I think you miss the point of references to Hitler and Bush.

It is not that Bush is assumed to be as evil and dangerous as Hitler. It is instead a concern that many of his policies and tactics bear a striking resemblence to some of those used by Hilter when he began his diasterous takeover of the German nation.

Tactics such as:

Using an unrelated attack as a justification for invasion of another country.

Using the same attack as justification for severly curbing domestic civil liberties, allowing for secret, unlimited detentions, and greatly expanded spying on citizens, for example.

Invoking God in declaring an all out war on "terrorists", then using it as justification for most subsequent policies.

Consoliding all federal security and intelligence services into a single centrally-controlled bureaucracy to protect "the homeland".

Breaking down barriers between govenment and corporations, bringing in heads of major corporations into postions of power throughout the government and letting them control government policy.

Does that mean Bush and Cheney and company are planning to do that in America? No that is not implied. However, if they or someone following them did want to do that, their policies have made it much more likely to succeed.

And that is something we all should be concerned about.

Re:Michael Moore

[autopr0n]

People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.

LOL, what country do you live in.

Yeah, people may not 'like' negative-campaigning, but it gets them to vote, until people start looking up information for themselves and bothering to figure out what's true and what's not on their own, and using that information to vote against candidates who use 'unfair propaganda' we'll still see it.

Anyway, the set of facts prevented in the film are 100% true, and you obviously havn't seen the film if you belive it will hurt Kerry.

Re:Michael Moore

[tmortn]

Moore isn't swinging anybody, least not from my perspective. People who are against Bush come out of it raving against Bush, People For Bush come out Raving against Moore.

You don't swing votes with extreme views/bias, you swing votes with compromise. People interested in getting info that I know come out of 9-11 at best with a list of facts to check and veriffy. If anything finding some of the better examples of poor context is enough to turn them fairly sour on Moore but still has no effect on their opnion regarding the election.

In other words people that are actually seraching for information to be swayed by are generally smart enough to dismiss the bias and take the valid issues under consideration. The poor schlubs that can't think for themselves had their minds made up before they ever bought a ticket.

This is not an issue... or I should say that it is a non-issue in light of the overwhelming role already played by media coverage regarding politics. On the other hand not allowing it (given a willing station) is more of an issue to me as that is a potential encroachment on free speach. To me not allowing it because it might have an undue influence on the election would be no different than saying someone could not publish a book because it might have undue influence on the election.

Re:Michael Moore

[Viking Coder]

I don't think it's right that you got modded to flamebait, but I also don't agree with anything that you said.

I was struck by Fahrenheit 9/11, and while I can't quote it to you line and verse, I could relate probably 80% of the accusations levied in the film. (And I personally believe the majority of the film is literal truth - I've read a lot of substantiating evidence since I've seen the movie, and the counter-arguments against most of it are weak at best in my opinion. I mean, debate the meanings and interpretations of those facts all you want, but they're facts. Moore goes overboard with his interpretations, sure, but level-headedness is not something that we Americans are known for, when it comes to discussing politics.)

I also disagree with your assesment that radical Islamic fundamentalists want a weaker US military presence in the world. I think they got exactly what they wanted - the biggest possible "hate the US" campaign that the Middle East has ever seen - all paid for with your tax dollars.

The Bush Administration (and a lot of the military) thought that they would welcome us with open arms, in Iraq, thanking us for getting rid of their oppressor. That's how freakishly poorly they understood the situation, going into it. And now you think they've somehow been right all along in predicting outcomes and security for us? We clearly did not understand the situation; our military was put into a more dangerous situation than our leaders realized.

Do you honestly think that there's any way in the world that President Bush would have gotten anywhere near a "Mission Accomplished" sign, if he had any idea what was to come? It's obvious that they thought that things would only get better in Iraq.

Well, they haven't.

In August, attacks on US forces were up to 2,700 from around 1,000 the previous month. In other words, even with terrorism, any publicity is good publicity. We're really giving every child in Iraq a reason to hate us. (Think how you would feel if Chinese tanks rolled through your neighborhood, restoring "order" to the United States. I mean really honestly think about what that would mean to you. You would literally shake with hatred.)

I hope it all turns out well. I hope that our money and US lives were worth it, and that peace prevails. But violence begets violence, and most analysts are saying that we won't disengage from Iraq for four to five years. How much will attacks on our forces increase in that time? It's a scary prospect.

It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario, but I think that radical Islamic fundamentalist don't really care how big the US military is. It's not like it's going to get bigger than being the number one world power that it is today. We spend almost as much on our military as the rest of the world combined.

Our military power didn't save one single US citizen on September 11th, and I honestly don't believe that our military is going to stop the next terrorist attack either. Our spy agencies might, but it's not going to take stealth bombers - it's going to take wire taps. Clinging on to useless military systems as if our lives depended on it (when they clearly don't) is just a huge, huge waste of money. I'm personally kind of pissed at how Democrats are blamed for spending us into national debt - it's simply not true. Reagan tripled the debt, and our current Republican leaders are working hard to double it again, for the sake of what?

I mean, the very idea that a national military power would directly attack us through conventional means (the only one our military is useful against) is almost nuts, at this point (unless we spread ourselves too thin by engaging in too many voluntary wars abroad at the same time). And your apparent belief that the military could do anything to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a major US population center is almost pitifully childish. It's a new kind of war, an

Re:Michael Moore

[Overzeetop]

I think his core values are solid, though his reversals on particular ways to meet his ends result in apparent flip-flops. I just happen to think his values are, well, not mine (I'm sure he feels they're progressive, I think they're neanderthal and dogmatic).

Anyway, I wholehartedly agree with your 2 year old analogy, and think it fits reasonably well. And I happen to have a 2 year old. At times I know that I'd make more headway by talking to her stuffed animals. I'm sure Colin Powell feels the same way most days, even if he doesn't admit it publicly.

Re:Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Slate gets that all wrong. I watched the ad, and the context is very clear that the footage of Hitler comes from the moveon.org ads, and that Bush's ad is being critical of those ads and is not comparing the Democrats to Hitler. The Slate article is a great example of spin.

Re:Michael Moore

[Crazy Eight]

Can we bust this myth already?

Let's let google decide...

We Have a Winner!!!

Oh yea..

[Pharmboy]

And I am sure his reasons are pure, simply wanting to inform the electorate....Right.

Agree or not, its simply propeganda, and he has made enough money that he just wants the POWER he thinks he would get if Kerry won, so he could take credit and be even "more important" than he already thinks he is.

What do people that have too much money want? Power.

Re:Oh yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Money? Power? Um... Wasn't it Bush that said, " Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."

Re:Oh yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

paaaleeeze! flamebait my eye. That rich people want power is not exactly a new idea. You can only spend so much money, but power gets you other things, like control. Money can't buy power as well as power can get you money, anyway.

Re:Oh yea..

[Pharmboy]

Um, of the 4 people running (Bush, Kerry, Chaney, Edwards) Bush is by far the least wealthy, with a net worth estimated around 6 million. This sounds like alot until you compare it to the others.

As for power, W.'s only power is that given to him by the voters. Michael Moore is considerably richer than Bush, and appears to want to use this wealth (or accepting loss of future revenue by giving it away on TV instead of DVDs) to push his agenda, instead of standing on a soap box and letting people vote him in or out.

Its Moore's money, he can do with it as he pleases, but his power is from money while most any politician's is based only getting 51%+ to agree with them. There is a difference.

Re:Oh yea..

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the body of Michael Moore's work, I'ld say you're right - kinda.

This attempt at airing Farenheit is about Mickey Moore getting what he wants, but that isn't any sort of political power being promised by Kerry. Why would someone running for president be so foolish as to promise _anything_ to someone like Moore? Moore likes to make life difficult for those with temporal power over him, period.

People like Moore are political poison even if they're buyable by one "side" or the other because there's no guarrantee that they'll stay bought. Moore himself is worse from the viewpoint of a presidential contender because he's _not_ technically buyable, he would happily use the fact that a candidate attempted or _succeeded_ in purchasing him later when the now-president did something that Moore disdained.

The work at getting a network airing of F9/11 is Michael Moore's attempt to do one thing, he wants to turn George W. Bush back into a private citizen. This is a gonzo journalist attempting to stab a president's reelection campaign in the heart.

Re:Oh yea..

[BlueStraggler]

What do people that have too much money want? Power.

Ironic, considering this is exaclty Moore's thesis.

Is there a single shred of political coverage in the American media that doesn't qualify as propaganda? How many Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? How many Americans give a rat's ass about the fact that their nation has been transformed into a police state in which fundamental rights are suspended because they are in a "state of war"? A war against an improper noun, which means there is nobody to surrender, negotiate, or lose (war on drugs, anyone?), which means you can count on it being eternal.

There's nothing but propaganda from here on, friends.

Re:Oh yea..

[Pharmboy]

How many Americans give a rat's ass about the fact that their nation has been transformed into a police state in which fundamental rights are suspended because they are in a "state of war"?

Um, I don't like parts of the Patriot act (and have been very outspoken about it), but you would have be smoking crack to think the US is a police state. I travel all over the US and even Europe and have never been refused to go anywhere. I voice my opinions openly and loudly. This is not a police state.

Calling the US a police state is the same kind of propeganda that Moore is spewing. It is simply not backed up with facts. Go to a few countries in Africa or the Middle East if you want to see a police state. Or the former Iraq. We can both agree that the Patriot Act has some issues, but calling us a police state is akin to finding a $100 bill and considering yourself a millionaire: Its a gross overstatement.

Re:Oh yea..

[TheCaptain]

What you don't get, is that quote is actually quite humorous. Some people call them the elite...the funny part is, is those people aren't elite. They even know it themselves. Sure...they are wealthy - but wealthy != elite.

You want elite? Look into what Kerry and Edwards are worth, or George Soros for that matter. Quite alot of Hollywood and darn near all of the musicians as well. I recall reading an article detailing the net worth of politicians, and actually the democrats were wealthier by quite a good margin.

Re:Oh yea..

[BlueStraggler]

A police state does not mean you live in jail. It means that your fundamental rights are decided by the police.

Anyone can walk around freely and voice opinions in a police state, just as anyone can commit crimes in a law-abiding society. The real question is: what rights can you fall back on when the police take exception to your activities? If the law and the courts can protect you against the police, then you live in a reasonably free society. If not, then you live in a police state, even if it's a comfy, prosperous police state where few people ever find themselves in that position.

You want facts? If the police arrest you without cause, hold you without trial or even charges, deny you access to counsel, conduct secret proceedings, and contradict the courts, then citizens are fundamentally defenseless.

I have traveled in the Middle East, eastern Europe, and Cuba, all of which have a much higher police presence and authority than the U.S., and I traveled freely, spoke freely, and spent freely in all of those places. Of course, I was never arrested, so I never had the opportunity to experience the police state apparatus directly. And so my experience of those countries was universally that they were warm, beautiful places full of nice people. A lot like America.

Um, thoroughly comtemplation?

[biffnix]

Was that supposed to be "thoughtful contemplation?" Perhaps before the good Commander posted that, he should have paused for a bit of thoughtful contemplation...

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

Re:Um, thoroughly comtemplation?

[Sebby]

Or maybe "thoughtful contemptation"

I'm so excited

[ejbvanc]

that slashdot likes to put it's political slant here and there. But then again, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality" - JFK

please correct spelling error - s, not c

[Anonymous Coward]

"Controversial" please, thnx

Dumb The Vote

[Foofoobar]

Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.

And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[savagedome]

Most of them can't even program the VCR

I might be missing something but how does the ability to program a VCR make anybody more/less intelligent than others?

Re:Dumb The Vote

[garcia]

Most of them can't even program the VCR.

What does this have to do with anything? They don't intelligently discuss any topic because they don't give a shit not because they aren't intelligent enough to do so.

Most people don't care about politics because they see it as one side of assholes running the country against another side of assholes. They feel their vote doesn't really make much of a difference overall. As long as Reality TV carries on and comes out of the box in their living room they don't care what else is going on.

And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years), it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.

People seriously believe that laws only affect those that break them. People don't care to have the ability to look ahead and see what is possible down the road. When you do speculate on the future you are labeled as a paranoid "freak" by your peers. "Oh the Patriot Act doesn't stop your freedom, don't you see Survivor is still on? It's ok!"

No one will even notice the books being burned by the torces in the "Tribal Council".

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Picass0]

You can thank our 10 second soundbite news for this one. When is the last time you saw the evening news and really felt you knew the whole story after seeing a news segment? When is the last time you saw a real debate - not a shoutfest - a real exchange of ideas. Programs like Hardball are now the norm for political dialogue. Don't blame the voter. Blame the TV producers who go for the red meat instead of the truth.

Voters can only arm themselves with imformation when it is provided. Anymore the voters who care turn to (good or bad) the internet for more information.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[SlashdotLemming]

The funny and somewhat sad thing is that you are one of "them". You are a member of the dumb, stupid, unwashed masses. You're aware of yourself, and think you are better then the rest, but you are just another average joe. We all are.

Think about it.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[JavaLord]

Considering how many average Americans vote out of raw emotion anyway, expecting them to intelligently dissect the issues is a little beyond their ability. Most of them can't even program the VCR.

I'm really sick of this bias twards Americans, even from our own people. Most of the people who vote in America ARE well educated. If you look at the demographics of who votes, and who does not there is clearly a correlation between those who are well educated and those who vote. Most people in a presidential race DO vote on issues, why else do you think they bother to go and vote? Despite the smear tactics in this election year, few people go out to vote just to vote against someone, they vote for a politician that supports policy they agree with. Disgusted voters are more likely to just stay home.

And considering the fact that the winner will get to pick 3 supreme court justices (hence setting the tone for laws in our country for the next 20 years),

Yeah that was one of the 'big' media stories yesterday and people have been throwing it around for the past year or two on and off. There is no guaranteethat the next president will get to pick 3 supreme court justices, and even if Bush wins I'm sure the democrats will try to block him if they have enough seats to do so. The Republicans aren't above such things either.

It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 20 years rather than congress. I think your point about Americans not being able to intelligently disect the issues is off base, but I think it would be fair to say most Americans who do manage to vote in a presidential election on issues don't realize what is going on in the rest of their government.

it's no wonder this has degraded into a schoolyard brawl.

After the way the 2000 elecetion ended, this one could be no other way despite the unifying effects of 9/11.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[LordNimon]

Very simple - programming a VCR can be done by anyone who can follow directions. People who are not intelligent cannot follow directions. Therefore, the inabililty to not program a VCR is a sign of low intelligence.

Granted, most people choose not to program their VCR because they don't think it's worth the effort. But we're not talking about those people. We're talking about people who honestly can't figure out how to program a VCR.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Foofoobar]

It's obviously an effort to show that they lack intelligence to use even the consumer items that they have purchased. Somewhat ironic.

A more proper show would be to point out how a recent study showed how mostly breeders were voting for Bush and a separate study that showing having children can cause your IQ to drop by 20 points.

Or how about the study that showed that religion and IQ are negatively correlated? I only point this out due to the fact that so many religious people vote for Dubya.

The rule that 95% of everything is shit also applies to the human race; they can't all be rocket scientists and naturally someone is going to polarize the morons versus the educated... and their are always going to be alot more morons out there. :)

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours is still flashing 12:00 then?

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Foofoobar]

The rule that 95% of everything is shit also applies to the human race; they can't all be rocket scientists and naturally someone is going to polarize the morons versus the educated... and their are always going to be alot more morons out there. :)

Re:Dumb The Vote

[flossie]

I might be missing something but how does the ability to program a VCR make anybody more/less intelligent than others?

Anyone who can program a VCR *and* votes has found a way to convince the polling station staff that they are old enough to vote despite clear evidence to the contrary. That must take some intelligence.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw a story about how a kitten saved a family from a fire. Now that journalism. No...wait...it's useless emotional claptrap. Let's all hold each other and sing Feelings...

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Foofoobar]

Again, following the rule that 95% of everything is shit, the same applies to humans. As such, it was only a matter of time before someone polarized the morons vs the intellectuals... and their are way more morons out there :)

Re:Dumb The Vote

[stratjakt]

It's not an inability, you dope.

Some people just don't give a flying fuck if their VCR is showing the correct time or not. So long as they can stick in a tape and press the play button and it works.

Anyone could program a VCR except for the severely retarded, and you know that. And quite frankly, even the severely retardeds votes are worth every bit as much as yours, you old-school ivory tower asshole.

You aren't elite, smarter or better than anyone. Just out of touch, like the rest of the republicrats.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Julius X]

Evidently, you must have missed this:

Granted, most people choose not to program their VCR because they don't think it's worth the effort. But we're not talking about those people. We're talking about people who honestly can't figure out how to program a VCR.

Dope indeed!

Re:Dumb The Vote

[stratjakt]

It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 20 years rather than congress.

I think this is really sad. It should be irrelevant who appoints who to what court, so long as they're qualified to do what a judge does: interpret the law.

So much legislating is being done from the bench by appointed judges. People who've never been voted for making policy.

What's next? Will we allow police officers to pass judgements and sentences? Let them decide what's illegal or not?

Re:Dumb The Vote

[stratjakt]

But, such people don't really exist. That's just an old joke that's been played to death in the media.

I guess geeks like to think that everyone else is incapable of the magical feats they accomplish with ease, maybe it makes them feel superior or something.

But the average guy could not only program his VCR if he wanted to, but he could write the same perl scripts that you do. This is why so much offshoring is going on, jobs migrating to people with less education.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[chanceH]

Kinda show how stupid IQ tests are. Maybe after you have kids you don't really give a crap about impressing some doofus at U of Indiana with your 3733T brain skillz, because you have more important things to worry about.

But then again, what would I know. I have kids, and when I was a child my IQ results varied by more than two standard deviations between tests, so it must have really tanked by now. I might be almost as dumb as you by now.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[trixillion]

It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 20 years rather than congress.

Surely you meant, "It would be nice if people actually took notice that the Supreme court has been making the laws for the past 200 years..." Or did I wake up this morning in an alternate reality.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[pauljlucas]

But, such people don't really exist.

Then please explain the success of this. It's for people too stupid to be able to read and understand their VCR's owners manual.

Speaking from experience, my own father couldn't program the VCR for the longest time. He'd read the words in the manual, but he just didn't "get it." (How he ever was able to read car shop manuals and fix his own car still mystifies me.) I had to show him more times than it takes to train a dog to do anything. The thing that forced him to learn was the fact that I moved out of the house and I wouldn't be there to do it for him. I mean I do love him, but I swear that I think I must be adopted sometimes.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

American's have no choice to vote out of anything but raw emotion since they are hardly given issues to disect. Media today seems to want to spend little money on actually investigating what happens, and instead just regurgitates what certain entities (gov, businesses, etc) decide to tell them.

Also, don't blame VCR users for the manufacturers poor design- A good design would actually be usable by the masses.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Methuseus]

His point was just that it's mainly the last 20 years that the Supreme court has had that much power. You are right, but I would say he is more right.

In the past 20 years (or so) the Supreme court has made more laws by their judgements than they made earlier.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[ductormalef]

I might be missing something but how does the ability to program a VCR make anybody more/less intelligent than others?

EXACTLY

I could teach a monkey to program a VCR. That's the level of intelligence it requires. Just because a person is not as excited about VCR Programming as you, doesn't make them stupid. I am sick of technophiles thinking they are incredibly intelligent because they can use a computer. Again, I could teach a monkey to use a computer. It is a simple sequence of actions.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a tecnophile myself, but I don't have a superiority complex.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Arthur Yossarian]

Elections in America have almost always been little more than schoolyard brawls between two candidates; even in the 1800's, political opponents were resorting to bitter ad hominem attacks and soundbites to manipulate the people. Federalists claimed that Jefferson had illegitimate children, the 1828 election was little more than a popularity contest between Jackson and Adams, Lincoln's opponents critiqued (sp?) his physical characteristics, etc. Granted, the growth of the media with television,the internet, etc has amplified the noise, but little has changed since the birth of the republic.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[maxpublic]

As long as Reality TV carries on and comes out of the box in their living room they don't care what else is going on.

You've got that backwards. Because they see just how ineffectual they are at changing a system which seems intent on screwing them no matter who's in charge, they ESCAPE to reality TV in order to avoid despair.

People don't care to have the ability to look ahead and see what is possible down the road.

They do, but they don't like what they see: more of the same.

If you want to address why people turn away from the political process and spend their time on 'trivial' things, neither stupidity nor apathy is the way to go. It would be more appropriate to take a look at an overwhelming feeling of powerlessness (perceived or real, it doesn't matter) and why it pervades much of the voting public. Especially the moderates, who don't have the unthinking fires of zealotry to spur them on in their endeavors.

Max

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Fascist Christ]

In the past 20 years (or so) the Supreme court has made more laws by their judgements than they made earlier.

And Congress has made more laws. It has come to a point where everything is so complex that we need judges to tell us what it means, and lawyers to guide us.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[The Limp Devil]

You know, one the most disturbing events in my life was to come to the US, turn on NBC News and see an "in depth" report which lasted 2 minutes. That was downright frightening.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Picass0]

They need to make room in the half hour news format so they get 5 minutes of celebrity gossip and hollywood news, 5 minutes to summarize what happened in a few overhyped court trails (Scott Petersen, etc...), 5 minutes for talking heads to spin politics, and then whatever else fits.

And old media wonders why people are turning to the internet for more information?

It's also sad when the Daily Show on Comedy Central has taken the place of real news for many people in my age group. Jebus.

If you're going to be concerned about politics do not depend solely upon the evening news for your point of view.

Re:Dumb The Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

And Congress has made more laws. It has come to a point where everything is so complex that we need judges to tell us what it means, and lawyers to guide us.

Oh yeah! That sounds safe!

Re:Dumb The Vote

[trixillion]

People say that, but do you have any metric to back it up? I'm sticking with 200 years. And unless you can show me solid evidence to the contrary, I view the notion that there is something special about the last 20 years of the Supreme Court as a complete load of horse manure. If the parent had said 50 years, then I might hold my tongue, but there is nothing special about the last twenty years compared to the twenty years before that; and to a lesser extent compared with all of the last 200 years.

forgoe?

[Anonymous Coward]

c'mon, people, that doesn't even look right for chrissake! how can you misspell a simple word like that?

Moore

[pHatidic]

People keep saying Moore's movie isn't a documentary because it's full of bias. This is a load of crap, all documentaries have bias. Everything ever written for that matter has bias. If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours. That is the thing that pissed me off about this movie, that in the previous ones he and his film crew are taking all the footage, but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage. It cheapens his message (which I agree with) and lowers the quality of the experience overall.

Re:Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

not that it's biased, but that it contains untruths, or stretched facts..

Re:Moore

[qwijibo]

All documentaries are likely to reflect the biases of those putting the documentary together, even if they're trying to be fair. The problem with Moore's work is that it has the same relationship to a documentary that "reality TV" has with real life. He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.

I'm all for people questioning the official version of events, but he is the wrong messenger. He is a real life troll. He has no higher purpose to inciting people.

Re:Moore

[BAM0027]

I'm sooo glad that there was as much controversy from this movie as there was. It made me, an admitted liberal, question the movie and the information presented.

By doing so, I found an amazing amount of information, both for and against, which amounted to a "stimulating" debate. I wish more people would go deeper and deeper into the issues and information available.

Just on the surface, the criticisms raised against the movie have been addressed on Moore's own site. I have yet to see those responses refuted further, though I'm looking.

Re:Moore

[revscat]

He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.

Where?

This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.

Re:Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

silence...

Re:Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore throws up so much bullshit that even the thought of listing a small sample of his lies and distortions is enough to tire me out. But here's one that comes to mind since it's so prominent in F-911: Moore goes around Capitol Hill asking Congress people whether they'll enlist their children in the military and shows only those who demur. He never mentions the fact that people like Attorney General John Ashcroft and Senator Joseph Biden already have sons serving on active duty:

Biden told Ashcroft that prohibitions against torture are intended to "protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case anybody forgets it."

Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active military duty in the Persian Gulf.

Washington Post

Of course when he's not tugging our heart strings at the plight of U.S. soldiers in some parts of the film he's depicting them as brutes and goons.

You don't have to support President Bush to know that Michael Moore is a vile human being whose only motivation is hatred of America and who drags down the political discourse with his lies and distortions (even anti-war activists never claimed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was some kind of kite-flying utopia). Intelligent liberals realize this:

Stanley Kauffmann's wise--and, at times, generously angry--criticism is one of The New Republic's strongest assets. It is therefore deeply disappointing that he chooses to go easy on such a crude propaganda effort as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, whose anger has no generosity and whose opposition to George W. Bush's war, like his opposition to Bill Clinton's war against Slobodan Milosevic, is motivated by a hatred of the United States that is, at bottom, deeply illiberal ("Accusation," July 19). Bush hatred is not an excuse for failing to call the poison of our own era's Father Coughlin by its true name; as liberals, the responsibility for doing so rests squarely on our shoulders. Moore's garbage immeasurably degrades the quality of public discourse and undermines the struggle against Islamist fascism.

Letter to the Editors, The New Republic 09.06.04

Re:Moore

[qwijibo]

I haven't seen f911. However, I don't buy into the other side's argument that it's all BS either. I've just seen too much of Moore's other work to bother watching f911. My comments are about his work in general and him as a messenger.

I saw Roger and Me a long time ago and couldn't help but think that Moore was a psychotic stalker. The thing that was really apparent with that movie is that he could seamlessly transition from confirmable facts to irrational conclusions.

When Bowling for Columbine came out, I was tempted to see what it had going for it. Everything I found on it pointed to it being riddled with misleading "facts" and obvious omissions. When it came out, a guy I worked with saw it and said it was really thought provoking. He gave some examples of what was said and I was surprised that he believed it. Everyone has propaganda on both sides of any argument, so there's always two ways to interpret the same information. We went and looked up statistics from a number of sources (to not build any bias into the process) and my coworker was surprised how badly many statistics were misrepresented.

Maybe he's actually gotten better and I'm letting past experience suggest too strongly that he's got an agenda to push at any cost. I've read a fair amount and talked to a few people about the movie, pro and con. None of those things seem to suggest this is any higher quality than his past work.

Re:Moore

[OldSchoolNapster]

If F/911 can be said to be not a documentary it is because he doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours.

F/911 is in large part about CNN and Fox news. He argues that the people were intentionally lied to by the Bush administration reguarding Iraq and 911. The neoconservatives' used the "news" channels (CNN is now "news" though not as bad as Fox) to fool the nation (or part of it ;).

More than 50% of Americans believe Iraq was involved in 911 (and WMD) due to a televised misinformation campaign by the Bush administration. The Bush administration's official ass-saving line is that there was no link. Now Bush can cover his own ass (to people dumb enough to believe him) by saying that he never said that Iraq did 911. He didn't have to use those words himself, but simply get the "news" channels to do it for him. I think the "news" channels deserve their prominant place in F/911

Personally, I thought Moore's movie was good though at times emotionally over the top. I just got Outfoxed: Rupert Murdock's War on Journalism off netflix. It is a documentary mostly composed of clips from Fox News Channel with additional commentary by former FNC employees detailing how the Republican talking points got a 24 hour "news" channel. Outfoxed is a more traditional documentary than F/911 and I think more effective at proving its point.

Re:Moore

[Frequanaut]

"but in this movie its just him narrating his opinions on top of stock footage."

You must have seen that *other* Michael Moore movie, "Farenheit 4/11" or didn't actually see the movie.

Hello? I seem to remember him interviewing members of congress and him with that mother who lost her son.

That's about 1/2 half of the movie.

Re:Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

It's right where you say "Moore hates America" that people roll their eyes and stop reading your post. Just so you know. You should probably also avoid calling him a Narco-Gangster, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, or a seditious prole. Makes you seem kinda loony. Take your meds and consider that you can love your country and hate what it is doing/where it is going.

Re:Moore

[Remlik]

I'm pretty sure the documentary I watched about crab fishing on Discovery the other night was "unbiased". Though I guess they didn't compare and contrast crab fishing with say salmon fishing so yea, it was biased against salmon.

Oh wait, they aren't the same thing you say? Right, Moore's film is an Op Ed piece, not a documentary.

Re:Moore

[Keebler71]

F911 isn't a documentary. It has nothing to do with "being full of bias". It has to do with the definition of the word 'documentary' I hate to break this to you but from the above link:

documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r) adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Did you miss the part about editorializing?

Re:Moore

[Chris Burke]

I agree. I saw the movie having already read criticism of it, and rebuttles to criticism. I already knew to question it. Afterword, I read more. The attention this movies has gathered means there is a lot of information available about the issues it addresses.

There are factual issues with the movie. I'm not surprised; Moore is a film maker, not a historian or scientist, and he's more than willing to go out on a limb with something to give his point more punch. I was actually surprised that it stood up so well to the criticism.

Though the other interesting thing was how little I actually learned from the movie. Most of what it said shouldn't have been news to the viewers. But it was, and somehow every statement is contentious. I'd already seen Bush sitting around helpless on 9/11. Moore's commentary of what he might be thinking was Moore's bias speaking out, but I already seen this, and had my own ideas about what it meant. I think that's the most revealing thing about the movie, is how much of it people were seeing for the first time.

The debate has been very good, by and large.

Re:Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but common words have no definitions. They only have interpretations. Dictionaries try to capture the common usage at the time, but since it changes so does the dictionaries.

Re:Moore

[richard.kilgore]

[Moore] doesn't actually really document anything. It's just him talking over CNN and fox news footage for two hours.

Did you actually watch the movie? It has been at least a couple of months since I saw it, but I can recall plenty of his own footage.

• the soldier who said he would not go back because he couldn't kill more civilians
• the family from Flint who lost their son, and especially the woman in D.C. crying about that stupid right-wing antagonist bitch on the mall
• the petition for congressmen and senators to send their own children to Iraq
• the footage of the Iraqi woman in front of her blown up home who had buried several of her civilian familly due to US bombing and occupation. I remember she was screaming hysterically for Allah to save them.

I think you accidently walked into the wrong theatre or something!

Re:Moore

[0x0d0a]

I disagree.

I think that Moore does more to tug at emotional strings than he does to bring up facts.

That being said, I've yet to see him *lying*. I do think that we get a lot more input from the Right than from the Left, and that Moore at least provides a counterpoint.

Also, the frantic claims from the Right that Moore is a liar do not sit well with me.

Re:Moore

[sonamchauhan]

> > He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact.
> > He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts
> > for actual statements people make.
>
> Where?
>
Very well documented by the article mentioned by this slashdot story.

So the Bush administration wrongly got pleased with their "stop growing opium" edict and gave it money. Why don't you rather read and respond to Kopel's article? After all that's what we are discussing here.

FCC should allow it

[WaRtHaWg]

After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

Yes and Kerry has is 24x7 ad running. It's called CNN.. And before you say no. Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

Re:FCC should allow it

[the_denman]

And Clearly not nutral is non biased twards both sides... yeh right. Bolth sides have their own media pets, give it a rest!

Re:FCC should allow it

[anthonyclark]

support this assertion. Provide links. Don't just simply toss that out there without backing it up.

Re:FCC should allow it

[YukiKotetsu]

.. and the democrats have every other TV station running. CNN, MSNNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc. Of course, they also have the newspapers / Associated Press.

Re:FCC should allow it

[ImaLamer]

Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

But... do they cover Kerry? Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?

In 2000 a CNN anchor started to work for Gore and they removed him from all Gore stories because of the appearance of impropriety.

Read the script of Outfoxed, see page 73 I believe.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Nascar_Geek]

Right, because you need another way to rebut the only conservative news network out there.

If I have to put up with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC you can suffer through Fox News.

Re:FCC should allow it

[strictfoo]

this is funny? It's about as original as a "In soviet russia" joke or this:

After all, the libs/Kerry/Edwards have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called CNN/MSNBC/CBS.

Re:FCC should allow it

[drinkypoo]

That's because CNN actually cares about their positive image, while Fox's popularity and influence are based on their negative image.

Re:FCC should allow it

[BgJonson79]

Interestingly enough, Fox News gave F9/11 rave reviews ;-)

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and Kerry has is 24x7 ad running. It's called CNN.. And before you say no. Two CNN commentators just joind the Kerry campaign, and they are still doing there shows on CNN

Is it really that hard to proofread a post before submitting it? When you have two spelling and four grammar errors in a post less than 40 words long, it doesn't exactly fill the rest of us with respect for your intellect. It cheapens the content of your message, too; how many people are going to ignore what you wrote because it looks like it was written by an illiterate crackpot?

I know this is the politics section of slashdot so I should expect it to be full of slavering idiots, but you, my friend, are something else.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one thing, all those you mentioned have a mostly conservative bias.

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

Ok here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/campa ig n/06kerry.html

the names you are looking for are James Carville and Paul Begala

And yes these guys do cover Kerry.. Wheather they will still do that or not is not the point. It just show the slant of CNN. I am not saying Foxnews is any better I am just saying both Bush and Kerry have some news slanted there way

Re:FCC should allow it

[Big Sean O]

True, Begala and Carvile are helping Kerry out, but at least they disclose it. Also, Crossfire is an "opinion show" not a "news show".

Their across the aisle partner, Robert Novak, is worse. By outing Valerie Plame, he proved he was willing to help a Bush staffer (Andy Card? Scooter Libby? Joshua Bolton? Carl Rove?) commit a felony.

Let's see, who is more honorable, someone who discloses his interests, or someone who helps others commit a crime?

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

and how are you any better? All you have done is point out some errors and insult me. Is that what I should be doing?
All I was trying to do is point out that they both have media that is on there side, atleast in some way.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

James Carville and Paul Begala

So, the two "from the left" voices on crossfire are voting democratic? Surprised? In other news, Tucker Carlson and Bob Novak (the "from the right" voices on crossfire) will not be voting for Kerry.

This doesn' t compare to Fox, where the "reporter" assigned to cover Bush was married to a Bush campaigner. Moore is a twit, but that doesn't make Fox anything resembling fair and balanced. Fox is the RNC spin machine, which is fine as long as you know what you're getting. Just don't insult everyone's intelligence by complaining that the Fox right-wing bias is comparable to the other network's left-wing bias. It isn't.

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

I agree %100 with your point about Novak..

I do not think this is a question of honor, but one of slant.

That is all I was trying to say.

Re:FCC should allow it

[FlimFlamboyant]

After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.

That's funny, considering that once upon a time, Fox was about the only major network that would air garbage like this.

Re:FCC should allow it

[mrpuffypants]

Are you talking about Paul Begala and James Carville, two of the most well-known Democratic strategists in the company?

Or perhaps that their show is 'Crossfire', a political argument show where the opinions of the 'commentators' are well known and played upon constantly?

The day that Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, or Peter Jennings joins a campaign please give me a call; until then let's not try to obfusicate the facts here, shall we?

Re:FCC should allow it

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Paul Begala and James Carville are political commentators paired against Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak. Robert Novak has been doing hatchet work for the GOP for so long, Begala and Carville joining the Kerry campaign is hardly a indictment of CNN. Both Begala and Carville only appear on Crossfire and as political analysts and are almost always paired off.

If you think CNN is liberal, then you've jumped off the far right edge of the cliff, or your trolling. CNN gored Gore as much as anyone else and has given the Bushies as much room to spread their propoganda as any other news organization, except Fox.

In order for your statement to have any truth CNN would have had to fire Tucker Carlson and Robert Novak, although I think Novak should have been fired for the Plame incident. Let me guess your defense, Tucker Carlson is really a liberal because he has a show on PBS now.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Jasn]

"They cover Kerry" is a totally incorrect formulation. They are on a left-right political commentary program specifically because of their roles as campaign operatives. That's why they're there. Unlike Fox's Carl Cameron, where it's all in the family to work for Bush's campaign and "cover" him on Fox News. That's the difference in disclosure. No journalistic institution I've worked with would ever permit one spouse to cover the exact area of politics where the other spouse worked, to name just one example.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

And you failed miserably in the attempt.

Re:FCC should allow it

[mskfisher]

Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?

The same way James Carville and Mary Matalin remain polar opposites, politically, despite being husband and wife.

Re:FCC should allow it

[cjf242]

Very nice..

way to go. Great respons.

So what is your point? Other than being insulting. If my errors make my point invalid, do your insults make yours any better?

If you are such a great and wonderfull person lets hear it.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Cereal Box]

This doesn' t compare to Fox, where the "reporter" assigned to cover Bush was married to a Bush campaigner.

Huh? From what I saw on the news last night, Carville and Begala are unpaid members of Kerry's campaign team. AND they're staying on CNN while working for Kerry. That sounds a little worse to me than having a reporter that's married to someone on the campaign...

Re:FCC should allow it

[OverlordQ]

Oh and let's ignore the sKerry/Edwards ads called CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, et al.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that CNN is slightly biased. Ted Turner was particularly notorious during the Clinton campaign. But it is still more centrist than many other news sources. It certainly hasn't been as overtly biased as Fox News recently.
--Comments from a former republican turned independent

Re:FCC should allow it

[Hackie_Chan]

Yes, CNN is so liberal they're trying to please the GOP by meeting with them. I find it trusting that a boss of a news channel meet with politicians discussing how they should change their covering to please them better.

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

You're insane.

Re:FCC should allow it

[jacoby]

Carville's wife works for Bush! How can he be objective?

Re:FCC should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, man, are you unable to type or is that string of crap what actually came out of your brain?

"And before you say no" is not a sentence, it's a clause; a clause should be joined to the rest of the sentence with a comma, not a period.

"joined" has an e in it. I'll allow that one as a typing mistake.

"there" is a place away from where you are. "Their" is the posessive you were looking for.

Finally, that extra period you have after the first "CNN" should go after the third CNN, at the end of that sentence.

Thank God you got the difference between "its" and "it's" or I'd have to personally admonish your grade school English teacher.

Re:FCC should allow it

[rpdillon]

Yeah, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to...

Oh wait, nevermind.

Influencing the vote with emotions

[Max Threshold]

It's not like Bush hasn't done worse in this campaign. Anything that prevents him from waging war on freedom and democracy for another four years is a Good Thing in my book!

Release date

[someguy456]

Well, since the movie has been out since what, June 23-25?, I'd say there's been plenty of time for everyone who desires to do a "thorough contemplation"

thorough contemplation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What undecided voter, at this point in the us, ever contemplated anything but where to buy there next cheeseburger?

Question

[cerberus4696]

I know this thread is going to burst into flames faster than some object which is highly flammable, but wouldn't a TV airing of a movie of this nature constitute a political advertisement? And aren't there rules about that? At the least, wouldn't stations that air the movie be required to give the Bush campaign equal time?

Re:Question

[avandesande]

Bush brought this up when he said 'lets ban the 572s' Not a peep out of Kerry. He cries like a baby about the swift boat ads but he has benifited like hell from moveon.org soros and moore.
Is kerry going to cry like a baby when we face critizism from foreign countries?

Re:Question

[madro]

More like 'what goes around, comes around.' I think Kerry's campaign was getting "Texans for Truth" ready in response to the Swifties and Bush's campaign got wind of it and thought, "Whoa. Let's call a truce on the 572s."

Picture this: Two guys have a contest to kick each other in the balls until one guy can't get up anymore. The first guy has a turn, the second one rolls around in agony for a while, the second guy gets up, and the first guy says, "Okay. You win. It's a stupid game anyway."

Re:Question

[Guano_Jim]

Is kerry going to cry like a baby when we face critizism from foreign countries?


I'm guessing he didn't cry like a baby when people were shooting at him in Vietnam, so I think he can handle critizism (sic) from the rest of the world.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let me help you out a little. If you were to write like a grown-up, people might take you more seriously.

First, "lets ban..." That should actually be "let's ban..." See, a contraction of "Let us".

Next, I believe what you are referring to are "527" groups and not "572" groups. It is helpful to point out the correct type of organization when making an argument.

Moving on, "benifited" becomes "benefited" in the world of correct spelling. Likewise, "critizism" may perhaps be acceptable in "733t-speke" or perhaps hip-hop circles, but in standard written English, it becomes "criticism."

Hey, don't bother to thank me - I'm just trying to help. Just knowing that any future posts will be readable warms my heart, and will allow me to sleep better at night.

Re:Question

[dasmegabyte]

He cried like a baby about the swift boat ads because they were full of lies, presented as the truth. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed off if somebody paid to slander you in a commercial?

I agree, though, that he should have railed the moveon.org shit, especially the comparison with Hitler. But to be honest, his campaign isn't very good at anything other than side remarks dissing Bush. He was doing much better in the primaries, I don't know what the fuck happened but if he doesn't tighten up, drop the apologetic rhetoric and ditch the losers, he's gonna lose this thing bigtime. Bush is turning this thing into a battle on Strength and Morality...two things Kerry has. Why he's letting Mary Beth Cahill paint him as a victim, I don't know. He's a soldier. Let him fight.

Re:Question

[Phelan]

I foreone completely endorse the banning of 572's, but what are we going to do about 527's?

Seriously, Bush calling for the banning of 527's is not exactly 'genuine'. They both profited from 527 activity such as MoveOn.Org and Swift Boat veterans for Revenge. Now I don't know what your opinion is on either (but I can guess). They both deal in FUD to at least a certain degree.

But at this point we can't really ban 527's right now anyways, McCain-Feingold misfired and needs work...and somebody needs to hold advertisement to 'Truth in Advertisement' standards.

We'll see what happens next time around when its Jeb Bush vs. Democrat yet to be determined

Re:Question

[avandesande]

thank you Iron Monkey!!!!

Re:Question

[mattkime]

the swift boat ads are outright lies. hell, someone who is part of them had to leave bush's re-election campaign.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I think that's the best idea for deciding a president this election I've seen yet. Not only does it present a clear "ball-kicking" winner, it also has the potential to sterilize both participants. I love it.

Re:Question

[forgotten_my_nick]

I'm pretty sure there is a big difference about pointing out what is wrong with Bushes 4 years (moveon.org) vs outright bare faced lying (SBVFT).

Re:Question

[electroniceric]

I can't believe anyone would mod this insightful, no matter how much they dislike Kerry. The Swift Boat ads were outright slander. John Kerry, citizen, has every right to object to the defamation of his character by persons making knowingly false statements. Nor were the swift boat ads remotely related to any of the issues at stake in this election.

If you want to talk about crying, let's talk about the whining that the left has finally started closed multibillionaire funder gap with the GOP. Richard Scaife much? And I won't even start on the fact that all the principals were friends and associates of Karl Rove.

Re:Question

[sumdumass]

how does someone that was in one of the adds leaving bushes campain, prove anythign in the adds were false?

What gets me is that i have seen more different sources saying kerry was false about some of his statments then i have about the swift boat adds being false. Of course i havn't seen all the swift boat adds. Just the one criticizing the picture he used that had different commanders in it were only a couple actually endorse Kerry and one or 2 were people talk about not trusting Kerry as a commander in chief and say they served with him at some time durring vietnam. Are there more? Does it get worse?

Re:Question

[sumdumass]

There is a fine line between slander and political speech. If any of these have crossed that line i'm sure Kerry could have been able to get them pulled by a court order.

My guess is they aren't actually slander but perverse interpretations of facts that show him on a worse light then he would like to be. This is much the same as Kerry remembering things that happend in a way that shows him in a better light then he probably was. Either way both parties are asking to benefit from how you view them. You should take anyhting they say with a grain of salt and look between the lines. You will probably find the truth somewere closer to the middle were both side's stories over lap.

Re:Question

[electroniceric]

There are many issues on which this is the case. For example, while I am deeply distrustful of the rationale Bush used to launch the Iraq war, I can definitely see that the issues are complex and the fact that the different spins don't line up doesn't mean that one side is lying. Likewise the attacks on Kerry's military spending record, which conveniently overlook the fact that Cheney led the charge in cutting military spending after the Cold War (a stance that generally seemed justified at the time). So while I don't think attacking Kerry on this issue is straightforward, it's definitely not slander.

However, when it comes to the Swift Boat Vets, there is no such middle ground. Their current statements totally contradict their previous statements and military records. Prior to being brought together by an associate of Karl Rove's, they had not made these factually false statements attacking Kerry's character. A decent number of them were not entirely aware that their names were being included on the list.

Had they stuck to saying that "Kerry hates America" or "Kerry's against our troops", or rehashing his anti war statements, I would not call their political speech slander. But lying about known facts (the falsity statements being shown by the direct contradicition with both their previous statements and the records) with express intent of defaming a person's character is slander, period. And it's a damn shame that our media is too cowed from doing actual analysis to properly call a lie a lie.

Pardon me if I've taken a harsh tone. I have no idea what your views are on politics in general, and I would happily debate in a civilized way on issues of substance.

Re:Question

[sumdumass]

I have little doubt you think that what's being said by the swiftboat vets are slanderous. One of the points you mentioned about half of the people being mentioned claimed they weren't even aware of thier name being used until after the fact goes to both sides. Kerry as well as the swift boat vet did the same thing. Also most of what i have heard being said was supposed to be suported by someone that actually served beside Kerry.

I'm wondering if it isn't the old sindrome were to people see things happen differently from different angles like a vehicle acident at an intersection. Either way i would agree with you about bush cronies being some what conected to the swift boat vets. On the other hand We have some of the same thing comming from Kerry's camp but we are lacking actual witnesses. There are documents floating around claiming to be discleplin reports or memo recomending discleplin action against bush durring his national guard service. These reports have benn discredited as forgeries by almost every news outlet except CBS who showed them in the first place. One thing is certain though, none of the canidates are adressing the "facts" of what is being said rather they are going after the messenger. One canidate in particular though, is using the slander in his campain speeches.

I do honestly think, like in your example of the defense spending, there is a large element of truth to the statments and that make it near impossible to go after them for slander. It might even negate actual slander being done. The sad thign is that there are more important issue that should be discussed and they are getting lost in this BS.

BTW, Your tone was completly acceptable. I understand what you are trying to say. I just disagree with the severity of it. As far as my political leanings? lets just say i vote for who i think the lesor of the 2 evils are(or the better man but i don't think we have a good set of choices this election cycle.). I do however like to play devils advocate.

Playing devils advocate gives me an opertunity to see views from other sides. It can either strengthen my decisions or change my mind completly. Both dominant parties hold views i would endorse. It would be nice to take the best of both worlds and start a third party but i doubt it would go any were.

Fair and Balanced

[ColdWetDog]

"one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".

Re:Fair and Balanced

[baudilus]

I still trying to figure out if the phrase "thoroughly contemplation" is the poster's attempt at subtle commentary on today's educational climate as a result of our current administration, or if it's just a grammatical error.

Re:Fair and Balanced

[Idarubicin]

Why don't people separate their sigs from their comments? What's up with this?

Sorry to reply to a sig...I know it's off topic for the thread.

For any logged in user, go here: http://politics.slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm and put a check in the box labelled

Signature Dash (Prefix everyone's signature with "--" to make it blazingly obvious where comment ends and sig begins)

and click 'Save' at the bottom of the page. Alternately, select Disable Sigs; it's at the top of the same page.

I use the Signature Dash feature, so messages look fine to me.

Re:Fair and Balanced

[AShuvalov]

Still, I would say that the show must be aired at least 48 hours before elections. The proposed 8-hour gap sets the bad precedent for future, just sounds too fishy... The other side may use it to counterbalance whatever dirty they may imagine as an answer and make blue eyes saying "we do as they do".

Nice Sentence ending

[scotay]

airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Since when have the American electorate ever shown thoughtful contemplation? We sell our presidents like soda. The electorate consistently rewards mud slinging (or fails to vote against it) and runs on emotion rather than reason. That's why we get the government we deserve. McCain-Feingold will never change this fact. Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.

Re:Nice Sentence ending

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

stop rewarding the lies

when picking between 2 liars, it is bound to happen that a liar will win. so we pick the liar we dislike the least, because voting for the 3rd guy, even if he is a bastion of truth, increases the likelihood that the liar we dislike the most will win.

Re:Nice Sentence ending

[catbutt]

People will vote for the two party duoploly as long as we have a plurality election system. See Duverger's Law.

Re:Nice Sentence ending

[cvd6262]

Until people stop voting for the 2-party duopoly and stop rewarding the lies, this mess will continue.

Amen. The problem with partisan politics is that you must accept one platform or another. You vote for a party, and therefore, everything that party stands for - whether or not you agree with it all.

When the framers of the constitution met, they represented their states, not national parties. Now, our senators represent the needs of their parties instead of their constituents.

helps or hurts?

[Anonymous Coward]

even if we assume it to be pure propaganda, would you say that a partisan filmmaker saying the president is wrong hurts more or less then the Vice President of the United States saying that if voters make the "wrong" choice in November, the terrorist boogyman is literally going to kill them?

Re:helps or hurts?

[Soporific]

I thought him saying that was absolutely stunning. The part I couldn't fathom however is that he didn't own up to the 9/11 attack as his fault then. I'm not saying it was or wasn't their fault but if you are going to include that reasoning in instructing voters he must have already failed the test. I mean, what would his new slogan be? Vote for us, we've already had one terrorist attack, John Kerry zero, so we are more experienced???

~S

Mccain-feingold

[dfenstrate]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Not to mention it may very well be prohibited under the mccain-feingold act, a trashy unconstitutional piece of legislation if there ever was one.

Funny how the supreme court finds it more important to protect simulated child pornography (unimportant) and is okay with silencing political speech (the most important type!).

If someone ever finds the supreme court's balls, please return them to washington. They're desperately needed.

Moore made a ton of money

[CrazyJim1]

So follow his lead, make a movie or write a book on the next election. It doesn't matter if anything you say is true, just be politically charged, and you rake in the $$ www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Moore biased?

[seasunset]

I find it funny when people say Moore is biased. Yes Moore is biased, just like 99.9% of the media.

The only reason Moore looks strange is because:
1. Is assumes honestly that he is biased
2. People are only used to see things in the media from an angle that is different (almost opposite?) from his (which is, BTW, probably even more biased than his)
3. Is style is different from the usually polished media.

More discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a discussion about this over at Censorware.info about the possibile ramifactions a network would have by running this movie, as well as the issues Moore might run into with the current campaign finance laws which currently abridge the right to free speech when it comes to politics on TV.

Re:More discussion

[joel8x]

Why? The movie is not pro-Kerry at all. Its just critical of team W.

bowling for columbine

[Coneasfast]

i am not planning to see F911 at all. i saw bowling for columbine, and some of the things he said (especially about canada, eg, number of guns) are just BS.

anyways, i'm already anti-bush, i don't need a movie to convince me of it.

Re:bowling for columbine

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember right he said canada has more guns and less gun crime. That sounds simple, if you don't believe it then hit google.

Re:bowling for columbine

[happyfrogcow]

that's exactly, *exactly*, how i felt. i saw it anyway, and i'm glad. I still think moore is self serving, and i still don't like bush. but it was important to see for a lot of reasons.

Re:bowling for columbine

[aBlooMoon]

I'm not pro-Bush, but I can't be considered pro-Kerry, either. Frankly, it'll be an election where I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils, neither of which I feel are suitable for the position. F9/11 is a rotten piece of work to the core, and if anything, has caused me to lean in the opposite direction Moore intended. Its blatant half-truths (don't call them lies or he'll get his fact-checkers after you...) are just that, half-truths. They only paint partial pictures of the Iraq situation...let's face it, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes than any of us are aware of.

Re:bowling for columbine

[Welsh Dwarf]

You're right, the prisoner abuse scandals hadn't hit when F911 came out.

Moore seriously though, F911 is an opinion piece, and it'd be hard for people to take it otherwise, but it's an eye opening opinion piece, which, when combined with some _proper_ fact finding can be quite unnerving.

BTW: I agree with you that Kerry doesn't look much better, then again, it's not my country, so.... :-)

Bush's DUI

[Anonymous Coward]

When it came out about Bush's arrest right before the election, I think it hurt Gore. I don't know if Gore had anything to do with it, but it looked that way and that's all that matters.

This could have the same effect. But I have heard of people being persuaded by it. If thorough contemplation worked then attack ads wouldn't be so effective and this is movie length attack ad.

Faren-hype 9/11

[FooAtWFU]

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

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

No deception will ever amount to the lie bush n' co. told the world.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[mattkime]

I've said it a few times now but...

sure, you're right. The Bush family doesn't have ties with the House of Saud nor are billions of dollars being poured into the pockets of the VP's former company.

also, Bush is really from texas...

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[pyros]

This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[workindev]

NEWSFLASH:

If you do not agree with something, it is not a "lie".

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[EnderWiggnz]

but if you make a statement, like - oh - saddam hussein is in cahoots with al qaeada, or that there are WMD that are about to be used on the US, and they turn out to be... well... *false*... then it is a lie.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

OWNED!

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[BK425]

Farenheit 9/11 was about Bush, all of Kopels work is about gun control... Kopel is also a professor of criminology rather then a movie maker. Other then that, um, sure. They're just the same...

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Rei]

Apparently you've never visited the War Room, where he responds to these.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[leinhos]

It's only a *lie* if the person knowingly told a non-truth. It's what we normally call a mistake. In this case, the "mistake" occurred through multiple layers of the intelligence apparatus, which really should be the focus of concern. This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming, and the same intelligence community that issues these multi-hued terrorist threat alerts.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[stanmann]

You realize that the 9/11 commission concluded that Saddaam Hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda and that the best conclusion from the evidence on "invasion day" was that there were WMDs(and I believe there are) and that they would be used against the US.

When you are mistaken and draw a conclusion based on the best available information, you aren't lieing, you are mistaken.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[philbert26]

This wanker has been brought up so many times, and refuted just as many. Dave Kopel has very little difference to Michael Moore in that the majority of their content is editorial spin. Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda. He leaves out stuff that makes it difficult to suit his agenda. Dave Kopel does the exact same thing in the other direction.

I'm too busy to check all 59, but Kopel is right on the first "deceit": Fox did not convince the other networks to change their call from Gore to Bush. CBS definitely retracted their Gore call hours before Fox made their call. According to CBS (PDF link) they were "within minutes" of calling Florida for Bush when Fox beat them to it. Fox did not convince all the other networks to change. The CBS report says that errors in their calculations led them to overestimate the Bush lead, and "Had it not been for these errors, the CBS News call for Bush at 2:17:52 AM would not have been made." They did not say that Fox made them do it.

The only anouncements that could have affected the voting were those that happened while the polls were open, ie the Gore calls. By the time Fox called for Bush it was too late to convince anyone not to bother voting. Is this evidence of a pro-Gore media conspiracy? I doubt it.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[workindev]

Well, Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda. There are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin Laden.

And before you make any claims about WMD, I suggest you read the reports from the Iraqi Survey Group (ISG). They are the only team in the world in Iraq looking for WMD (besides the terrorists), and they provide explicit details of what they have found. (Here is a teaser: They have found a lot more than a defective Sarin IED)

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[dirvish]

...and he wasn't AWOL throughout most of his service with the Texas National Gaurd,

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[EnderWiggnz]

>here are extensive Iraq/Al Qaeda ties dating back
>to 1998 when Saddam offered political asylum to Bin
>Laden.

If there are, I'm sure that the Bush administration would have explicitly demonstrated this fact in every media outlet that would repeat the admin's claims.

and, there have been no credible reports that have linked the two.

why does reality hate america?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[orasio]

If you have an unreliable source, that you know is unreliable, and then quote them in you speech, you lied about the credibility of your facts.
If SCO tells me that they wrote Linux, and I tell that to someone, I am a liar, because I am portraying gossip as fact.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[terrymr]

Which page of the report did they state that conclusion ? did you read it ?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Dr. Evil]

affected the voting

Moore's implication is that Big Bird could have won if Fox reported Big Bird's victory... not that it has anything to do with the votes.

The vote was so mishandled, that the counting could be manipulated to match the media outcome.

My personal take...?

Although it should be more math than art, when an election is that close, it just doesn't matter who's declared victorious, they're both reasonable elected representatives of the system.

Even if every implication Moore makes is true, the corruption only tipped the scales. A very large percentage of the population voted for Bush and the effects of corruption wouldn't have been effective if it were not for such a close race.

As somebody who has nothing to do with the U.S., I do view the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, but they're still both nasty, corrupt and evil parties. The Democrats are milking the "anyone but Bush" campaign a little too hard, and both parties are outrageously opposed to one another.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[WindBourne]

I find it amazing that GWB made these statements numerous times, and then blames Intel. So Lets see. The CIA states that they have 1 piece of evidence about WMD and on that GWB hinges everything. Hummm. NSA, DIA anybody? What did they have to say? For ppl to be running around saying that it was misinformation implies that they have NO idea of how intel is ran in this country. While it is possible for intel to not make it all the up the chain, everything that makes it up the chain has been vailidated numerous times by different agencies. No, this was stuff that GWB's admin asked for and then hammered on.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[shm]

I see what you mean; they're like particles out of quantum physics with opposite spins.

Michael-ons and Dave-ons.

Couldn't use Moore-on as that would confuse Michael with Bush, the Moron.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[WindBourne]

Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

I've visited the toilet, which get filled by the same sort of shit.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Also he does not know how to code in Java, he's got a wife and even daughters. Clearly he is not one of us /.-ers.
Kerry for President! Wait a minute...

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[obsid1an]

Yea, and Bush and Kerry aren't related of course, and neither were/are in the skulls. This is just more of Moore's "truth."

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[scotch]

Even if it was just a mistake and not a lie, it should really be a politically fatal mistake. As leader of the country and commander in chief, it is Bush's responsibility to make sure we don't "accidently" invade another country. He bears the highest responsibility for a government frenzied into war when it is found that frenzy led to mistakes in intelligence and judgement. Add to this the fact that Bush had a pre 9/11 objective of invading Iraq, and you could rightly conclude that he didn't do just dillegence in ascertaining the veracity of any pre-war intelligence. That moves Bush's actions firmly toward willfull igornace, at least.

Bush should be apologizing profusely for the US aggression in Iraq. UN hearings are in order. Reparations should be made. Instead, we have a man that gets on TV and says that eventhough all the pre-war intelligence was wrong, we were still justified to invade Iraq. What does that make the US?

For the record, it appears the Democrat party has done America a great injustice and nominated a man who says he also would have invaded Iraq, knowing what we know today. Neither one is an acceptible president. Bush needs to go for punative reasons - either that or we start the impeachment in 2005. Defeat Kerry in '08.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

also, Bush is really from texas...

Yup. That nasty White House is spreading rumors that he was born in New Haven, Connecticut.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[DustMagnet]

Nope. That's the spin I've been hearing on talk radio, but they have to twist the truth a little. I listened to the actually interviews before congress with the commission and it's very clear that there was hatred between Al Qaeda and Saddaam. There was one or two meetings between lower level people, but they didn't ammount to a hill of beans.

Talk radio has turned those couple of meetings into proof that the Bush administration's statements were correct, but the members of the commission have said otherwise publicly over and over.

From Chapter 10 of the report:

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda.The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

Feel free to read the whole thing. It was hard for me to pick the best paragraph, but I didn't try to twist anything. Remember, Rumsfeld and other directly contradicted these memos in public statements.

Please consider where you got your facts from and if it's really a good idea to trust them so much. If you listen to multiple news sources, it's real clear who is pulling your leg.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[PsiPsiStar]

Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.

Hm? I thought it was because Russia was his ally (since Saddam owed Russia a tremendous amount) and Bush Sr. figured taking Baghdad would be too bloody, especially since the Iraqi millitary was stronger then.

There are links between people in the Baath party and Al- Qaeda. I'm not saying that Saddam has shaken hands with them. It does seem clear that information was exchanged.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Keebler71]

What you are describing is a 'mistake' albeit a big one. Now if Bush -knew- it was a falsehood, then it would be a lie.

Similarly, promising to do one thing, then doing another (a-la "No new taxes") isn't a lie... it is a broken promise.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Lord Kano]

The Bush family doesn't have ties with the House of Saud nor are billions of dollars being poured into the pockets of the VP's former company.

Gee let me think. Both the Father and a son have lead the country that is the biggest customer of their biggest export and another of the sons of that family may go on to lead that nation someday. Why does it surprise you that both of these families have had reason to communicate with one another?

LK

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[mattkime]

It doesn't surprise me, but it seems that we should question whether its okay to have a president that has received large amounts of investment money from a ruling family. And now its a ruling family that control the country where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only a *lie* if the person knowingly told a non-truth.

I disagree. It's also a lie if you knowingly tell what you don't know to be the truth.

If someone asks you a question, and you just make up an answer, well, you're not knowingly telling a non-truth -- for all you know, you could be right. Still, you're basically lying if you portray yourself as an authoritative source when you aren't.

Lies aren't just limited to false statements, either -- they include things meant to give a false impression. When we say "appearances often lie", we don't mean that appearances talk; we mean that they convey a false impression.

Finally, consider this: suppose a CEO lets his accountants know that they'd better report record profits no matter what, or they're fired. The accountants report record profits to the CEO, which he then reports to the shareholders. It later turns out the accountants were cooking the books, and the firm was really taking losses. Do you think the CEO lied to the shareholders? If not, what did he do? Is he morally in the clear because he never told a statement he knew to be false? Should the shareholders demand a new CEO?

Reminds me of something a scout leader told me long ago, when he was teaching about leadership: you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Lord Kano]

Al Quada RESENTS the presence of American troops on Holy land. The House of Saud, as the ruling family of Arabia, are charged with being the guardians of Islam. Since they allowed non-believers to maintain a constant presence there, they are seen as traitors by hard core Islamists. That means they are on the same side as us.

To merely mention the association and give no further explaination is to exploit inuendo and anti-arab/anti-muslim prejudice.

LK

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Elwood P Dowd]

"If I'm lyin' I'm flyin' and I ain't seen a bird all day."

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Kwantus]

There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further. But do you suggest trying Reagan and GHWB? (Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it.) And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Kwantus]

The 9/11 commission should've spent more time wondering who did all that put-option trading than fretting about Saddam's WMD which had absolutely fuckall to do with 9/11 no matter how you slice it.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[jacoby]

Poppa Bush left Sadaam alone because he knew that The Stark Fist of Retrieval can be more powerful than the Stark Fist of Removal, because you have to put something in place afterwards.

The 9-11 Commission found that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, although not related to the 9-11 attacks. This makes sense to me -- the progressive atheist socialism of Ba'ath is anathema to the forces of militant Islam that bin Laden is part of, but America is a problem for both, just as, for example, Communist Russia and Communist China found common ground in hating the US but had hatred and fear of each other based on loads of prerevolutionary history. (China, I believe, was less than thrilled with the concept of a united and powerful Vietnam, even if united under the Red flag.) We know that Sadaam had bought weapons for Palestinian terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if he'd contribute to other causes. Either they start seeing him as Nasser, or at least like less of a target, or they fight the big boys and blow themselves up. Where's the loss?

And Sadaam keeping al-Qaeda at bay? WTC 1993? Khobar Towers in 1996? US Embassy in Kenya 1998? The USS Cole in 2000?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[mattkime]

Its not just Al Quada that resents the presence of American troops in the Holy Land, but the vast majority of Moslems. Al Quada has exploited this anger and directed it towards something militant. We certainly weren't comfortable with Cuba's association with Russia, this is exactly the same kind of threat in their eyes.

Just because Islamic extremists speak out against the House of Saud doesn't mean they are on our side. They are a dictatorship that has committed many human rights atrocities and are hated by the people they rule. By associating ourselves with them, we take on some of this hatred. Hence, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

Other Islamic countries see our invasion of Iraq and its flimsy justification as a show of power that could be wielded over any moslem country simply at our will. This use of force to achieve our goals is a threat to cultures and nations not explicitly on our side. It encourages more war.

I think you're awfully optimistic to think that our leaders can have family ties to foreign leaders without it affecting our policy. We should be putting pressure on the Sauds to change their ruling policies.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[The Conductor]

The Sino-Russian alliance of convenience is a good analogy for the Iraq-Qaeda connection, but I prefer to use an example from the Dukes of Hazzard. When a particularly heinous criminal came to Hazzard County, Sheriff Roscoe proposed an alliance with the Dukes against their common foe. "This is strictly temporary," he said to the puzzled Dukes. Once the bad guys were driven out, Roscoe could go back to chasing them around for speeding tickets.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

what I find so funny is how democrats like yourself try to have it both ways with Bush.

Bush, an evil genius who can get away with duping the country with horrid backroom deals that can't be tracked, and partakes in the most complex and sinester plans.

_AND_

Bush, an idiot who can't speak or even form intelligent thoughts on . He needs to wear a dunce cap 24/7.

So which is it? Is he an evil genius or a moron? He can't be both..

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[legirons]

"Micheal Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. He spins them to suit his agenda"

Quick poll: is that better or worse than having incorrect facts (e.g. WMD in Iraq) and spinning them to suit your agenda?

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Lord Kano]

Other Islamic countries see our invasion of Iraq and its flimsy justification as a show of power that could be wielded over any moslem country simply at our will.

Iraq may have been an Arab nation, but it was NOT a muslim nation.

This use of force to achieve our goals is a threat to cultures and nations not explicitly on our side. It encourages more war.

I opposed the Iraq war. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

I think you're awfully optimistic to think that our leaders can have family ties to foreign leaders without it affecting our policy. We should be putting pressure on the Sauds to change their ruling policies.

Time and time again trade, meaning money, is the most effective tool to encourage change. How'd the world end apartheid in South Africa? Trade sanctions.

LK

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[stanmann]

Atta isn't exactly low level and one known/reported meeting indicates communication, since these guys don't exactly "bump into" each other at the mall.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[mattkime]

Iraq may have been an Arab nation, but it was NOT a muslim nation.

You're correct, good eye. Although many people in Iraq are Moslem. Actually, the role of Islam in Iraq is fascinating. Saddam has switched sides on it.

How'd the world end apartheid in South Africa? Trade sanctions

Sometimes. Castro is no closer to leaving power than 30 years ago. (Well, unless you include the threat of his own aging.)

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Alaska Jack]

I've read your post a couple of times, and I'm trying to understand, so please help me. First, are you saying Dave Kopel has been refuted? If so, could you show me where?

Also, you mention Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. But by that standard, so does Alice in Wonderland. The question is: What about the "other" facts? (Not opinions -- everyone is entitled to their own. But facts are different. If some of Moore's "facts" really aren't, how am I to know which is which?)

Also, I thought one of the complaints about Moore was not that he necessarily made up facts, but that he strings together facts and half-truths in ways that are clearly misleading (like the edited and spliced shots of Charlton Heston's speeches in Bowling for Columbine). Kopel puts forth a pretty damning picture of Moore in that respect. Has this been "refuted" as well?

- Alaska Jack

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Alaska Jack]

Your post seems perfectly reasonable, with a conclusion flowing logically from your premise. Except ...

Except that your fundamental premise is wrong.

It's been pointed out a million times, but I guess I'll make it a million and one: The onus was not on the U.S. to prove Saddam had WMDs. The onus was on Saddam Hussein to satisfactorily account for a long list of WMDs his regime had declared following the first Gulf War.

Iraq never even came close to doing this. Instead, they threw all their resources into harassing, obstructing and evading U.N. inspectors, documented in meticulous (and eye-opening) detail in Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."

In retrospect, did we have intelligence problems? Sure. So did everyone else. But that doesn't change the facts that Saddam would still be in power today if he had pulled a South Africa and cooperated with U.N. inspectors.

- Alaska Jack

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[DustMagnet]

Atta isn't exactly low level and one known/reported meeting indicates communication, since these guys don't exactly "bump into" each other at the mall.

Sorry, I ment lower than Saddaam Hussein.

At least we both know know it's false to say "the 9/11 commission concluded that Saddaam Hussein was in cahoots with al qaeda". That's the point I wanted to make.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[stanmann]

Sure, but when High level representatives actually meet face to face, this is indicative of futher contact and greater collaboration, so while Saddaam and Osama never sat around a campfire and sang kumbaya, members of their team with authority to make decisions shared intel and likely co-ordinated areas of "interest".

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[leinhos]

I disagree. It's also a lie if you knowingly tell what you don't know to be the truth.

I consider a non-truth to be anything that wasn't true. If I make up and answer ("... the [true] answer to that question is X"), but don't know it to be true, I am issuing a known non-truth. If I say that "I believe that the answer is X", but don't really believe it, then that, too, is a known non-truth and is therefore a lie. If I say "the answer to the question may be X", and X is within the perceived realm of possibility, then I am not telling a non-truth. (and I should become a politician or lawyer)

Falsehoods of omission are not outright lies, but are still deceiving.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[cartervt2k]

Today's democrat (sorry for generalization) cannot be any more hypocritical, in my opinion. If any of them had reason to believe there were no WMD's in Iraq, they wouldn't have voted to give Bush authorization to go - INCLUDING KERRY. As it turns out, the intel Bush received from internal and international sources was incorrect. Suddenly, he's the liar for following acting upon what was accepted across both parties here to be true. For argument's sake, let's say the intel WAS true, and Saddam was procuring WMD's like crazy. Saddam plays hot potato with the WMD's moving them all over the place and the small crew of inspectors never finds them (Hans Blix admitted Saddam was not complying 100% with UN resolution 1441. In effect, he was complying just enough to keep the UN from forcibly disarming him). 2006, 9-11 all over again, only this time it's Iraq. The same people who are calling Bush a liar right now would be the same people criticizing him for not disarming Saddam when he had the chance.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Coryoth]

Sure, but when High level representatives actually meet face to face, this is indicative of futher contact and greater collaboration, so while Saddaam and Osama never sat around a campfire and sang kumbaya, members of their team with authority to make decisions shared intel and likely co-ordinated areas of "interest".

And Reagan and Kruschev meeting during the Cold War was indicative of what? Should we be concerned that high level people from North Korea have talked with high level people from China and Japan? Does this mean Japan is cooperating with North Korea?

People meet to talk. Unless we are party to the exact content of such meetings it is indicative of very little.

Jedidiah,

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[DavidLeblond]

Bush isn't an evil genius.

Cheney is.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[stanmann]

When they are both involved in illegal activities, and meet secretly, yes, we should be concerned.

If Joey Badabing, lieutenant in the copa family is observed entering a limo owned and occupied by chavo guerrero of the "mexican mafia" and also occupied by stefan gorbachev of the "russian mafia" is it more reasonable to assume they are discussing guns and drugs?? or the sale at walmart on personal hygene products??

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[DustMagnet]

It's clear you still haven't bothered to read the report. It doesn't say anything like that. Please read the last 1/3 of chapter 10. It's not long or hard to read.

If you want to say the commission's conclusions are wrong, I wont bother to argue with that. I don't agree with everything the commission says either (chap 12 and 13).

You still haven't said one thing to support your claim about the commission's conclusions. You're simply keep defending your own conclusions based on a subset of the facts.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[pyros]

Well, go look at any thread on fark.com discussing F9/11 and you'll see this same discussion play out ad nauseum. I did a google search of "kopel 59 deceipts" and one of the top links is "59 decipts in 59 decipts," or something to that effect. My point was that they're both just engaging in political spin. Don't take either one as an ultimate truth. Someone else pointed out the irony in linking to a blog to discredit using someone else's blog (which is why i didn't link to the google search results).

I understand why people call Moore a liar. I just wish they'd realise that the conservative spigots aren't any better than the liberal ones. They use the same tactics (only using information that helps you, ignoring stuff that hurts you. using editorial spin to suit your political agenda, etc).

The same case for distortion and misrepresentations of the facts has been made just as often about the current administration. (note that I'm not saying it isn't true of Moore, I'm just saying it's also true of those he is attacking)

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Minna Kirai]

This is the same intelligence community that failed to see the fall of the Soviet empire coming,

You're so wrong, it's painfully ironic.

The "intelligence" that "justified" Gulf War 2 was from the Office of Special Plans under Paul Wolfwitz. Wolfwitz made his reputation by accurately predicting the Soviet collapse back in the 80s, one of the few people to guess it right.

In fact, it's because that experience convinced him that he was so much smarter than the CIA, that he happily suppressed their concerns about the Iraq WMD question.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Minna Kirai]

If any of them had reason to believe there were no WMD's in Iraq, they wouldn't have voted to give Bush authorization to go - INCLUDING KERRY

For at least 4 years, the Democratic platform has been to promote democratic nation building in foreign countries. Gore campaigned for it; Bush promised against it.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

That post sounds nice and all, but it doesn't really add anything to the topic and I don't belive it's true. When did Bush promise he would fight to prevent democracy building in foreign countries? By the same token, Kerry voted for it but has since jumped on the anti-Iraq bandwagon.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[cheezedawg]

There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further.

No there aren't. In the 1980's, we gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, and they decided how to apportion the aid among resistance groups. The mujahadeen != Al Qaeda. And we did this to help in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion.

Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it

More left-wing distortions. We did not supply him with his WMDs. In fact, the chemical weapons that he used were definitely not from the United States, and the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports between 1973 and 1990 (the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all exported more arms to Iraq than we did).

And no, we did not reward or protect him. We sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to personally caution Saddam against using chemical weapons, and we voted for 5 UN resolutions condemning Iraq for their chemical weapon use.

And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?

Blue light special on tin-foil hats, aisle 3!

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[WindBourne]

There was a link between individuals in Iraq and Al Qaeda. That would be akin to clerk or some middle level manager having a link to the CEO of Enron or to the KKK. You know that happens all the time, but it does not mean that the current admin has that link.

But Al Qaeda has hated Sadaam as much as they hated the USA. Poppa Bush wrote an article for time mag (interesting that it was pulled and only the wayback machine records it) that said that Sadaam has to be left to fall on his own. Otherwise, we would be recruiting for Al Qaeda. It also stated that an invasion of Iraq would produce a Vietnam situation with a vacuum to allow Al Qaeda in. Basically, Poppa's Bush (and clinton's group, BTW) assesment of this was right on the money.

I am curious. I thought that Iraq got out of bed with Russia in the early 80's. Basically, during the Iraqi-Iran War, Reagan's group was equiping Sadaam to the hilt. Was not Russia out of the pix during that time? Or were they helping as well.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[WindBourne]

And Sadaam keeping al-Qaeda at bay? WTC 1993? Khobar Towers in 1996? US Embassy in Kenya 1998? The USS Cole in 2000?

Sadaam kept AQ out of Iraq during his time there. The attacks against us were going to happen as long as AQ has a country to stage them from. They currently have that with Iraq, Afghanastan, Pakistan, and North Korea. Now that AQ has tried to attack the President of Pakastan, hopefully, we are removing one base for them. Now we have only to worry about Afghanastan, Iran, and N.K.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't know about weapons, honestly. I know Russia was owed 8 billion at the start of Gulf War II and this was part of Russia's reason for supporting Saddam. Not sure what the financial picture was at the end of Gulf War I. Russia recently forgave about half of that in exchange for being able to do business in the new Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/22/sprj. ir q.russia/

You could be right. According to the article, Iraq owed quite a bit more money to other countries.

I'm not defending a Saddam/Al Queada(sp?) alliance, per se. I'm saying that intelligence was exchanged between Iraqi politicos and Al Queada, and this information was passed on to Iraqi decision makers.

Or to use your analogy; it's like a middle manager
of a company was involved with the KKK and discussed somthing that someone told him there at a board meeting.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[jacoby]

I'm not convinced that NK is involved with AQ. They have their own weirdness going on there, connected only at a commercial level with the troubles in the Middle East. To be honest with you, I don't know where to start with NK. We're going with diplomatic pressure, but it's lack of trade makes it hard to use a carrot approach, and it's border with China makes the stick approach impossible as long and China and NK are friends. People can say we need to "do better" with NK, but unless someone suggests how, I can't see how we can do anything but keep lots of soldiers at Camp Red Cloud and stare menacingly over the border, which is exactly what we've been doing for half a century.

And AQ has possible homes in the -stans, the Sudan and possibly half a dozen other African nations, and a growing presence in Indonesia, where a the native form of Islam is becoming influenced and transformed and influenced by the Wahabist influences that drive OBL. We have much to worry about, and while a lot of the battle is, well, battle, a lot of it is changing the minds of the world.

Re:Faren-hype 9/11

[jlgolson]

Should we be concerned that high level people from North Korea have talked with high level people from China and Japan?

Hell yes we should be concerned that China and North Korea meet.

I doubt Japan and North Korea meeting as they don't really like each other.

HA

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right it's not going to be 50-50, Bush didn't even lead Gore by 5% in September, he now leads Kerry by DOUBLE DIGITS!

Re:HA

[EnderWiggnz]

except that the polls only show a 2 point bounce for bush, and the 11 point bounce was... well... a fabriacation out of thin air.

its gonna be fun to watch dubya fail.

Re:HA

[strictfoo]

Time and Newsweek fabircated polls?

its gonna be fun to watch dubya fail.

See my sig

Re:HA

[EnderWiggnz]

zogby.

---
I have not yet been able to get the details of Time's methodology but I have checked out Newsweek's poll. Their sample of registered voters includes 38% Republican, 31% Democrat and 31% Independent voters. If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000. While party identification can indeed change within the electorate, there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that Democrats will only represent 31% of the total vote this year. In fact, other competitors have gone in the opposite direction. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in June of this year with 38% Democrats and only 25% Republicans. And Gallup's party identification figures have been all over the place.
---

they fibbed. par for the course.

Re:HA

[strictfoo]

but let's not start saying that Newsweek is pro-bush or anything.

Oh, and btw:

W is for WRONG

Worst. Line. Ever.

Want to energize the Republican base?

[jea6]

Want to energize the Republican base and get them to the polls en-masse? Screen this movie on TV. I think that the Republicans have done a fair job discrediting the movie so far.

Stupid, stupid, Democrats. How can they be fumbling so badly at mounting an effective campaign against Bush? Making Moore a lighting-rod will only guarantee a Bush victory.

I heard an Edwards clip last night. He's still got a good message going. Kerry puts me to sleep. Is it too late to reverse the ticket?

And they don't have half the war room competence Clinton had to respond effectively to Republican half-truths. Of course, when you have so many half-truths of your own...

Re:Want to energize the Republican base?

[avandesande]

what was edwards message? Sue your way to prosperity?

Re:Want to energize the Republican base?

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

what was edwards message? Sue your way to prosperity?

wow, you are sofa king clever. why aren't you working for FOX news?

Re:Want to energize the Republican base?

[Rew190]

Most of the staunch republicans I know have told me they REFUSE to watch it. Everyone else I know who has seen it has at the very least thought less of George Bush and at least been a little more educated about the whole situation. With that said, I don't see how airing this will really do too much besides take swing votes away from Bush. Bush supporters probably won't watch it in the first place.

I think that the Republicans have done a fair job discrediting the movie so far.

Really? From my experience it's just the opposite, and now everyone knows about things such as Halliburton and Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia, etc...

Re:Want to energize the Republican base?

[jea6]

His message was that Bush-Cheney have surrounded themselves with people who are unaffected by the economic difficulties that regular folks have been facing for the past 4 years and that their economic policies are those of an administration that doen't know what milk costs, what a checkout scanner at the grocery does.

Edwards message is not about Iraq. That's a battle Kerry can't win since his positions are too easily distorable there. Edwards' message can continue to be about Cheney, Karl Rove, the out-of-touch administration. That resonates.

Of course the Republicans tar Edwards by prattling on about "crippling bogus" lawsuits. But there isn't a person out there that wouldn't want the full force of the courts on their side to make someone pay for wrongdoing.

Re:Want to energize the Republican base?

[jea6]

Having Moore (point 1, give Republicans a nice, juicy, target) put it on the air right before the election (point 2, transparent attempt to affect the election by a third party) means a counter-offensive by Republicans (point 3, elevate the attacks against the inconsitencies in the movie).

All of a sudden, the Democrats again lose control over the tone and tempo of the campaign (think Swift Vote Veterans) by making the Moore, the movie, and the screening the issue rather than whatever message they think is going to be best. What you end up with is not a debate about the issues raised by the movie but a debate about the movie itself. These distractions are costing the Dems because they prevent focus on the right message.

Case in point, this article is about whether it is even appropriate for Moore to screen the movie.

Best regards.

Re:Hell yeah

[erotic_pie]

Someone explain to me how the presedent hurts/creates jobs, that is something that has never made any sence to me.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush fired three people in your immediate family? Wow!

Moore legitimizes more and more blatant propaganda

[rlglende]

The US gov already uses the world's most sophisticated propaganda, tho Bush's big lies have gotten so big a lot of people are beginning to notice.

Moore may as well be working for Republicans as a distractor. Certainly he makes their jobs easier.

Lew

War

[curtvdh]

It was the Republicans who decided to center this entire campaign around Iraq (proably to distract the sheeple from the appalling domestic issues). I think that Moore's decision is the correct one - show the populace that Bush's war is actually his weakest plank - not one on which he should be focussing...

Re:War

[slashkitty]

Meanwhile, Kerry centers this campaign around Vietnam. Guess what, I don't care about that.

Re:Hell yeah

[Max Threshold]

There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any? I've met about three. The official polls simply reflect how many votes Diebold is planning to give him.

I eventually came to a decision

[palad1]

After scrutinizing thoroughly both candidates' proposition, my mind is set.

It was nor quick nor easy, but I'm really confident about my vote now.

GO NIXON!!!

Re:I eventually came to a decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon, the only president to save more lives in a limo than he killed in a war.

Re:I eventually came to a decision

[Zardoz44]

GO NIXON!!!

Only if Agnew's headless body is his running-mate. Or, lacking that, a twenty-foot robot armed to the teeth.

Re:I eventually came to a decision

[dfj225]

Nixon: NIXON'S BACK!!!!

Re:Hell yeah

[p4ul13]

The economy was on the down-turn at the end of Clinton's reign. The current economoy isn't all W's work.

I'm not a big fan of his, but fair is fair.

Shouldn't show it

[Sebby]

If the movie/documentary/whatever is obviously anti-Bush (haven't seen it yet) and they're trying to accelerate the process in order to meet a deadline, then I don't think it should be showed as it's apparent there's some sort of political agenda involved - it would be like if they'd been allowed to show Swarchennger's (sp?) movies just before the CA elections. It's just not right.

Re:Shouldn't show it

[Sloppy]

it's apparent there's some sort of political agenda involved

What's wrong with having a political agenda? What's wrong with trying to influence other peoples' opinions right before an election?

There is a reason why the First Amendment was written and passed into law.

Re:Shouldn't show it

[Sebby]

When the 'political agenda' is full of propaganda and the truth is twisted (as it seems it might be here), then it should be questioned; but if it's presented as fact (ie. movie format, not an actual debate or something), then it's misleading.

If you don't see what's wrong with that then your whole electoral and law system is sloppy; a credit to your nick.

My question:

[cliffa3]

Will it air on Disney?

Re:My question:

[initsix]

Will it air on Disney?

Although it may not air on Disney, it may air on ABC which is owned by Disney. I dare say would be a tad ironic.

I know for sure it won't be airing on FOX.

Re:My question:

[danheskett]

Can you guarantee that?

FOX is in it for one reason: money. The major networks + CNN, et all have been very critical of conservative causes. It's only a matter of time until someone with conservative ideas and money comes along and grabs that market and its money.

FOX does what is necessary to get money. For example, the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values. Why? It's profitable. Compared to FOX, ABC/CBS/NBC are uber-conservative in the shows they air.

Re:My question:

[Mr Z]

I know for sure it won't be airing on FOX.

That is, unless Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes are there to play MST3K to it.

(Colmes being there for "balance." Harumpf.)

--Joe

Re:My question:

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, I was thinking SciFi myself. But Disney is funny on multiple levels.

Re:My question:

[JWW]

Whatever channel it would air on is one I won't be watching anymore. And there lies the reason it won't be played. At least 40 MILLION people will be voting for Bush, win or lose, this election. If you are the network that runs this so called documentary, you will piss off a large portion of your audience and potentially drive them away for a long time.

If a local affiliate in my area were to announce that it would air Moore's film there would be an enourmous backlash and protest of it.

Re:My question:

[Lord Kano]

For example, the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values. Why? It's profitable.

What conservative values are those? We aren't what you see on TV, Conservatives are a diverse group.

You've got old money white guys like Rupert M., you've got immigrant Cubans, people in the Bible belt, Log Cabin Republicans and all kinds of others. We're all different. The one thing that unites us is the belief that the Republican party will do more good for our causes than the Democrat party.

LK

Re:My question:

[Anonymous Coward]

the FOX network airs shows that are very racy, and basically offensive to conservative values.

For instance, the TV show COPS is considered by some to be pornography for racists. Conservatives are probably outraged by how heavily the show focuses on minorities being arrested.

Actually, this is sarcasm. Liberals find the show offensive.

Re:My question:

[igny]

Or, will it be edited to "fit" your TV and the time allotted for the program?

Re:My question:

[Slime-dogg]

Don't confuse conservatives with libertarians. They have similar political/economic views, but distinct and separate social views. Libertarians probably don't care if boobies show up on television. Conservatives would rather edit the words "mammary gland" from the dictionary.

Re:My question:

[Izago909]

Have you seen it?

Re:My question:

[JWW]

I don't want to see it. I wouldn't want to see it on TV. I have watched the preview and interviews with Moore and those are enough to tell me that I do not want to see this movie.

I have no problem with the movie theater in my town showing the movie to people who want to pay to see it.

But if the TV media (who the liberals always argue are unbiased) shows something as biased as this I have a huge problem with that. There is a definite bias in this film. The major networks claim to have no bias, and I believe that they have less bias than many conservatives think. But if a major network plays this movie, I will count them as having NO capability of having unbiased news reporting at all.

Re:My question:

[Izago909]

So you don't trust your neighbors to be intelligent enough to watch a biased movie and see it as such? Free speech is a guarantee to say what's on your mind, not a guarantee to have an audience. If it does air on a local station, there are many alternative things to do besides watch the idiot box all day. Besides, according to conservative values, the family shouldn't revolve around the TV. Take the family out to dinner, go see a movie, fire up the grill, whatever; there are many other worthwile things to do. Just because your mind is set doesn't mean that others don't enjoy a good debate. The beauty of freedom is that you can decide for yourself what to put in your mind instead of being regulated by the status quo.

But if a major network plays this movie, I will count them as having NO capability of having unbiased news reporting at all.

What? When did you ever see the news as unbiased? Anything that passes through mans' mind gets a spin; every last thing. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a reasonable person come to a reasonable decision after hearing ALL sides of an argument.

Re:My question:

[Lord Kano]

Don't confuse conservatives with libertarians.

I am a social conservative. I am not confusing anything. I love titties as much as the next guy.

LK

Re:My question:

[stephanruby]

FOX is neither liberal, nor conservative. FOX is in it for the money, the money they get from mega advertisers. That's why it seems there is a disjuncture between their political agendas, it's because the corporations they promote may be amoral but they will still root for themselves (if nothing else).

Re:My question:

[avdp]

So let me get this straight, you don't want to see, and therefore it should not be on TV????

Dude, there are a lot of things on TV I don't want to see, I just change the channel, I don't go about boycotting networks and proclaiming holy wars to the media. Nobody forces you to watch a certain channel at a given time, just like nobody forced you to walk into that movie theater.

And by the way, nobody said this "movie" would air in place of Worldnews Tonight with Peter Jennings. I doubt that any network would disguise it as "news". Heck, even Michael Moore doesn't - he's very upfront about the fact that this is not by any stretch of imagination an unbiased piece of work.

I personally would love to have it on network TV. I want to see it just to know what all the fuss is about (and I am intelligent enough not to take it as facts or news, even without a disclaimer) but would not pay for it in the theater, and it's unlikely I would rent it either.

Re:My question:

[JWW]

My point was that I give the networks the benifit of the doubt when they say they aren't biased. Sure some things are biased, but is it intentional or not.

I believe network that runs Moore's movie would be intentionally biased.

Also from the free speech angle, the networks have free speech, but they do not have the right to make me watch.

Re:My question:

[AKnightCowboy]

Have you seen it?

I got my copy off of a P2P network. It was pretty awful and the points he was trying to make were stretching it to say the least. The entire point of the film was to make a mockery of President Bush's first term in office so it's no wonder Democrats love it. I guess I shouldn't have expected much more from Mr. Moore as he basically took the same approach with Bowling for Columbine:

1. Take a smattering of random facts and figures,
2. arrange them so they support your argument,
3. Profit!

Any statistician could tell you that if you supply the "facts", they can support the argument you're looking to justify. So, don't get me wrong, the facts he presents may well be entirely accurate, but the presentation as a whole is a problem that creates the lies.

Re:My question:

[Izago909]

Here is a link to a story demonatrating how the media can legally lie. The website was posted on /. a few days ago. Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, the case law speaks for itself and applies to all news outlets. Generally speaking, if any outlet touts itself as unbiased, it is a good time to start considering them liars. All media is inheriently biased. The best solution to this dilema to to get information from the broadest possible spectrum of sources so that you can form an educated opinion for yourself instead of relying on the premanfactured opinions of like minded sources. Simply ignoring something because you don't like it hurts no one but yourself. You wouldn't see a debate between two politicians who didn't research the other side. If they didn't, how would they know what the other persons talking points are, and how to formulate a good response?

Which argument would carry more weight in a discussion with your peers: "I don't like the director so I won't see it; it's a completely false movie" or "I've seen the movie and here is a list of points I disagree agree with and why"? Moore has already stated that he doesn't care if people download his film, as long as it's not being distributed for profit. Why not download it? Next time this argument comes up on /. you can list specific details that you disagree with instead of disagreeing on simple politics.

link

[Anonymous Coward]

forgot my link

Re:link

[alcmena]

Some of my more liberal friends and I have always been wondering how long it would take for the Bush camp to come out and say a vote for Kerry is a vote for Terrorism. I guess we now have the answer.

Re:link

[d474]

I have a friend that since waaay back in December of 2003 has been saying and reminding me: "Just you watch, right before the election if the Army doesn't catch Osama Bin Laden, they will keep coming 'very close' to catching him. There might even be a few 'tense moments' where Osama 'might be caught any day now'..."

Stay tuned...

Cue...

[Anti_Climax]

The Michael Moore is a Dirty Liar flamewar...

Love the color scheme BTW...

interesting

[Anubis350]

itll be interesting to see if the stations will pick such a political movie up at the critical point moore wants them to. The networks may be afraid of offending a group that may still be in power at the end of the election.

Talk about win-win

[bullitB]

Either he gets it on TV and everyone gets to see more of his crap, or he doesn't get it on TV, and he gets to say it's a conspiracy to keep it "censored."

McCain-Feingold could be more accurately renamed

[scotay]

The Status Quo Protection Act

The Fox Guarding the Henhouse Act

The Free Speech is a Myth Act

Moore's video has really influenced me

[Jonny Ringo]

Its a tough call. But after watching his movie I'm still on the fence. I'm either going with Ralph Nader, or Michael Badnarik. I know what all you are saying. Voting for Badnarik takes votes away from Nader and lessens his chances of being in future debates. Well I'm sick of this tired old argument. So all of you naysayers, I don't want to hear it! You have to vote with your heart.

Re:Moore's video has really influenced me

[Paulrothrock]

Depending on how the polls look before the election, I'll probably vote for the Green candidate if it's not close in my district, which is predominately Republican.

Then I'll contact the Dutch consulate and see if I can get political asylum.

IANAA but...

[filipvh]

Thorough contemplation? Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news, how many voters are even capable of thorough contemplation.
Sure, Michael Moore plays the propaganda machine like a harp, but that doesn't mean his documentary shouldn't be shown on television.

Re:IANAA but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not meaning to flamebait but in this era of sound bites and "fair and balanced" news

Regarding Fox News, since every other major media outlet (save for talk radio) is left-slanted, what's wrong with one that slants to the right? Perhaps that's what they mean by "fair and balanced", not objective.

You have to WONDER?

[Tsar]

...one has to wonder whether airing such a controversial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thorough contemplation."

You have to wonder?!? Of COURSE it does! What Michael Moore and his supporters have to decide is, are their reasons for removing George Bush so unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's survival that they justify any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Microlith]

Short circuiting the democratic process would be more akin to abusing those electronic voting machines.

This is broadcasting a political message in an attempt to influence voters. This is -pure- politics, and purely a part of the free, democratic process we claim to hold so dear (yet see abused every time.)

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

BRAVO!
Most intelligent sentence I have seen on this site in some time.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[revscat]

any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Just wondering: How exactly is airing a movie short circuiting the democratic process? Sounds like a robust exercise in free speech to me. And do you really think that Bush is so weak that a movie will be able to topple him after all his vast successes? Or perhaps maintaining the appearance of success is more important than ACTUAL success...

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Acts of Attrition]

any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

How about when Bush and company short-circuited the democratic process to get in?

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get Fox news in your area?

Re:You have to WONDER?

[SlashDread]

almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation"

Like, wow. Ok so I am European, but are you saying you rather have a whatever president, than the right to criticize him?

Sounds odd, even for a die-hard Republican.

"/Dread"

Re:You have to WONDER?

[dodongo]

I agree with you in that the film is unquestionably propaganda. However, that does not affect the truth-value of individual claims within the film itself.

And I'd appreciate it if you'd substantiate your claim that the film advocates "short-circuiting the democratic process."

While the film does basically say that the primary concerned of any living, breathing, human-being voter should be to usurp Bush, I would suggest the film advocates overthrow of the government by peaceful revolution -- a process known as "voting," and not by a "short-circuit" of the process.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

What Michael Moore and his supporters have to decide is, are their reasons for removing George Bush so unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's survival that they justify any and all means, including short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

Guantanamo Bay is definitely "short-circuiting the democratic process"... in fact, it's an attempt to avoid it entirely. Thankfully, the Supreme Court doesn't quite see it that way, but Bush may have served 8 years by the time they act on it.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[onebadmutha]

"short-circuiting the democratic process" I think you're talkin' about 4 years ago, in florida, right? Bush, and his supporters in florida, the senate, and the supreme court stole these last four years from us, and 1008 american lives. Hopefully the electorate will figure it out this time and smite W.'s re-election run with force and glee.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[paranode]

Funny, Kerry didn't think so when all the veterans went on TV telling people how they didn't think he was fit for president. So it's ok as long as it's against Bush, eh?

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, we're talking about BUSH here, so this is a short-circuit I'm willing to take.

Considering another 4 years of him will utterly FUCK this country, I'm more than supportive of what Moore is planning on doing.

We're talking the FUTURE of our country, one that we can actually LIVE in, not be afraid with our rights stripped from us (and it will happen).

Weigh the pros & cons.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[WebTurtle]

In what way is this movie's creation and/or television broadcast akin to "short-circuiting the democratic process"??!!

• Creating or broadcasting a movie is not the same thing as when the Supreme Court decides who gets to be the next president as they did in 2000.
• A movie such as F-9/11 is an act of speech and as such is contributing to the democratic process of debate, something Americans don't engage in critically enough.
• If this movie engenders any response in viewers that leads them to the voting booth (no matter which candidate they choose) then this movie is strengthening the democratic process, which has been weak and in decline for decades.
• This movie cannot be considered "overt political manipulation" until the movie reaches out and starts bribing people or otherwise coercing them to behave a certain way. However, it certainly does try to influence people's opinions about what has been going on for the last four years, just like any other newspaper or magazine editorial.

This movie is not propaganda:

To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.
This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally unlistened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the former.

(The beginning of history, by John Berger, The Guardian, August 24, 2004.)

Re:You have to WONDER?

[53cur!ty]

To a liberal the ends ALWAYS justify the means, therefore, MM and JFK will lie, cheat and prostitute themselves and us (through their lies) to attain their ends.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

What people might not realize is that the voting public really isn't that eductated.

I certainly don't trust their votes considering most people are emotional sheep who get moved whenever Bush mentions 9/11.

These people are impressionable as a result of fucked up politicians and are fucking up our democratic voting process as a result.

Go ahead and ask the majority of people voting for Bush if they even know what the fuckin Patriot Act is. I'm willing to bet that more than half don't. That's how people are.

So you can talk about "honest" process all you want, but others are turning this country to pure SHIT and something needs to be done.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Russ Nelson]

Excellent karma IS a license to troll

Asshole.
-russ

Re:You have to WONDER?

[jdbo]

> are their reasons for removing George Bush so
> unquestionably righteous and so critical for the country's
> survival that they justify any and all means, including
> short-circuiting the democratic process, to get him out?

> Political differences aside, I'd rather take four years with
> almost anybody as president than accept this kind of
> overt political manipulation as the new standard of
> behavior in American society.

a) explain how broadcasting a movie on TV = "any and all means"; you're conflating free speech with violent action.

b) Further explain how this would, in an ideal world, break the process.

c) Given b), please further explain how this short-circuits the democratic "process" as it currently exists in the U.S. (i.e. fearmongering, secretive gov't, broken media coverage, and even easily-rigged voting processes).

Nice rhetorical device though, passionately asserting something without backing it up. Now let's get back to that process you were talking about...

Re:You have to WONDER?

[minus_273]

or like collecting the names and personal info of GOP members to "do as you please" and "keep them in check"

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

yes, but he was railing against a lie and slander with absolutely no facts to back them up, but people beleive them anyway.

Farenhieght 9/11 is different, it has facts everywhere, it just doesnt represent them in the best light for Bush.

So, a baldface lie, vs spun facts...

I would at least have spun facts because I can check up on them. If someone lies about something that they have absolutely no documentation or basis for, i cant check up on that.

I dont have a time machine to go to vietnam to tell if they are lieing, all i can do is look at teh documentation... which says they are lieing.

Micheal Moores Video you can look up, the facts are true, just perhaps not in the way MM presents them.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[galego]

I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

Egggzzzzzaccckktttly!!!! Well ... sorta .. read on:

What gets me is how folks are so intent on blaming and pointing their finger in the name of 'solving problems' or improving things ... but all they do is point fingers, stir up contention and guess what ... create more problems.

What is probably best is the "Anybody but [insert person's name here]" mentality for voting. All I can say to those folks is ... be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

I haven't fully made up my mind yet, but and it is hard to see past the crap and fighting to what the issues are ... but let me give you a hint to seeing the real candidate: Look at the track record of prior political posts/years, not what they are doing/saying right now (Yeah ... it's an election year folks). And don't look in order to 'dig up dirt', but to find out what they stand for or against ... or if they don't stand, but rather wobble back and forth on issues all the time (Yes, that does scare me about Kerry as do different things about Bush, whom I didn't vote for before but am leaning towards now).

Also, keep in mind that your local and state elections have sway too ... these people you're voting in locally now or as state senators etc., could be your kid's president(s) once you've retired off to Canada to buy prescriptions. I also really love how people think voting in or out one person is going to make all the difference. Granted, the president is one powerful person, and brings an 'administration' with him/her. But our system has checks and balances and if you look at it as a whole package instead of focusing all your time and energy on one person/decision, you might do it right.

As for Michael Moore, I wish he'd spend some/more time, talent and effort building up, instead of only attacking. And yes, I wish *both* parties/candidates would do that as well.

Happy Voting!

Re:You have to WONDER?

[orim]

"I'd rather take four years with almost anybody"

Really? Even if that somebody would send you or your kids into a war you don't believe in?

I don't blame the left foaming at the mouth and doing everything they can to get Bush out. He fucked up so many times, he lied, and keeps lying, keeps incompetent idiots around him, and is working against the interest of the common man.

He should be imprisoned for all that shit, not reelected.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[ArcherB]

Free speech does not protect one's right to lie, mislead or slander.

I have free speech rights too. Can I put a movie on prime time TV to represent my point of view? Can everyone in America? Why should McMoore get more "Free Speech" than me or anyone else?

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

nice sig, anyone know what the death count in Darfor is?

Re:You have to WONDER?

[ArcherB]

Like, wow. Ok so I am European, but are you saying you rather have a whatever president, than the right to criticize him?

Criticize is one thing, but to try to derail any voices opposed to yours just wrong. I was in NY during the RNC convention. I saw people yell at delegates at the top of their lungs, tear down anything not anti-war and spit on and threaten anyone who disagrees with their point of view (I know, I was spit on and threatened). This, and the blatent lies are the political manipulation he was talking about.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[bfree]

I'd rather take four years with almost anybody as president than accept this kind of overt political manipulation as the new standard of behavior in American society.

That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read modded insightful on /. Are you really suggesting that this is worse then what goes on now, which attempts to condition people through carefully constructed campaigns running through multiple media formats (advertising)? I for one prefer to watch something of Moore's style where you sit down to actually watch it or read it rather then having it put into your face when you are looking for something else.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the "Swift Boat Vets who lied to the government for their medals too" group? Of course, they're all "for truth" when they can't even explain why what they told the government then doesn't match their story now, when the record shows that their original statements agreed with Kerry then and now. Oopsie! Maybe Bush really just just come out and tell them to shut up and take their lies and go home, instead of just suggesting that everyone quit.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[ArcherB]

I think you're talkin' about 4 years ago, in florida, right?

That's exactly the type of "short-circuiting" we're talking about here. Fact is, Bush won every single recount, including those done privately. I don't care how many times you say that Bush stole the election, it will never make it true.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Dr. Zowie]

The "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are an organization devoted to slander, with a name straight from Orwell's 1984. None of their claims about Kerry's service have turned out to be true. One of their "signatories" even came forward to say that his name had been appropriated without his permission or even knowledge.

While "Fahrenheit 9/11" may have presented the facts in a biased way, he appears not to have made them up out of whole cloth. That is an important difference.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, If I understand you correctly, F9/11 is not propaganda.... because it isn't long enough? And there are pauses? And no elite (Kerry?) benefits....

Gosh. I thought it wasn't propaganda because it's liberal.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[cmallinson]

Bush won every single recount, including those done privately.

The issue is the people who were denied the right to have their vote included in those counts.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'record' was written by Kerry. It was a piece of fiction then, and still is a piece of fiction.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[wrecked]

I think that your definition of propaganda is the most insightful one I've seen on this site. However (and this will seem far-left nutty to most slashdotters), I think Moore's film serves as propaganda in a subversive way to actually reinforce certain memes that are peculiar to the U.S. and generally serve the elite class.

As with Al Franken's Lying Liars book, F9/11 does not question the moral validity of attacking Afghanistan following 9/11. In fact, just like Franken, Moore criticizes Bush Jr. for not doing enough on Afghanistan. Leaving aside the merits of this military intervention, what Moore (and Franken) essentially do is limit the debate so that the Afghan invasion is taken for granted as being justified.

Also, Moore and Franken are not inherently against the invasion of Iraq; they criticize Bush Jr. for doing it unilaterally and with a false pretext. However, neither really debate whether an invasion could ever be justified, even if the invasion had U.N. backing or if biological/chemical weapons had been found.

Noam Chomsky has said that political debate in the U.S. is confined to polarized expressions contained within a narrow spectrum of ideas. For example, on the bellweather issue of same-sex marriage, it's kind of funny that both the Bush and Kerry tickets are against it; Kerry-Edward's position that they would support civil unions is basically the same position taken by the Conservatives here in Canada, a position that the electorate found too right-wing.

I actually found Franken's book to be surprisingly right-wing, even though it was funny and entertaining. Similarly, Moore's film, while entertaining, misguidedly blamed the Iraq fiasco entirely on Bush Jr's incompetence, even while it was reinforcing U.S. notions of patriotism and duty to the military. Missing from Moore's film was any context on how Bush Jr's invasion was a continuation of questionable U.S. foreign policy in Iraq during the 1990's under both Bush Sr. and Clinton. And missing from this entire debate is whether Kerry will do anything differently, or merely continue American imperialism albeit under a kinder, gentler guise (note that even Chomsky is saying vote Kerry, just to get Bush Jr. out).

Re:You have to WONDER?

[ArcherB]

a) explain how broadcasting a movie on TV = "any and all means"; you're conflating free speech with violent action.

The "movie" has been debunked many times over. Like any other conspiracy theories, McMoore lines up a set of selected facts that leads the viewer to an incorrect conclusion. For example, the Supreme Court ordered Florida to not allow convicted fellons from voting. So, Florida removed the convicted fellons from the voting rolls. Unfortunately, some people who had the same name as the fellons also had their names removed. Everyone whos name was removed was sent a letter explaining what was going on and gave them the opportunity to contest. McMoore implied that these names were removed because the voters were black. "It's easy to spot them, just look at the color of their skin." McMoore not only fails to mention why these names were really removed, but he implies something much more sinister. McMoore also fails to mention that people of all colors were removed from the rolls, not just black people. This is an example of the falsehoods that will equate to "any and all means". I think trying to stir up racial tensions with the risk of race riots and trying to discredit the American Democratic process qualifies. Again, this is just one example. I shouldn't even have to get into all the "lies" he said about the American service men and women serving in Iraq. "Yeah, we shoot anything that moves..." Encouraging terrorists to kill more Americans qualifies and "any and all means". McMoore saying that he wished more Americans would die in Iraq so Americans would turn against the war qualifies as "any and all means." This is nothing more than sprewing all this garbage to sway the election to McMoore's side.

b) Further explain how this would, in an ideal world, break the process.

Spewing this bulk of propaganda and lies in an attempt to change the results of the election would break the process. The only way this would be legit is if the movie pauses after each point made and considers the points presented. You can't just show one side of the story.

c) Given b), please further explain how this short-circuits the democratic "process" as it currently exists in the U.S. (i.e. fearmongering, secretive gov't, broken media coverage, and even easily-rigged voting processes).

See B. as for fearmongering, terrorist scare me, not Republicans. I think the government should keep some secrets. This movie is a prime example of broken media coverage. Local voting is handled by local elected officials. If democrat led communities in Florida has problems, it is because of the democrats elected locally, not some grand scheme planned years in advance by the Bush family.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

they should think of that before they commit felonies.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, there are also campaign laws against doing stuff like this within a certain timeframe of an election. If Moore trys to get his latest piece of propaganda on TV, it will certainly run into this. He knows this. But it won't stop him from making a token effort, and then howling to his supporters that he's being censored. He did the same thing when it came time to release his film. He was told well over a year before it came out that Disney wasn't going to carry it and that they needed to line up a different distributor. Moore raised a stink about it when he did as a publicity stunt. This is yet another stunt to puff up his ego.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[gfxguy]

Actually, that "signatory" came out and said that report was wrong and he fully supports the work.

So it's something like 240 vs. Kerry and 12 guys, or something like that, and yet it's the SBVs who are lying...

You believe what you want to believe. Bush was questioned about his service and signed everything he had to to have all the documents released to the public. Kerry is allowing only things that supports him to be released. Kerry has already admitted he was wrong about Cambodia and several other points. He also has lied about events that happened stateside while he was in Vietnam (like the assasination of Martin Luther King Jr.)

Now, after pointing all that out, I don't really care... it was 35 years ago, memories are fuzzy, some dates and times slip your mind or are transposed with other dates and times... we'll probably never know what the truth was. However, if Kerry didn't make his service the centerpiece of his campaign, it would pretty much all be a moot issue.

After all, he was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before he was a war hero again... I'd rather simply concentrate on what he's done in the past 20 years...

I'm actually pretty frustrated that this is not the case already... shouldn't a long standing senator's election be about "when I was senator, I ..."? Certainly, when Bush ran, he talked about his accomplishments as governer (if you can call them accomplishments... at least he was arguing about things he did as a political leader).

Re:You have to WONDER?

[jdbo]

Unfortunately, you didn't address my questions. This is summed up in your point:

> You can't just show one side of the story.

Yes, you can and you may. This is called advocacy; at one point, we had explicit governement regulations requiring balanced coverage by broadcasters/opinion-makers on controversial topics. These regulation are effectively gone.

Just look at the major media outlets; they pay lip service to balance, but they're main goal is ratings/profit, i.e. sensationalistic stories where conflict/who's winning are the focus of the story (rarely weighing the reliability of the "sides", and almost as rarely covering conflict resolution) - and that's during the NEWS segments. Editorial/punditry segments are where the media "take the gloves off" and overtly take sides.

I sympathize with the desire to bring back this sort of regulation, but its outrageous that you don't recognize the complete lack of it everywhere else in the media.

> Spewing this bulk of propaganda and lies in an attempt
> to change the results of the election would break the
> process.

It sounds like you have an issue with MM's film - unfortunately, the fact that it applies to everyone is one of those "tricky" parts about deregulation of the airwaves, not to mention free speech.

As a counterexample, I find the SVBT ads to be horrendous, but I can't dispute the right to buy air time and play them.

Now, try and come up with a reason that applies generally (i.e. is not dependent on your interpretation of F911) and you'll begin addressing my arguments.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[William Tanksley]

That's bad logic. Spun facts are harder to check than outright lies; if you just check the spun facts, all you'll find is that they're true. The fact that OTHER facts exist that disprove the "spun" conclusion isn't immediately obvious.

In Moore's case, this isn't quite as difficult; many of his "spins" are easily rebutted, since he played tricks like dubbing the wrong answer into his questions, thereby making it look like the answerer was an idiot or dishonest when actually the answer was straightforward and correct. Distortions of that type count as outright lies, since you're presenting things as though one event happened when actually a completely different one did.

I dont have a time machine to go to vietnam to tell if they are lieing, all i can do is look at teh documentation... which says they are lieing.

I guess you're talking about the Swifties now. Their claims are that the awards are improper and some of the documentation is fabricated. How does looking at the documentation help with that? It's begging the question.

Personally, I don't care about the Swifties. I'm willing to give Kerry 100% credit for his medals and awards for his 4 months in Vietnam. He got shot at; I didn't (not having been born at the time). I don't care one bit whether he got a little more credit than he really deserved for one or four specific acts. I still respect his service, and consider it a credit to him.

But it's still only four months, and many other things he's done since weigh heavier on his character, pro and con. Look at them!

-Billy

Re:You have to WONDER?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "blatant", not "blatent". HAND.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[electroniceric]

But if we're going on character, Bush is an ever tougher sell.

George W. was weaseled into the Air National Guard by his transplant-Connecticut-investment-banker family's wealth and power (see Ben Barnes about that on CBS tonight), and spent much of his 20s getting drunker and making messes (ask folks in Montgomery AL about him trashing the house they rented to him, or his father about the "mano a mano" incident) and apparently doing coke (which makes Clinton's "I didn't inhale" non-denial seem like a sneeze). W is basically a jerky overgrown rich kid who's never faced an obstacle his family couldn't get him around. He has a definite knack for connecting with people of many stripes, but a longtime stand-up guy he is not.

By way of context, there are numerous Republicans who I disagree with but consider people of honesty and integrity. One example is Pat Buchanan. He doesn't seem like the nicest guy on earth when I see him on TV, and I hate his politics like hell, but he's stuck to his paleocon guns, and I respect him for it. Another is Trent Lott. In spite of his untimely remarks and associations with the CCC, he remains an excellent historian. Or Bill Frist - little bit of an insufferable keep-his-nose-clean overacheiver (as is John Edwards), I hate his politics too, don't think he's that effective as a Senate leader, but I think that the man is basically a decent sort. Tom DeLay - absolutely slimeball. Denny Hastert - pretty decent.

Re:You have to WONDER?

[William Tanksley]

The funny thing is that I agree with you; I never liked Bush's past. I think he's shown some evidence of having outgrown it, but *none* of being willing to face it.

If that was what people were ragging on Bush about, I'd join them. I've certainly done my share of complaining.

-Billy

Re:You have to WONDER?

[electroniceric]

That's very well put. It's a rare politician who shows the character to honestly face the crappy things s/he's done in her/his past.

My hope is that after this fall's brutal election:

a) people get tired of all this dredging through personal histories

b) both parties try to run true moderatees in the next election cycle so people can get away from party branding and back to the questions that matter and that both sides of the aisle are worried about, like the deficit.

c) people learn that they'll have to debunk spin for themselves - everyone's spin.

Oh, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly thing GWB isn't above "influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation". That's all he's got. He hasn't done one good thing for AMerica. He's only made things worse.....unless you're a multi-millionaire

Re:Oh, please

[ArcherB]

Uh, I'm not a multi millionaire, and I'm doing much better.

Besides, it's one thing for someone running the election to influence emotions, but for someone who has actually said he doesn't like America and America is the cause of the world's problems to try to influence the election is wrong. If we wanted our enemies to controll our elections, we should shut down the polls here and let China and Iran decide our elections.

the 59 deceits are kopel's

[uunh haun]

As bad as anyone might think moore is, Kopel's article is and has always been puffed up with garbage non-deceits and empty, misleading bending of the facts. There certainly are reasons to go after moore, but it sure would be nice if his critics didn't use the same tactics. Unfortunately, his critics are exactly where moore borrowed his techniques that they loathe so much.

Must be a family of LOSERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Only dipshits get laid off. I bet they were polishing the one eyed cyclops... or the two eyed cyclops.

err..

Point of View

[booch]

I suspect most people's answers will depend on whether they agree with Michael Moore or not. Which is a shame, because the same reasoning may well apply to the other side in a future election.

While I agree with Michael Moore that the Bush administration is corrupt and bad for the country, I think that his lobbying to play this on TV before immediately before the election smacks of electioneering. When Right-wing nut-jobs complained that commercials for Fahrenheit 9/11 should fall under FEC regulations, I thought that was ludicrous. But I think an obvious ploy such as this should be prohibited by the FEC (Federal Election Commission).

I've changed my mind about George Bush

[John_Allen_Mohammed]

I used to think he was an evil genius but after seeing Mr. Moore's film, it's a sure thing Dubya is just stupid & evil. The man has the mental capacity of a teenager and has the power to launch nuclear weapons... there's something about this situation that irks me, anybody else with me on this ?

My question is, what sort of safeguards are in place that would prevent Mr. Chimp from giving the go-ahead to start a nuclear holocaust ? A doctor ? Congressional approval ? A yes vote from a majority of his cabinet ?!

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[GeckoX]

Liberal media ehh?
You'd better check again who owns what media corporations in the US my friend.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

Presidents don't make jobs. In the best case, they can get the hell out of the way of the companies that do make jobs. I hate it that your friends don't have jobs, but perhaps you need to look elsewhere for answers. As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. It became too big a hassle. Then again, in my 40 years, I have never been more than two weeks without a job, and never accepted unemployment checks, choosing a lower job until I could work my way back up instead. I guess its just a matter of choice.

Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Questions? Lawsuits!

[bolix]

The Republican Attack Machine would have persued any inaccuracies through legal means.

There are no lawsuits.

Whats the question?

Re:Questions? Lawsuits!

[bofkentucky]

Moore was very careful, no libel or slander in this work (or BfC), so legal grounds for re-editing would be nil. The 1st amendment says MM can say what he wants, truth or fiction, its up to you to figure out which he is speaking.

BTW, I hear about a republican attack machine all the time, but between Crossfire, Matthews, This Week with "George the Greek", the big three nightly newscasts and MM, I'd say the democrats have their own well oiled attack machine., funded largely by a frigging lunatic (Soros) who would just as soon bring down the world economy for a laugh. Both parties trot out spinmiesters, so figure it out for yourself.

Link to questions?

[JDRipper]

What kind of link is that? Right wing propaganda nutjob website presented as an opposing viewpoint of worth? Dave Kopel's article entitled "Loaded Guns Can Be Good for Kids" tends to show how much of a nut job this Dave Kopel guy is. http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-01-99a.html Bah. There are many more worthy opposing viewpoints to Michael Moore's film. This politics section of Slashdot needs some better editorial work.

Re:Link to questions?

[Chris Burke]

There are many things you may have come to expect from /. There are many things you may expect from the politics section of /.

But "better editorial work"? That, you should never expect. I'd be happy with any editorial work, and I haven't seen any evidence of that in years.

As far as I can tell, the "editors" are basically IT staff who make sure /. runs and that stories get posted, but otherwise have no duties other than adding snide remarks to submissions and occasionally admitting they have a dupe.

This is exactly why I don't like this man...

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about trying to influence the election, not that there is anything wrong with that, but lets be honest, this man is trying to influence the election, and he is doing it using arguments which call for an emotional reaction as opposed thoughtful and careful look at the facts involved.

But to be honest, this man isn't the only one calling for emotional reactions. It seems as if I yearn for a time when logic and reason held a bit more sway on truth. I guess I'm just a bit old fashion.

The movie

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11. Took it with a grain of salt.

I think Rush put it best yesterday. To strongly paraphrase a conversation he had with a friend:

Rush: I think that the whole Clinton heart attack was strategically planned by the left in an effort to drum up sympathy and take focus off of Kerry's naysayers.
Friend: What?
Rush: I think it's one big conspiracy by the left. His heart attack was staged at an important time in the election year.
Friend: Do you honestly think they would do such a thing?
Rush: No, but now you know how we felt about Fahrenheit 9/11.

Yes, I know Rush is a self-absorbed blowhard, and I'm not a Bush lover, but I thought the movie was a little below the belt.

/independent conservative

Never mind whether it's accurate or not.

[evslin]

Everyone's getting pissed off over a couple of 30 second spots from Swift Boat vets, what's gonna happen if a 2 hour John Kerry ad gets aired?

Then again, let it air ... maybe enough people will get pissed off and demand reforms to campaign advertising.

fark comment

[jzuska]

You forgot that Michael Moore is FAT!!!!!

It should also be noted...

[l4m3z0r]

That Moore will instead be seeking the best picture nomination. Doubtful it will win but would be extremely interesting to see a documentary win best picture. Considering the competition I don't think it would be completely impossible either.

Its obvious to me at least that he will have to edit out portions of the film in order to be aired on TV. I fully expect it to showed on AMC(american movie channel). I wouldn't be surprised if many stations picked it up. Its sure to draw a large group of viewers. Whether or not any advertisers will buy time slots during it is another question all together.

Lastly I'd like to add that while some call it emotive and propaganda and claim it would be detrimental to our political process I'm going to have to dissagree. While the film is over the top and largely misleading it is still the only thing out there that questions effectively our presidents leadership. Which NEEDS to be called into question in order for democracy to work. War time or not, leaders need to be questioned. Even if there is no basis or ground for questioning them. They need to explain themselves adequately and constantly otherwise we have no accountability.

Re:It should also be noted...

[Shihar]

While the film is over the top and largely misleading... (insert reasons why despite this the film was okay here).

Something that is, in your own words, "largely misleading" should have no place in discussions on Democracy. Moore could have used his name to make a great movie as to why war was bad and Bush is a fuck off. He could have been slanted and biased about it, but could have at least attempted to let the other side offer a counter point and give himself the last rebuttal. Instead, we got this sickening film that should make any fair minded person sick to their stomach because it reeks of such blatant propaganda that it would give your average middle aged Russian citizen flash backs.

There is a difference between addressing both sides with a slant and pure propaganda. Fox news has an obvious slant. They are conservative. That doesn't mean that they don't invite liberals onto the show to at least let them have their say. Even Rush Limbaugh invites liberals onto his show. Hell, he occasionally GIVES his show over to a liberal host when he goes on vacation to give the other side a say in the belief that their beliefs speak for themselves. Michael Moore does not even pretend to give the other side a say and edits out anything that might make you at least understand where the other side comes from.

Criticism is needed in the media, but Moore does not offer criticism. He offers nothing but propaganda. I bet the average person can not even tell you what his argument around the Saudi family was. They just eat up the stupid propaganda and leave with a feeling that bush did 'something' wrong.

The problem is not a lack of criticism with the war or the president. The protests that wracked both Boston and New York during the convections, offer plenty of very vocal criticism. All comical media offers tones of criticism. You can't watch Comedy Central without watching criticism of Bush. Any that argues that there is no criticism of the president clearly has their eyes closed. The problem is perhaps a lack of intelligent and in-depth criticism and Moore is no fix to this problem.

Honestly, I think people need to step back and look at what crap that movie was. If you have to begin your defence of it with, "While the film is over the top and largely misleading..." you REALLY need to take a step back and examin what you are defending.

Re:It should also be noted...

[GQuon]

And without Moore, maybe there might be more room for some REAL stories about Bush's shortcommings and failures?

The climate policies (a bi-partisan screw-up), how the Bush admin and the French and Germans used the media to negotiate over Iraq, the steel tarrifs (now given up).

Watching people fall for propaganda tickles my elitist zones, but what the U.S. voters do affects me as well, even over here in Europe. How about reforming the election process? No, no debate about that, although I think the Republicans would fight that. As long as the Democrats Against Normal Bush get somebody else in the Whitehouse, they'll be happy.

I tell you: Michael Moore is like Bill Gates and Darl McBride rolled into one.

Re:It should also be noted...

[l4m3z0r]

Bush had nearly no criticism right after 9/11 and during the lead up to the war. Since then people have kind of woke up a bit and come out of their shell. Partly because of Michael Moore. Some media figures had come out an apologized for that lack of criticism about the arguments for going to war. Most of the rabid hater's of Moore's film point out minor inconsistencies that demonstrate how everything he said is half truths. I'm not going to say that this is an unbiased documentary. What I am going to say is that it was superbly well done and whether or not you agree with it he has a right to say it.

Michael Moore does not even pretend to give the other side a say and edits out anything that might make you at least understand where the other side comes from.

He doesn't have to.

Criticism is needed in the media, but Moore does not offer criticism. He offers nothing but propaganda.

He offers a hell of alot of criticism. People who watch that movie will say to themselves is this true? and then go do some research on that. While they won't find Moores allusions to be true, they find that alot of his claims had some merit. What moore does is inflame people like you to go out and find out exactly whats going on. You research and look at multiple sources critically and determine how much of what Moore says is true. Moore's gamble is that the truth which is somewhere in between what he and Bush say is still on the side of Moore.

Moore has done an excellent job getting people to discuss, think critically, and research the issues. For those that cared about the issues before its appalling but I now have a whole new group of people to talk politics with(on both sides) that previously couldn't give a rats ass about voting/politics. Moore has been the biggest player in getting rid of some of that apathy in young people. MTV couldnt do it, a pile of boring bearucrats couldn't do it.. but Moore seems to have.

Re:It should also be noted...

[MtViewGuy]

Mind you, I doubt AMPAS--which tends to surprisingly politically conservative--would want to nominate Fahrenheit 9/11 for Best Picture.

The reason is simple: AMPAS does not want to run the risk of a potentially massive consumer boycott. If there is ANYTHING Hollywood really worships it's the bottom line, and they don't want to see the movie industry suffer an organized economic boycott.

Remember the fiasco with The Reagans miniseries from last fall? The very fear that consumers were going to boycott the Super Bowl over the showing of this miniseries made then-CBS President Les Moonves kibosh its showing on CBS and the miniseries was shown on Showtime premium pay-cable channel instead.

And AMPAS actually was quite a bit annoyed by Michael Moore's acceptance speech aftering winning for Bowling with Columbine.

Re:moore....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, and Bush is a genius... "fool me once... shame, shame on you... fool me.... never fool me again."

What planet are you from?

[smartalecvt]

"...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation"

First of all, get a spell-checker and a grammar book. Second of all, since when has an American election been about thorough contemplation? This election, in particular, is so viscerally geared as to render logic irrelevant. Did you see any of those ridiculous conventions? Lots of screaming, joking, and vitriol; almost no reasoning. [sarcasm]Can't wait to see the debates.[/sarcasm] What a fucking joke.

One thing is for sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a hell of a lot more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters.

Enjoying your democracy? Selecting the least of two evils? Yeah this is a great country. Lots of choice there.

Re:One thing is for sure.

[Dutchmaan]

There are a hell of a lot more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters.

I'm Walden O'Dell and I support this message!

Show it

[deadline]

Since when did "thorough(ly) contemplation" have anything to do with elections or politics in this country.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[almostmanda]

Grow up. The media doesn't have a political stance, it has a business stance. It's not concerned with a right or left agenda; it's concerned with it's own existence and profitability. If F9/11 hype is going to attract viewers/sell papers, that's what's gonna be in the news.

For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Mz6]

I beg you to read this!

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?

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[mabu]

What is the standard by which you judge truthfulness?

Fox News?

Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work.

Don't forget Moore is fat. That's relevant to you guys as well. He's a big fat dude, and therefore he has nothing to say. He's also Canadian, so it's likely he's trying to undermine the American Way(tm), or perhaps he's... French! Oh no!

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Mongoose Disciple]

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?

No, not really. If you can't see the difference between making a movie and ordering people to fight and die for you... well, I can't think of any response to that that isn't pure flamebait. I'm hoping you actually can see the difference.

Even so... we have a right to expect more of our leaders than our common citizens. If we give that up, all is lost.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

No, actually I do not see any irony in that other than the obvious irony that Moore was pointing out in the first place.

One cannot prove a statement false by simply changing the statement and re-targeting it.

Scary really.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[brxndxn]

How the fuck does parent get moderated to troll? This post should be moderated to troll.. But the parent is definitely not a troll.

Come on mods..

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Anonymous Coward]

... So the class room footage was faked? the golf scene was faked? Bush was a succesful business man prior to entering government?

Look away, look away from facts that cloud your thinking. Get in line, stay on the path, don't question authority. Don't volunteer for military service, let the mud people do it, they'll be greatful for the work.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Mz6]

"Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work."

Why isn't it relevant if he got footage first hand or not? The fact is the footage was taken from Iraq and given to him by cameramen.

Does a cameraman take his film hand it to the news reporter and say "Here you go"? No.. The reporter goes to the scene, sees what happens, talks to people there, asks questions and finds out whats going on. If you're going to report what is happening, it's probably safer to accept it from someone who has actually been there, rather than someone's "analysis". Moore does none of this but, rather, would guess at what is really happening in the footage taken.

And are you trying to say that Moore's movie is not a smokescreen to smear Bush? Come on... You have to see this.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So the class room footage was faked? the golf scene was faked? Bush was a succesful business man prior to entering government?"

Of course the footage there is real, I am not refuting that. I am refuting his SPIN on that footage. But, I'm sorry, I forgot Michael Moore can read minds and knew exactly what Bush was thinking for 7 minutes. It's just so sad that everyone blindly follows this movie without actually researching any of his claims.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it ages ago. Kopel does a worse job at presenting facts than Moore does. You're just more willing to accept Kopels "facts" at face value because you happen to prefer his view point to that of Moores.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[dave420]

Iraq's too dangerous to go to, these days. You can thank Bush for that. There are huge swathes of it where US troops can't go.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Mz6]

Well, unfortunately Moore didn't show you everything that happened when he went around interviewing Congressmen. He actually did run into a congressman that had 2 kids in the service... Oh, but he didn't show you that part did he? It wouldn't fit the message he was trying to show now would it?

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[mabu]

"Whether Moore got his footage first hand isn't relevant. This is a classic example of the smokescreens his opponents blow in order to discredit him rather than address the core themes of his work."

Why isn't it relevant if he got footage first hand or not? The fact is the footage was taken from Iraq and given to him by cameramen.

The movie isn't entitled, "I Michael Moore shot my own footage and was there."

It's amusing that the best Moore's detractors can cite are lame arguments like whether or not he has any credibility talking about military veterans unless he lost his leg to a land mine or something. He was just showing some footage from Iraq. He let the viewers interpret it how they see fit.

If I were to use your reasoning, I'd say, unless you were in the WTC when it was bombed, you have no right to comment on it.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Petronius]

I don't see the irony at all. The real question is: did he fabricate these images? Not really. It's really Bush giving a press conference from a golf course, not Moore making it up.
Actually, the fact that he *didn't* shoot the footage makes his case even stronger.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[geekster]

He did say that one out of all those (~500?) congressman had kids in the service though...

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

Glad someone else noticed that. All I could find in there as support for his assertions against facts f/911 are statistics, numbers based on conjecture, and lawyer double-speak.

The first point he addresses says it all really. Look at all the numbers he relies on stating, matter of factly, exactly how many people didn't vote, and exactly how those people that didn't vote would have voted. Holy christ. I read the whole article just to make sure, and sure enough he uses the same BS tactics everywhere throughout.

Don't get me wrong, f/911 is most certainly a piece of propaganda, but so is just about everything you see in the media today. It's all slanted, so take it all with a grain of salt.

Personally, I thank Michael Moore for making sure as many people as possible see a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SLANT for once.

All sides on this are full of shit. There are lies and deceit everywhere. What it comes down to is how the underlying truths add up. And for me, it without a doubt adds up to Bush has got to go, period.

Lets look at it this way, even if moore is totally full of shit and it's all lies. Who cares? Does it change the facts? Does the fact that a movie portraying Bush negatively exists PROVE that Bush is good and has done good for the US and for the world in general? Absolutely fucking not.

You like Bush? Fine, vote for him then. Just don't vote for him because you don't like some fat guy who you can't even vote for. (Hint People: Michael Moore is NOT running for election. This is NOT a race between Bush and Moore so quit treating it like it is)

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

Yes, you're right, the movie doesn't show all of the footage of all of the events that transpired during the making of the movie. Yes, you're right, the movie isn't 6 MONTHS LONG. Yes, you're right, it's a MOVIE.

And yes you're right, he didn't SHOW that part, but he did explicitly STATE it (as geekster already mentioned)

You're using the EXACT SAME propaganda tactics to try to discredit f/911 as you and others are charging Moore himself with using.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

Let me ask you this, ignoring the movie for a moment.

Actually, lets pretend it doesn't even exist.

You voting for Bush? You like what he's done for your country over the last 4 years?

Now, lets say the movie exists again.
What does that bring into the picture? Anything? Should it really change your mind in any way at all? You either were pro-Bush before, or not.

What I'm getting at is do you care so much because of Bush's reputation being tarnished? Or rather do you hate Moore for some reason?

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[ArcherB]

Well, no, it was propaganda. McMoore ran around asking everyone if they'd send their kids to die in Iraq. First of all, no one can send their kids anywhere. Our service is all volunteer. You volunteer yourself, your parents don't send you. Next, no one will send their kids to "die" anywhere, nor would anyone volunteer. When I went to the "gulf" it wasn't to die. I went to fight for what was right. Dieing was not part of my orders. Protecting unarmed civilians was.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[ArcherB]

You voting for Bush? You like what he's done for your country over the last 4 years?

Yes, and Yes. I like a man who does not consider those at war with us "Criminals". These "people" are "enemies". There is a difference.

What does that bring into the picture? Anything? Should it really change your mind in any way at all? You either were pro-Bush before, or not.

It does not change my mind at all. If anything all of the "Bush is Hitler" garbage I see is what made me support Bush in the first place.

Or rather do you hate Moore for some reason?

Yes. It is when he states that Americans are stupid and all the world's problems are because of America that makes me hate him. Him wishing that more Americans die in Iraq just solidified that hatred.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

Ah, yes, because Moore has stated so many times that Americans are stupid, that all of the world's problems are because of America and that he wishes more Americans would die in Iraq.

Do you make everything up as you go or what?

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[Anonymous Coward]

While promoting his book, "Dude Where's My Country," in Germany, Moore gave a speech in which he asserted that, "Americans are possibly the dumbest people on the planet....in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing." (The Washington Dispatch, June 26, 2004)

- In October of 2003, Moore was quoted in the University of Michigan's student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, as saying "there is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told."

- On his book tour to promote, "Dude Where's My Country," Moore stopped off in Cambridge, England, where he lamented before a large audience that, 'You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." (Newsmax.com, June 6, 2004)

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people [as the United States] lead the world? Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way." (David Brooks in the New York Times, June 30, 2004)

I don't make stuff up.

Re:For those that think F9/11 is truthful...

[GeckoX]

No, but you miss the point entirely.

He can still love his country while making the statements he has, which are essentially true if not entirely.

He wants to see his country become a better country by addressing these issues.

None of these statements mean that he hates his country, that is your conjecture. Please try to remember that.

You know this is happening in a dark room somewher

[ackthpt]

Cheney: "Fight the bastard, throw some rule or regulation or contract stipulation in his face!"
Studio rep: "We've looked and tried we have very little to work with."
Cheney: "We invaded Iraq on less! Sue him or get some bullshit injuction!"
Network rep: "We may have a solution..."
Cheney: "Speak!"
Network rep: "It'll start playing and then..."
Cheney: "What? WHAT!?!?"
Network rep: "We'll suddenly cut over to Heidi.." *evil grin*
Cheney: "Brilliant!"
Network rep: "And they call us 'Liberal Media' HA HA HA HA HAAAH!"
Cheney: "HA HA HA!!!"
Network rep: "Bush will love it, naturally."
Cheney: "Oh, yes, it's about all we let him watch!"

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you count MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC as 24x7 ads for Kerry. Throw in the LA Times and NY Times and you have what's known by most as "the liberal media bias."

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess until they start locking away the Undesirables du Jour in concentration camps as the normal state of affairs in the U.S., you will always be complaining about the liberal media bias.

Re:Hmmmm

[strictfoo]

and you will always be complaining that there is one station with a conservative slant

I'm completly off...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm completly off...
"thoroughly contemplation"
I thought this was about politics...
in the US...

I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[haggar]

Seeing as though all his documentaries have been released for the big screen, that he has received an Oscar for one of them, that his shows are all airing on TV and that even F. 9/11 will (probably) be aired on TV prior to the elections, the USA is treating Moore utterly unfairly. Obviously, censorship is rampant and this country is a police state where free speech is suppressed in the most brutal ways.

Poor Michael Moore.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. It is even more admirable, that even though things are going so well for himself, he still stands up for the little guy who isn't so well off.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[sbirnie]

It's not a police state or censorship for a television station to decide not to air it because they worry about the image of their station or the loss of ad revenue or viewer ratings from the backlash that might occur from airing it. It's business - nothing more.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

You must just love Bill Gates and Darl McBride.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[mbbac]

Right. Disney made an excellent business decision by turning down millions of dollars of profits by not distributing Fahrenheit 9/11. It had nothing to do with politics.</sarcasm>

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[sbirnie]

I've never seen the movie, but my guess is (assuming you mean Disney actually did turn down F911), that they decided the movie didn't really fit in with their business direction. Disney usually puts out family oriented films, not political, touchy issues. I would think they would lose a lot of business with their family products just by taking on F911.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[mbbac]

It would have been released under their Miramax brand which Fahrenheit 9/11 completely fits in with. Miramax also released Pulp Fiction.

Re:I can see how why the USA sucks for Moore

[mbbac]

I'd like to clear things up for you since apparently you think that Disney never intended to release Fahrenheit 9/11.

Disney/Miramax produced F911 and had the distribution rights to the movie. They fully planned to distribute it. Michael Eisner (CEO of Disney) decided not to allow Miramax to distribute the movie. So, the two brothers that head up Miramax bought distribution rights to F911 from Miramax and formed a company (Fellowship Adventure Group) to distribute it.

Eisner's reasons are his own, but it is easy to see they were probably political. F911 fit in with the Miramax brand (as I explained in my previous post) and has made over $112 million dollars at the box office as of September 5. There was no business reason not to distribute it.

Carlin, we still need thee

[static0verdrive]

Now all the people George Carlin hates will pipe up about Moore's credibility, without having read his explanations. The Golden Rule is not followed by Republicans, otherwise they'd be saying "We want to be bombed." Too bad the Golden Rule holds true even when you don't want it to, regardless of what Michael Moore says. Do yourself a favour, don't vote Bush.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[rocklobsta]

Yea, the liberal media... right. Even if you think of this movie as propaganda, which I don't, the release of it on television would just counterbalance all of the right wing controlled media, including FAUX News and all of the talking heads on the AM dial. The liberal media simply doesn't exist, or is in it's infancy (ie, Air America) in the same way that the ultra conservative media does. And before you get your panties in a bunch, CNN and NPR are hardly liberal bastions!

Here in Spain

[octal666]

We had plenty of last-minute emotions, many of you perhaps remember the 11-M, a train full of people exploded almost entering in the Madrid train station of Atocha. This was three days before the general elections.

The thing is that perhaps many people changed the vote in the last minute, but also many people who maybe wasn't going to vote changed their minds to vote for the people who they thought could manage such a situation, and this is good for democracy, I think.

About if Moore's documentary is truth or propaganda, everything is propaganda, he is presenting his facts on what he thinks, and he is not pro-bush, and don't hide it, so everyone who sees the film knows his orientations and think by themselves about what they want to believe about it. If he had said plain lies, I'm sure he would have been sued by now.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using anothers fault and deception as a defense against your own is not the way to win a debate.

He lied about X
ohh yeah, well you lied about Y.

It does not change the facts X

BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.

Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

Moore's critics are more concerned with exposing tiny little continuity issues in his film than they are getting to the truth. Almost every single one of the supposed "faults" they can find in the movie are trivial at best, and even more a perversion of reality than anything in F911.

I'm not saying I don't think the movie was biased. Of course it was, but trying to pick tiny aspects of unimportant sections apart is a distraction and doesn't diminish the significance of Moore's main theme which NOBODY can refute:
* There were some substantive conflicts-of-interest regarding the powers that presided over the 2000 election
* The Bush family has a suspicious relationship with the Saudis and has exhibited favoritism that was not in the best interests of America, and is possibly illegal
* Almost all of the politicians involved in spearheading the "war" don't have children serving and have inconsequential/nonexistent military service records
* While Bush's policies predominantly favor the rich, it is the poor who end up paying, specifically when it comes to military service

I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.

All of this notwithstanding, there's probably not a snowball's chance in hell this movie would make it to network television prior to the election.

F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost. If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[slashkitty]

Uhm, neither does Moore. If he had presented a movie that wasn't full of lies, the truth might stand out more. 2 minutes into the movie I knew I couldn't trust Moore to present the truth... I hoped for a documentary, all I saw was slanted attack commercial.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Lovedumplingx]

I could have done without Moore's commentary over Bush's classroom visit when the WTC was attacked, but nonetheless, that "seven minute segment" is something everyone in the country NEEDS to see.

Maybe it's because I live in Washington, but the whole city shut down. People stayed glued to the TV for hours. Me...I heard the news and went back to sleep until I had to go to class. So Bush's "seven minutes" is no more odd to me than the people who watched the TV in silence for hours.

I haven't seen F911 and don't plan to because I've heard (from both conservatives and liberals) that 1: It was slanted (as expected) but 2: There were presentation problems (such as splicing 5-6 different Bush speaches to make it sound like he was saying something else at one given moment). I've got nothing against opinions and sharing those opinions, but giving half-truths and thin theories isn't a good way to present your arguments.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[I'm Spartacus!]

So Bush's "seven minutes" is no more odd to me than the people who watched the TV in silence for hours.

So you don't think it's strange that the Secret Service didn't remove the President from a known location - the school trip was on his public itinerary from weeks ahead of time, and anyone who wanted to know where he would be that day could find out - when planes started crashing into buildings on 9/11 and no one knew exactly how many planes had been hijacked?

I think you need to rethink your position.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[GQuon]

Well, maybe because they believe in a deck-of-cards theory. If you take away all the little deceptions, the "message" suffers.
Mistakes I can understand. Also bias and commentary.
Some people choose to disregard a message based on who is saying it or who is backing it. I choose to disregard messages that are sold by lies. (Well, Obi-Wan lied to Luke from a certain point of view.)

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pentagon and the WTC are kind of easy to pick out from the air. I don't think a 1-story school in a suburb in Florida is all that easy to pick out and hit at 500mph.

That said, one plane still managed to hit the ground in front of the Pentagon instead of a direct hit, and one plane almost missed the WTC -- two of the largest buildings in the world.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[glesga_kiss]

the whole city shut down. People stayed glued to the TV for hours. Me...I heard the news and went back to sleep until I had to go to class. So Bush's "seven minutes" is no more odd to me than the people who watched the TV in silence for hours.

Excuse me?. Are you mental? When we were glued to the TV trying to get every bit of information available, Bush was listening to a childrens story. He should been shouting at people "TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON". That is his job, he is supposed to be a leader. Unless he is simply a puppet and knew that he didn't have to take imediate action. There could have been a jet liner heading to his highly publicised location while he was sitting there. IMHO, he really couldn't have handled it any worse.

There were presentation problems (such as splicing 5-6 different Bush speaches to make it sound like he was saying something else at one given moment)

That's Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine I think you are referring to. Very dishonest filmmaking. At least Moore isn't claiming to be "Fair and Balanced" however... ;-)

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Edax Rarem]

Perhaps you should read this.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline /main/e ssayaninterestingday.html
7 minutes is only what was on the film of that photo op. Chances are Bush knew the moment the first plane hit. If his staff didn't alert him, they should be fired. After the Photo Op with the kids Bush continued to linger at the school still not asking questions and not DOING anything related to leading our country while it was being attacked. Only stating that he woulld make a statement later.
Now, there are some that will say that his staff could manage the situation and he didn't have to react. I say this... ONLY THE POTUS CAN GIVE THE ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN COMMERCIAL AIRLINES.

He at least needed to be elsewhere when it was all going on so he could get info and make some decisions, or do ANYTHING at all.

To me, this was the most alarming part of the movie and the most illuminating evidence of how poor a leader W really is... And if it wasn't poor leadership, then he obviously knew what was going on and was waiting for it to be over so he could then swoop in and be our saviour.

This act (or failure to act) deserves further investigation.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Blakey Rat]

The thing he forgets is that there's no draft in this country. If poor people have more sons in the military, that's because those sons *VOLUNTARILY SIGNED UP* to join the military... in my opinion, that invalidates his entire documentary. Now, if he were talking about Vietnam where the soldiers had no choice, then that's a different story. But you can't say that "poor end up paying when it comes to military service" when EVERYBODY in the military, rich or poor, is there voluntarily.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that the seven minutes is important to you. You are obviously going to vote for Kerry because Bush is evil. I have no problem with that. Could you explain Kerry's actions in the same time frame. In his own words, after the first plane hit he sat around for over 30 minutes not doing anything until they were told to leave the Senate. If seven minutes is bad, then is a half hour good?

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[OverlordQ]

Hey . . Guess what . . .at the time they just thought a plane crashed into the WTC. I mean hell, it happened to the Empire State Building back in they day. They couldn't know automatically that it was terrorists.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[rabel]

Dude, you missed the point. Did you follow the part where Moore is talking about the loss of jobs and that the military is the only real way out for most of these people? The implication is that Bush economic policies are killing job prospects and the military is happily moving in and preying on these young people from poor backgrounds. Then, the rich elite, who get the most benefits from Bush economic policies send these poor people to war.

See, the thing that pisses me off most about Republicans is that they don't care about the truth, only the perception of truth. The parent argument is a perfect example of this.

The Iraq war is another. If The President had come to Congress and stated up front that it was time for America to remove Saddam to give the Iraqi people freedom, there would have been a huge debate and this imperialist action would never have been approved. However, today's Iraq war debate keeps coming back to "but we removed this dictator from power. This is good regardless of the missing WMD." It's a LIE and Republicans fall for this misperception.

Seriously, all Republicans should be forced to read "1984" to get a little perspective of truth and government control, then they need to see OutFoxed. Maybe then they'll realize what F9/11 is all about.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

So Bush's "seven minutes" is no more odd to me than the people who watched the TV in silence for hours.

The big difference is that you're not the Commander in Chief of the United States of America with 24/7 access to the launch codes of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and the authority to deploy one of the worlds largest and most modern air, sea and land armies. It's a small point I know, but I thought you might have missed it.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to make a totally irrelevent comparision. John Kerry was (is) a senator with no authority to do anything. George W. Bush was (is) the Commander in Chief of one of the worlds largest army with the authority to deploy troops and shoot down planes. If John Kerry had shoved his thumb up his ass and sang the national anthem it wouldn't have made the slighest bit of difference. Seriously, what would you have expected Kerry to do? Grab a fifle and start shooting planes from the sky?

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the part where teachers encourage students to sign up for the military, and young students say that they'll sign up, because they have no other prospect of a future? Thats the point Moore is making; children from poor towns and cities are far more likely to sign up for service because they simply have no prospects. Sure it's volountary, but their choice is essentially to join the military or remain jobless. It's not like you have to worry about that sort of thing if your parents are paying your way through college or daddy has a trust fund waiting for your 21st birthday.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[William Tanksley]

F911 is an extremely powerful film. Which is why the right wingers seek to discredit Moore at any cost.

True and true.

If it didn't have a lot of substance and truth in it, they wouldn't be so afraid of people seeing it.

And then... Boom, non sequitur. The fact that it's powerful doesn't mean it's true. And the fact that they're afraid of people seeing it doesn't mean it's full of substance and truth.

-Billy

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

Uhm, neither does Moore. If he had presented a movie that wasn't full of lies, the truth might stand out more. 2 minutes into the movie I knew I couldn't trust Moore to present the truth... I hoped for a documentary, all I saw was slanted attack commercial.

You took your biased, preconceived prejudices with you into the theater. If you came to a conclusion two minutes into the movie what it was all about, that speaks volumes about your objectivity.

Good luck in finding any media source that doesn't have some bias in its perspective. You are obviously one of the naive who expected what? The movie to be even-handed? F911 wouldn't have needed to be made in the first place had the mainstream media been even-handed. They aren't. I'm not sure what you were expecting, not that anything Moore could have done would have countered the extreme prejudice you exhibit. Like all of Moore's critics, you avoid specifics and use generalizations like the movie is "full of lies". You need to qualify yourself and admit that anything that doesn't jive with your personal agenda you consider to be bogus.

You can completely remove Moore from the movie and just show the raw footage and it alone is powerful and substantive. I could have done without Moore's commentary over the top of Bush's idle classroom time when the WTC was attacked, but I'm intelligent enough to separate the rhetoric from the facts and come to my own conclusion without condemning the entire movie and all the information it presented. It's a shame you are not.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

The thing he forgets is that there's no draft in this country. If poor people have more sons in the military, that's because those sons *VOLUNTARILY SIGNED UP* to join the military... in my opinion, that invalidates his entire documentary. Now, if he were talking about Vietnam where the soldiers had no choice, then that's a different story. But you can't say that "poor end up paying when it comes to military service" when EVERYBODY in the military, rich or poor, is there voluntarily.

I don't think Moore forgot there was no draft. In fact that's his point. The rich won't participate in backing up their beliefs with their own sons and daughters unless they're forced to by a draft. The poor who fight the wars the rich start don't have the luxury many times to choose. You can bet that the majority of those who signed up in the military did so, not because of patriotism or loyalty to their country as much as it represented a way to escape their poverty, provide opportunities to travel, and fund their education. Those that signed up never had much of a choice as to whether or not they wanted to serve in Iraq.

Moore eloquently points this out as he investigates in the course of the movie how few politicians have their own families serving in Iraq. It's also substantive to point out that Bush didn't fulfill his duty in the military, yet he seems to have no reservation about sending others off to fight. There's nothing misleading or erroneous about those facts.

I contend, as Moore probably does, that if there were an actual mandatory draft, we wouldn't have engaged in the Iraqi invasion. It's easy for politicians to laud the nobility of war when they don't have a personal stake in it... and that's the essence of what Moore was trying to say, and it's backed up by facts that can't be disputed.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[slashkitty]

"You took your biased, preconceived prejudices with you into the theater. If you came to a conclusion two minutes into the movie what it was all about, that speaks volumes about your objectivity."

Wrong and wrong: I didn't see it in a theater, and the reason I say two minutes it's because that's how long it took me to find critical damning lies. See my post on the recount.

Some people told me that the movie had no lies, and that it was a documentary. Clearly, those people were wrong.

I just wish I could pull out the facts from the slant of the movie. There were many other deceptions (like the taliban meeting bush in TX, which never happened) There are people out there who try to present both sides of an issue, I just don't know anyone who does that with the issues in F911.

But, just for the record, do you agree that Moore is slanted? Do you agree that there is at least one deception in the movie? Do you agree that this is just an anti Bush film?

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

Wrong and wrong: I didn't see it in a theater, and the reason I say two minutes it's because that's how long it took me to find critical damning lies. See my post on the recount.

I saw your post. I made two other posts refuting the bogus claim that the recount statement was a lie. It was not.

Calling something a lie over and over doesn't negate the facts.

But, just for the record, do you agree that Moore is slanted? Do you agree that there is at least one deception in the movie? Do you agree that this is just an anti Bush film?

Hey, Captain Obvious. Even Moore has admitted he's biased. You can't find any human being which isn't biased in one way or another. What kind of news flash is that? It proves nothing.

As far as "deception", that's highly subjective. You could call F911 "deceptive" because it didn't tell the "whole story" on anything because there will always be some group that feels they didn't get enough time to explain their side of the story. What are you going to do? Everything in the media is "deceptive" in that respect. The news is "deceptive" in that it condenses "everything" that's going on in Iraq down to 30 seconds. The newspapers are deceptive because they tell a story in only 1500 words.

That's why we have brains. To research things ourselves and not expect any single source to be the pinnacle of accuracy. This doesn't mean that any specific source is completely devoid of value.

Is F911 nothing more than an "anti-Bush" film? I guess that depends upon your perspective. But is it "anti-Bush" in its tone and objective? Again, a great big DUH!

Is Fox a pro-Bush network? DUH. Is Clear Channel pro-Bush? DUH. Are O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh and the vast majority of mainstream media pundits primarily defending the Republican agenda? Yes. DUH! On any given day there's at least 100+ hours of pro-GOP propaganda being spewed across hundreds of radio and television stations - a fraction of which has any comparable leftist editorial. And Michael Moore comes out with a single two hour liberal-leaning documentary and you guys get your panties in a complete wad!

Moore tells another side of the story. Just cause you don't like that side of the story doesn't make it full of lies.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[slashkitty]

I often state the obvious, and people like you just argue with me. Bush won the election... Not everyone has accepted it.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[glesga_kiss]

at the time they just thought a plane crashed into the WTC [snip]They couldn't know automatically that it was terrorists.

No. In the infamous clip of him in the classroom, Bush is being told that a second plane has hit the towers. Not even he could think that it was an accident.

It doesn't matter who it turned out to be. At that point, he should have been asking that though, instead of just sitting there.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[mabu]

I often state the obvious, and people like you just argue with me. Bush won the election... Not everyone has accepted it.

Yea, "won" is a good characterization. I wouldn't use "earn" or "deserve". He was awarded the presidency by the Supreme Court. It was a gift given to him, not unlike the way other people "win" things, without legitimately earning them.

If you are among those that think this is a concept that Bush's detractors should just "get over", I suggest you cease referencing the nobility of the concept of democracy, because that is what the issue revolves around. There was never a full, legitimate, audit of Florida accepted as the formal count. So democracy was NOT served. It's not about Bush. It's about respecting the concept of representative government. So don't talk of democracy when you validate a process that was never democratic.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[slashkitty]

I like to stick to facts in these discussions and stay away from concepts.

Florida was clearly a close race. There are so many variables, we will never know the true number of people intending to vote for each canidate that day.

However, I think that democracy is served with either candidate winning... Over 1/2 the people will be upset anyway... It's not like someone from out of nowhere grabbed a gun and some men and took over the white house by force, with no support from the people. Most of the country likes the job that Bush is doing... And, it's not like we don't get to vote him in/out again this year. Please, get over yourself. This is a democracy... nobody said it was perfect.

Good luck to your candidate, whoever that might be.

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen F911

Well you should because he lays the facts on the table clear as day.

slanted Bush speaches make it sound like half-truths and thin theories

I KNOW!!! That's what Michael Moore tries to point out in this movie: Bush is a truth-twisting sumbitch!

Re:Moore's critics don't care about truth

[Lovedumplingx]

"slanted Bush speaches make it sound like half-truths and thin theories"...I never wrote that phrase...how can you quote me on something I never wrote. That's what I was trying to illustrate the Michael Moore did.

Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

People are still questioning it?

Moore hopes to air the film prior to the November elections

There's your answer right there.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but there was a clear opinion expressed. F911 is material disseminated by an opponent to a poltical agenda, thus "propaganda" by definition.

It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.

The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden. They are actually very weak ties and arguments. Specifically the one with the Carlyle Group. For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/0201

Re:Propaganda

[thatguywhoiam]

The only thing I took issue with was claims about the family ties between Bush and bin Laden.

Don't be so sure just yet... Senator Graham just released a book that details a very specific occurrence dealing with the Saudi ties. Salon has a cover story today about it.

Re:Propaganda

[djcatnip]

For more information on this, I would suggest checking out the following K5 Diary entry: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/8/2/121046/0201

That article linked provides no references... references for claims are the only way you can establish credibility. What are their references? There were none listed.

Re:Propaganda

[nine-times]

It is entirely possible for something to be both truthful and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is truthfull. At least, efficient propganda is.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but it seems to me that this raises the broader question of what truth is. Some of the most efficient propaganda takes the form of telling people a number of "true facts", none of them relevant. How far can you mislead and exaggerate and obscure the truth with "facts" before it's a lie? Can two people voice two opposing points of view, and both be telling the truth? Can one person voice two opposing points of view, and be telling the truth both times? Can you build a lie out of truths? Can you build the truth out of lies?

I might adjust what you're said: "It is entirely possible for something to be both factual and propaganda. In fact, I'd venture to guess that most politically-biased material is factually correct, even when it's all lies.

Re:Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

/agree

"factual" is a better term. Now I wish I hadn't posted so I could mod your reply up.

Re:Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

Sorry. I stole it from TheRegister I believe. One word of advice though, when you require a source the majority of the time it is to bash the source as uncredible. You can call the guy who stated that up and he's still going to say the same thing, however.

You can also look up the information he claimed and find out that it was indeed denied a contract with the US military for stated rockets/missles.

Re:Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

Full text?

No offense, but Salon is not offering the full story, so I have no fricken clue what the "specific ocurrence" is. My immediate guess is that it's yet another generalization and does not have any proof of a directive from Bush himself to take a specific action.

The problem is, the Republicans played the game of "Clinton is misleading us" and etc, too. They finally caught him in a direct lie, however, and it still wasn't enough to shake him from office. Bush isn't even directly responsible (in fact, it's questionable whether or not he calls *any* shots in the White House) and yet he is blamed for many things.

I'd like to see more stuff from his own internal supporters. I want to see stuff Republicans have to say against him, not Democrats that are about to leave office and have a book deal that they intend to mooch off of for the last decades of their life.

Re:Propaganda

[thatguywhoiam]

No offense, but Salon is not offering the full story,

Shit, none taken - I forget sometimes that I have an account that is cookie'd.

I won't paste the whole interview out of respect for their work but I will quote liberally the section of greatest interest.. and it is pretty specific. This is from Senator Graham's interview:

Your investigation in Congress focused on a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who had provided extensive assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, when they lived in San Diego. You say al-Bayoumi was apparently a covert agent of the Saudi government, and from that you conclude there was official Saudi support for the plot. Yet the independent 9/11 commission came to a different conclusion. Its executive director, Philip Zelikow, has said his investigation had more access to information than yours -- including the opportunity to interview al-Bayoumi. And the commission concluded he had nothing to do with the attacks, that his contacts with the hijackers were coincidental.

Let me say that what we know about this comes primarily from FBI and CIA reports that were in the file in San Diego. And in those files, FBI agents referred to Bayoumi as being a Saudi Arabian agent or Saudi Arabian spy. In the summer of 2002, a CIA agent filed a report that said it was "incontrovertible" that terrorists were receiving assistance, financial and otherwise, from Saudis in San Diego. No. 2: Bayoumi was supposed to be working for a firm that was a subcontractor for the Saudi civil aviation authority. Yet he never showed up for work. His boss tried to fire him, and he received a letter from the Saudi civil aviation authority demanding that he be retained on their payroll despite the fact he wasn't performing any services. And the subcontracting company that employed Bayoumi was owned by a Saudi national who, according to documents seized in Bosnia, was an early financial backer of al-Qaida. Now, that's rather suspicious.

Also suspicious is the number of telephone conversations between Bayoumi and Saudi government representatives. It was a very substantial number that remains classified. Then, the event that really raised our suspicions was that shortly after Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok [Thailand] to Los Angeles [after attending an al-Qaida conference in Malaysia that resulted in their being added to a CIA watch list], Bayoumi tells various persons that he was going to Los Angeles to "pick up some visitors." He drives from San Diego to Los Angeles with a friend. His first stop in Los Angeles was at the consulate of the Saudi government, where he stays for an hour and meets with a diplomat named Fahad al-Thumairy, who subsequently was deported for terrorist-related activities.

After that one-hour meeting, he and that companion go to a Middle Eastern restaurant in Los Angeles to have lunch. They overhear Arabic being spoken at a nearby table. They invite the two young men who are at that table to come and join them. It turns out those two young men are Alhazmi and Almihdhar, two of the 9/11 terrorists. When I asked the staff director of the 9/11 commission about this, he thought it was just a coincidence that they met at this restaurant. I did some independent research. There are at least 134 Middle Eastern restaurants in Los Angeles. So the statistical odds of these two groups meeting at the same Middle Eastern restaurant at the same time are staggering.

You don't believe the meeting was a coincidence?

I'm almost certain this was a prearranged meeting. Later, Bayoumi takes the two terrorists to San Diego, where he introduces them to people who arrange for them to obtain [phony] Social Security cards and flying lessons.

Did the White House specifically request classification of the section on the Saudis?

Technically, it was done by the CIA, but it was at the direction of the White House. I cannot tell

Re:Propaganda

[Sheepdot]

Thanks, good read. The only thing I don't understand is while Clinton and Bush Senior clearly ran the show, Bush's speeches indicate he doesn't know what is going on half the time. If you ever see unedited interviews by the press, you'll see there are some really odd expressions on his face, as if a lot of obvious things are totally unknown to him.

Why would that be the case if it weren't for someone else directing these orders? I don't think it's Condi, but perhaps Cheney has more of a say in CIA and FBI-related matters and doesn't exactly let on to Bush what is going on.

I wouldn't be surprised also if this is an "out" that the Bush presidency will use to pin the blame on someone other than Bush in some future crisis, like after he is reelected. Interesting stuff to think about for me, anyway.

It's their vote...

[tarranp]

they can cast it for whatever reason they want.

Thus, if people want to be so moronic as to make their choice based on Michael Moore's filmaking that is their right, and it should not be tramelled.

In the end the voters get what they deserve.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[BAM0027]

So, what you're saying is that the media hasn't given enough support to this war effort? I find it very confusing to hear that the nation's media has been too liberal when the bottom line is that we are, and have been, supporting the president by virtue of the fact that we're still in Iraq.

I see the media presenting faux pas by both Kerry and Bush, though there seem to be more opportunities to needle Bush. Why's that? Is the media really leaving out Kerry's flubbs? Or is Bush really less articulate, less informed, and less balanced?

The only this that I can give Bush credit for is his leadership quality. I don't agree with his choices at all, but if he did make decisions that I agreed with, I'd be very confident that he would be able to make things happen.

Too bad he's a sexist, homophobic warmonger.

Republican National Convention

[savagedome]

The most overheard thing at RNC was "I am telling you one last time, NO. I haven't seen that documentary".

Well, this will take care of it.

*grin*

Opposing ploy theory

[Anonymous Coward]

In my area, there are several people that believe that Osama Bin Laden will be caught about a week before the election. Would Moore's showing be any different than the Bush administration parading such a capture right before election day? Such people don't doubt that Bin Laden is already in the hands of the US government, and that he's being held until the time is right to win the election. It's a bit of a stretch as far as conspiracy theories go, but it seems to be a similar ploy to showing an anti-Bush movie around the same intended time. Both are just desperate grabs for votes from opposing political parties.

contact info?

[dirvish]

Who is his home video distributor? I would like to contact them to encourage them to allow the documentary to be shown on TV before the election.

Re:contact info?

[dirvish]

I think it is Lions Gate Entertainment and IFC, here is the contact info I have found so far for them:

Lions Gate Entertainment
2700 Colorado Ave., Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 449-9200

The Independent Film Channel LLC
200 Jericho Quadrangle
Jericho, NY 11753
US

IFC is a subsidiary of Cablevision

Re:Hell yeah

[linuxpng]

I honestly don't like either candidate, but I have to say.. those who like Bush the least are the loudest.

Which poll?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm seeing Time and Newsweek both with an 11% margin. Where is your poll, please?

Electoral college to the rescue...

[Anonymous Coward]

And people wonder why they keep the electoral college?

Documentary?

[brxndxn]

The film should not be called a documentary. I believe the proper term is satire, though I am unsure. I just can't understand how this film could be called a documentary. When I watch the cute lil' animals roam across the desert, that is a documentary. When I watch a film made by a liberal nutjob who says our President is the most evil man in America, I can't help but feel it's wrong to call it a documentary.

Although, it seems today that is almost perfectly fine to present the news completely one-sided. I'll admit, I'm a Republican that watches Fox. Though, I watch CNN too... and even read Michael Moore's articles. I just haven't agreed with anything I have ever heard Michael Moore say. He would blame metal for any murder involving a gun.

Re:Documentary?

[Lovedumplingx]

Technically, and even Michael Moore stated this when questioned, F9/11 is an Op-Ed piece. Moore admitted, when certain questions were presented to him, that many of the things in the film were his opinions and therefore it was not a documentary but an Op-Ed piece.

Vote Badnarik!!

Re:Documentary?

[Christian Claiborn]

Nonsense. Documentaries, even and especially the best ones, are full of opinions. Check out Errol Morris' "The Thin Blue Line," or Murrow's "Harvest of Shame." If you want to redefine "documentary" such that it means "films with no subjective judgments," then go ahead. But you can't expect people who know something about documentaries to go along with you.

Re:Documentary?

[Lovedumplingx]

I was just relaying the fact that Moore himself referred to the film as an Op-Ed piece when questioned about it's status as a documentary.

Re:Documentary?

[Christian Claiborn]

Yes, but "op-ed" and "documentary" aren't mutually exclusive. You can have documentaries that are both ("Outfoxed," or "Waco: The Rules of Engagement") or documentaries that aren't op-eds ("Winged Migration.")

Here's the reference backing this up...

[SemperUbi]

Why would this invalidate his Best Documentary status?

Because in order to qualify for Best Documentary, the film must not have been shown on television prior to the award.

Here's the link and the relevant paragraph:

"The only problem with my desire to get this movie in front of as many Americans as possible is that, should it air on TV, I will NOT be eligible to submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for Academy Award consideration for Best Documentary. Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release (fiction films do not have the same restriction)." -- Michael Moore

essay on michaelmoore.com

Holy logical fallacy, Batman

[kulakovich]

And I am going to "forgoe" my election to Ruler of The World by eating this sammich.

kulakovich

Re:Liberal media is teh suck *ALARM* *ALARM*

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad TROLL ALERT! * You have been IDENTIFIED AS A INADEQUATE TROLL * STOP Posting * STOP Posting *

Well...

[Singletoned]

Not having seen it yet, I can say that it's definitely changed the way I'm going to vote...

Re:Well...

[Rei]

Uh huh, and I suppose you're going to back that claim up with more than mere speculation.... ?

Re:Well...

[iceperson]

Take a look here.

What It Really All Comes Down To

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hate Democrats, you vote Republican. If you hate Republicans, you vote Democrat.

This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[slashkitty]

Dictionary.com defines "lie" as:

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

There are many clear false impressions and distortion of facts. The movie may take many facts and quotes, but it produces lies by deceiving the viewers. If you haven't read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, you should.

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."

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[mabu]

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."

I'm glad you brought this up. This is a PERFECT example of right-wing propaganda. Technically it's true, but ONLY because GORE DIDN'T REQUEST AN ENTIRE FLORIDA RECOUNT... only select precincts. Had an ENTIRE STATEWIDE RECOUNT been done, GORE WOULD HAVE WON. This is a fact.

You inject the seemingly innocuous "recounts sought by Gore" to pervert the idea that Bush would have won under any circumstance, when this is completely misleading.

Michael Moore's claim in the movie is 100% true. You insert additional wording that wasn't there to imply otherwise. That's disgraceful, misleading and completely wrong.

This is a classic example of how the right twists things to convey ultimately inaccurate information.

The issue that people care about is whether Gore would have won Florida had ALL the votes been counted. YES HE WOULD and this has been proven. The republicans' claim this isn't true by playing semantical word games and distorting the truth.

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[slashkitty]

Oh.. caps, you must be mad! I won't respond to your screams with lies.

The fact is, under the scenario that played out, Bush won! The proof of course is that he is president. I know that you don't believe that, but that is the truth. Maybe in your fantasy land, Gore is POTUS.

I think that Gore was an idiot in not requesting a full state recount. That is the truth!

" Had an ENTIRE STATEWIDE RECOUNT been done, GORE WOULD HAVE WON. This is a fact."

That is not a fact, that is a prediction. It didn't happen, so it is not a fact. Based on some theories and on some research some people think that Gore would have won with a full state recount. That is the fact.

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[mabu]

No sense arguing over and over on this, but I think you are wrong. You cannot find any evidence to substantiate your case which isn't either wholly speculative in nature, or takes into account a subset of Florida, which is a distraction and not the truth. There are plenty of references available.

In any case, there was never a thorough audit that was officially accepted - that much is true, because the reality is after the Supreme Court made their decision, there were a lot of powers that didn't want any more digging to be done. The American people were the real losers.

I do agree with you though, that Gore screwed up in not fighting this issue more thoroughly.

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[slashkitty]

I'm not sure which of my statements are are saying is wrong. Please pick one:

1. Bush won the election.

2. Based on some theories and on some research some people think that Gore would have won with a full state recount.

The fact is, not ALL scenarios of vote counts point to one canidate, like Moore states in the movie. You can add stipulations and say things like: "If I was the only voter in Florida, then GORE would have won the election under all scenarios." however, you can't remove the stipulation and still be true and say: "GORE would have won the election under all scenarios." It "IF" is a clearly big determining factor in the logic of the statement. You can't remove it, like Moore did, and still be logical. The nerd in me reports for duty!

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure which of my statements are are saying is wrong. Please pick one:

Perhaps you should list *ALL* of the statements, instead of only two of them.

But then that would allow him to show that he's right.

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

"IF" is a clearly big determining factor in the logic of the statement. You can't remove it, like Moore did, and still be logical.

You seem to be a little short on logic yourself.

Adding "IF" to a statement does not automatically make it not logical. That's why IF statements in programming languages control the "PROGRAM LOGIC".

Here's a fact for you:

"*IF* I walk to the A&W to buy lunch, instead of having my cp-worker pick up my order for me, I will burn more calories."

This is a *FACT*. If you believe otherwise (which you might - as evidenced by your support for Shurbya, you're not the sharpest tack in the drawer) you need to finish fourth grade.

Re:This film is full of lies... made from facts.

[zenyu]

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."

That's interesting because they are using a truth deceptively. Any partial recount asked for by Gore would have had the same result, but a full recount, as ordered by the final order of the Florida Supreme Court would have been a win for Gore. This is under any standard, hanging chads or no.

It was not the result that mattered, it was the perversion of our democratic tradition. Both candidates were asshats, and the country was essentially tied, Gore only had something like a 2 million margin over Bush in the popular vote, that's basically statistical noise. The whole Florida election should have been thrown out because of the tens of thousands of Floridians who were kept from the polls with roadblocks or told that they were ineligable to vote, when they were legally on the rolls. Then the vote would have either been sent to the Florida legislature or the national legislature and Bush would been chosen for the presidency. But he would have had the office legitimately.

Damn straight, my brother

[revscat]

The only thing the Bush campaign seems to be able to offer is fear. Since their record is so freaking pathetic, this is small wonder. "9/11! Terrorists! Be afraid of change! Be afraid of Kerry! Fear! FEAR! FEAR!"

Screw that. Kerry is the man.

Re:Damn straight, my brother

[Max Threshold]

Kerry is the man.

I wouldn't go that far, but at least he's not The Man.

Re:Damn straight, my brother

[bofkentucky]

I heard I'm getting tax cuts made permanent, entitlement reform, tax reform (hopefully fairtax), the assualt weapons ban sunsetting, private medical and retirement accounts, and anti-abortion supreme court justices if I vote for Bush, and I believe he will deliver. Kerry has promised tax increases, more socialized health care, and a pullout in Iraq if he can get the french and germans to commit troops, again, I believe he'll deliver on 2 of 3, he isn't going to get the Germans and French to go to Iraq unless they are siphoning oil under the table, but by hell he will kill this recovery with a tax increase.

Re:Damn straight, my brother

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how does Sean Hannity's cock taste this morning? You must get a little thrill every time you turn on the radio to get your marching orders about how to think and who to hate. Who is it this week? Fags? The French? Unitarians?

You realize, don't you, that our entire country got fucked up the ass by Ahmed Chalabi, and you're saying we should reward the idiots who got scammed and did the scamming?

emotions vs. thought

[rbird76]

If the elections had been about rational choices in the first place, the person who wrote the description of this posting would have a reasonable point. However, the main flash points of presidential elections (or at least the issues that seemed to have most affected voter opinions and outcomes) have little to do with rational selection of presidential candidates. Furloughs and Willie Horton and VP Quayle's National Guard service to Clinton's affairs to Kerry's "falsification" of his records (and perhaps job loss for GWB - depending on how much one believes he and his appointees have influenced it and in what way), elections have been focused successfully on emotional issues and displacing other (perhaps) more substantive issues.

Given this history, it makes sense for MM to try to do what he is doing, since it has been employed by others in slightly different ways to good effect. Let his opponents argue against it (and perhaps others counterargue it); maybe they don't want to, but give them a chance to. Showing F911 might help people to vote for GWB or Kerry for the right reasons - they can at least see what Moore claims, and what others say is untrue, and people can decide.

Then again, it may be moot, because I don't see him getting the time.

Speechless

[Itsik]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/b ush/bush_tsg.mov

Voting based on emotions

[Anonymous Coward]

...by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Oh please. I find it hard to believe that about 50% of Americans are so fucking stupid as to vote for Bush again for any reason other than "emotions." I refuse to believe it. If there really are that many idiots in the U.S., y'all deserve whatever you get.

If airing F9/11 on the eve of the election influences enough people to vote for Kerry over Bush, that means only very good things for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

"Liberal" media is a lie

[slusich]

I don't feel that having F911 air is any more inappropriate then allowing all of the talk radio people continually talk about what a great man Bush is. It's all a matter of free speech, which should be protected. That being said, I have serious doubts that the film will ever be shown on a major network. The "Liberal Media" tag has been thrown around for far too long by people who are so far to the right they no longer understand where the center may be. The truth is that most of the media is controlled by large corporations who stand to gain nothing by allowing someone in office who might restrict them from growing their monopolies. For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride. No serious investigations have been done into his past, despite allegations of conduct much worse then anything Clinton was ever accused of. Bush has been allowed to change his position over and over again and still point the finger at Kerry for being indecisive. The total time spent airing the RNC vs. the DNC should show whose side the media really is on.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[brufleth]

I agree. Maybe it was just my area but at any given moment there seemed to be about three times as many stations covering the RNC than the DNC. Then when you tuned in you saw a angry looking white guy badgering guests about how great the GOP is. It was weird. They didn't question things so much as they all held pep rallies.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm not sure if Democrats can be considered corporate-unfriendly. Democrats voted for DMCA, PATRIOT, copyright extentios and other "favorite" bad laws, almost unanimously.

Every poll I've known about showed a strong Democratic support from journalists.

You do have a point, but I think the unwillingness to investigate has been around a loooong time, it mostly seems stronger now because they've been humiliated so long they don't bother trying.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[haggar]

For the last 4 years, the media has given Bush a free ride.

Is this even true? Looking from Europe, I see that all the media are pro-democrat, except FOX. All the shows have Bush, Cheney and the rest constantly on the floor: Conan O'Bryen, Jay Leno, MSNBC.

FOX seems to attract a lot of indignation, but I question whether it's because it's so biased, or because it's the only one biased in a different direction. In other words: is it possible that hard-core democrats can't stand one single voice of opposition? It looked so, seeing some of the protests during the republican convention.

I am aware that my view is very unusual for a European, but I am a European who came from an ex-communics country, so I developed a refined smell for bullshit.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Shajenko42]

Every poll I've known about showed a strong Democratic support from journalists.

Ok, so the journalists are mostly Democratic, but their bosses are mostly Republican. Guess who decides what gets shown?

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[multimed]

I don't think the "Liberal Media" tag is a lie. It is a overexaggeration and gross generalization, but not a blatant lie. While it may have been true in the past that big business media companies sided more with the Republican party, the times have changed. Look at 2004 Presidential Sector Totals In the Communications/Electronics sector, Kerry has received $6,106,322 to Bush's $4,645,976. There isn't a full breakdown yet for the industries but if 2000 is an indication, the TV/Movie/Music industries will also contribute more to Kerry than Bush. The fact is both parties seem to be equally cozy pandering to big business and the media and the favor is returned.

And while the large corporations that "control" much of the media have been hedging their bets to both parties the last few elections, on an individual level, journalists as a group certainly slant more to the left. Do they try to be objective? I think on the whole they try their best to best. But spend time at a journalism school and tell me there aren't more journalists whose personal opinions are more aligned with the liberals vs. the conservatives.

How about the AP article that ran last week about the crowd in West Allis, WI where "thousands booed and Bush did nothing to stop them," when Bush wished Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from his heart surgery. Only thing is it never happened. And they never actually retracted their story, instead just reissuing two different updated ones. It was a blatant lie--I've heard from people who were actually there.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

The total time spent airing the RNC vs. the DNC should show whose side the media really is on.

Funny, living in NYC, it seemed to me that all the local affiliates dropped everything to show the DNC, but they'd only show parts of the RNC, even stopping in order to show the local news (at least some of the channels). And the RNC was in NYC. Did it seem that way to anyone else?

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent post. Well stated, rational, and asks a legitimate question.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the major three television networks even bothered to air the RNC the opening night.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Corbets]

Indeed. Which major networks showed the RNC again? And which ones showed the DNC? I'd do a little research on that - if you don't get cable, you didn't see the RNC!

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[AK Marc]

I'd do a little research on that - if you don't get cable, you didn't see the RNC!

That's a lie (at least here). The local stations carried both in about equal numbers.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

You do have a point, but I think the unwillingness to investigate has been around a loooong time

I agree. I remember being a kid and being filled with romantic tales of investigative reporters who were more like private-eyes and found the hidden truths. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but these days it seems like they don't even have fact-checkers. They just parrot, word for word, the public statements, and then report whatever the other media corporations are reporting, without ever checking to see if it's true. I don't think it's a Republican/Democrat issue, I think it's an issue of news agencies being incompetant. But maybe it's just my perception. After all, I don't know about how news agencies work except, well, how it's described by the media.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

Ok, so the journalists are mostly Democratic, but their bosses are mostly Republican. Guess who decides what gets shown?

Republican, Democrat... most of the bosses of the world are greedy and/or ambitious. They don't care what you print, so long as it sells newspapers. The single biggest slant in the media? Giving viewers what they want. We want 24 hour coverage of the trials of Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart, but a revolution halfway around the world... what revolution? All the political mud-slinging? It's like a car wreck. People might not like to see it, but they won't stop looking on.

So, you bring the readers/viewers, those bosses won't care.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

But NYC is a liberal town. Why would you expect your experiences there to be representative of the nation as a whole? Try living in Cincinnati or Greenville for a while. Your perspective would be quite different.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Broadcast is seen as just another good for consumers-I don't mind that for enteraiment.

For info and politics airwaves should belong to the people and serve them, instead of being self-serving. Much of talk-radio and media like Moore's is exploitive.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

PBS showed the entire RNC and DMC. Well not the entire convention, but all major speakers for each. So, um if you can get PBS you can see the conventions, you don't have to have cable, luckily.

In my opinion they didn't try to force feed any spin down your throat.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction, they showed no DMC,the one you know, he is the all time great but did not steal the show. I meant DNC :p

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

Well, for one thing, part of the reason I mentioned that I was in NYC was because I was sure it would be handled differently in different places, and that I would surely be getting one end of the spectrum.

However, most of the "national media" in this country are based in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. All very liberal. So saying "But NYC is a liberal town" doesn't quite cut it. You're getting the same liberal media I am, you're just getting some local conservative media, too.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

In other words: is it possible that hard-core democrats can't stand one single voice of opposition?

Democrats do like to pretend to be the party protecting your rights- freedom of speech foremost- all the way up until you say something they don't like. Then you need to be taken off the air for "spreading lies" and arrested for "hate speech". If everything out of your mouth isn't politically correct, you're suddenly Hitler and they'll shout with glee when they finally figure out how to ruin your life.

/not Republican, just think 'hippie' must be short for 'hypocritical'

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[KeeperS]

All the shows have Bush, Cheney and the rest constantly on the floor: Conan O'Bryen, Jay Leno, MSNBC.

I can't comment on the rest of your post, since I'm not from Europe, but keep in mind that Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, and all those other late night talk show hosts are comedians. I used to spend a lot of time watching late night television, and let me tell you, they'll rag on anybody for a laugh. If the Republicans have been have been made fun of more than anybody else lately, it's probably because there's more to talk about with them. They're the ones in power, and thus there's more material from them.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you clearly know more about my local media than I do after living here for 27 out of 32 years. Please. I'm getting "some local conservative media" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage, except of course that they're not local at all, as you well know. The local guys, even in my town, can't hold a candle to the viciousness of these anti-left, nationally syndicated hosts. The most liberal (or rather, least conservative) voice I can find on my dial is Don Imus. And him only on a station broadcasting from another city, 30 miles away.

As for the rest of your argument, your original post specifically mentioned ONLY your local affiliates. Which are of course not at all the same thing as the national media. So, at best, you are changing the subject.

Your (new) argument seems to be that the national media is liberal because it's headquartered largely in liberal cities. Such an argument is so incomplete that it's not even worthy of a rebuttal. The Bush administration is headquartered in one of those same liberal cities, if you haven't noticed; what difference has it made?

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[kaitou]

hear hear!

I am from a communist country myself, and a US citizen now, and I get the same feeling you do, looking over the mainstream US media.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[nine-times]

Ah, you clearly know more about my local media than I do after living here for 27 out of 32 years....As for the rest of your argument, your original post specifically mentioned ONLY your local affiliates. Which are of course not at all the same thing as the national media. So, at best, you are changing the subject.

Nope. Just settle down a little, and try to understand what I mean before you try to hand me my head. When I talked about "your local media" what I meant was your local affilliates, since you seemed to be claiming that your local affilliates showed the RNC more than the DNC. Was that not the claim?

Anyhow, I didn't make any argument in my "original" post. Reread the thread. Someone said, "The media isn't slanted. If you want proof, who got more coverage, the RNC or DNC?" I responded "Where I am, the DNC."

To that, you (I'm assuming, since both are anonymous cowards) said it didn't count because that's only where I am is liberal. If I were someplace else, like where you are (I'm assuming that was implied), it coverage would be different. I admitted that fact, since it was implied in what I was say. (it's worth mentioning that the same goes for you. If you were somewhere else, coverage would be different). However, I added one point- still not an argument, but perhaps a rebuttal. You were saying my local affilliates don't count, because they're in New York. My statement was this: it's not irrelevant how things are covered in New York, because you get a lot of your news from the liberal media in New York. When you watch the national news on TV, it's usually from NYC and DC. When you read the newspaper, it's usually from NYC and DC. The news culture in those cities has a tremendous effect on news coverage around the country.

It seems that you're the one changing your argument, so much so that I wouldn't know where to begin argument if I wanted to. All I've done so far in this e-mail is to restate the conversation up until now.

Your (new) argument seems to be that the national media is liberal because it's headquartered largely in liberal cities

No, that wasn't what I was saying. I am saying that you have access to New York news in a way that I don't have access to Greenville news. However, now that you mention it, if you concede that New York news affiliates are liberal, and it's quite clear that New York news culture is very influential on the rest of the country, that might be an explanation of why many news organizations have a liberal slant. I don't think it's proof they do have a liberal slant, but yes, you've offered an interesting explanation of why they would.

The Bush administration is headquartered in one of those same liberal cities, if you haven't noticed

Are you serious? What, you think that because the Bush administration is in power... what? I can't even guess how you think that works. So... a city turns Republican if there are Republicans working in that city? The Mayor of New York is Republican, and that's been true for a while. And Bush doesn't even have anything directly to do with the running of DC. Or... what, do you think that whatever political party takes power in the federal government, the entire city of DC magically takes that political orientation? Maybe you should get out of that place that you've lived 27 out of 32 years, and see the world. Learn a bit more. Stop being so silly and angry.

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[A55M0NKEY]

George Bush, Marion Berry, what's the difference?

Re:"Liberal" media is a lie

[haggar]

Good! One of the things that most annoyed me in the previous system (now my homecountry has "changed") was the unabashed attacks agaisnt the single dissenting voice, under the banner of "the people's opinion" and "proletariat democracy".

I am no friend of FOX, but when I see the demonstrators picketing FOX I think to myself: hey, these people have all the other media on their side, why not leave this one alone? They can't stand it.

Troll??

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? This is why a political section on Slashdot will never work with this moderation system. They only moderate things that support their own opinion. I thought this was an excellent point.

Go Michael

[dave420]

There are no lies in the film, just points republicans really, really don't want brought up in public. This is total sour grapes from the republicans - a message that logically counters ever piece of crap they've been spewing out ever since 9/11. The republicans have been waging an emotive war over the American people, using fear and the boogieman to get citizens to stand by and not question what they're doing. Speak to a random group of Americans, and lots will tell you Saddam was personally involved in 9/11, or that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction (and that we found them). That's the depth of their bullshit. Their spin machine is so good, they can make half-truths sink in like whole ones, and just come out and lie to the media, and no-one seems to care. For questioning the president would automatically make you a terrorist, and that's no good. Just look at how they're dealing with Kerry - another good example of their misdirection. Kerry, a decorated war veteran, having his character assassinated by Bush, who spent that time drinking, having token jobs, doing drugs, micturating on automobiles and screaming at police officers. That assassination is being screamed from the rooftops by republicans do draw attention away from the real issues, which Bush has no argument for. You can't spin a $500bn defecit into something good. You can't make massive job losses look beneficial. There is only so long you can trick the public into thinking economic growth is just round the corner. The War on Terror? It can't be won by killing people. You can't bomb ideas. Invading Iraq has given everyone with an axe to grind with the US a perfect excuse to lash out. Bush even kindly told them to "bring it on" and attack US troops. Nice work. Bush has single-handedly made the world a much more dangerous place, the US especially. Kerry has Bush beaten on all of those points, yet his pro-USA rhetoric surrounding them has blinded the faithful. The republican voters lap it up without questioning anything. They're not thinking for themselves. When I've spoken to republicans, face to face, they spew out the same hackneyed "facts" and figures, which if they spent 2 minutes researching on the internet, they'd find out were completely pulled out of some guy's ass. phew.

Anyway, this film will open some eyes, hopefully those of republicans who vote that way because of their parents, not because they've actually sat down and thought about it. If you love America, whatever your political affiliation, you should see that film. It's in some small way an antidote to at least some of the crap that's filling the airwaves these days.

Re:Go Michael

[dave420]

Troll? You mean slashdot moderators are modding things down they don't agree with? The horror! I never thought I'd see that on slashdot. Usually the moderators are so on-the-money it's not even funny.

;)

Re:Go Michael

[member57]

The facts are facts, Kerry is weak on defense, period, he missed over 70% of the intel. briefings. So how can he run the country ignorant, like you? There are people in this world that hate our way of life. Have you forgotten 9/11/2001? The bombings of the Cole, the first Trade Center attack? We are at war with an enemy that has no real country, but a collection of beliefs. Kerry has no real firm beliefs, and doesn't stand for anything, accept directly against Bush. Kerry has no substance, no CORE values. Example, Kerry stated that he would realign troops overseas, possibly moving some FROM S. Korea. This interview was on Aug. 1. Aug 7, Bush stated his policy of realigning troops, which included moving troops from S. Korea. Kerry attacked Bush basically saying that it was stupid to move troops from S. Korea. There is an example of flip-flopping that Kerry is infamous for. He denounced a policy that a few days before BUSH announced it, he was for. Kerry is an idiot, anybody that votes for him is too. BTW Bush has not made the world any more dangerous than the it already was. I'm sure Bush had something to do with 300+ CHILDREN killed in Beslan, riiiiight.... It is idiots like you that do not understand or comprehend what we are against, these islamic terrorists kill innocent children, and would jump at the chance to kill you and your children too. Bush in this case is the lesser of all evils combined. I would rather have terrorists attacking our TRAINED warriors than our children in schools, hadn't you? I was one of those warriors, for 9 years my job was protecting idiots like you from yourselves so you could slander and spew you rhetoric outta you ass like you claim someone else does. I think for myself, not let some elitist socialist make a "documentary" and claim it's the holy grail of truth. The ONLY way to win the "War on Terror" is to KILL THEM before they kill you, that is all they understand. Are you a f**ing idiot? THEY BLOW THEMSELVES UP! I mean WTF are you thinking? Are you not informed, have ever talked with one of these whackos? Do you understand? They would kill Michael Moore, you, your children, you parents, everybody you know and love rather than look at you. You can't "deal" with them, they only understand one way, their way, or you die, period, end of story.

Re:Go Michael

[dave420]

Kerry isn't the president. He doesn't need intel briefings as much as the president.

Anyway, how is that weak on defense? You can't argue that Bush is strong on defense? He's cutting benefits for soldiers, not funding them enough for equipment (hence missing interceptor bullet proof jackets).

"There are people ... who hate our way of life". No, there are people who hate America dicking on parts of the world with no respect for others. Do you seriously think people hate the ideas of "freedom" and "democracy"? Of course they don't. I've not forgotten 9/11, that's why I'm so pissed off. Bush only gave the investigation $3m. Does that sound like enough to you? America is at war with the enemy, because America started the war. It's that simple. American meddling in the middle east, funding of various rebel factions, charging Saudi Arabia over $50bn dollars for protection in the first gulf war, leaving US troops on Islamic holy ground, etc. Things like that the US does out of purely selfish motives really piss people off. Would you like it?

Kerry has no firm beliefs? Where did you read that gem? No core values? He's iterated dozens of times his beliefs and core values. Every single person on the face of this world has firm beliefs and core values. The only difference between Bush and Kerry on that is that when Kerry learns something new, he'll actually act on it, and change his beliefs if necessary. Bush will just keep on running, even if he knows it's the wrong way. You can call it flip-flopping, but normal people call it "learning". Say it with me, "learning". That didn't hurt, did it?

Bush has made the world more dangerous. Only a complete bufoon would say otherwise. I don't remember Iraq being awash with armed militias before he swanned in there. I don't remember terrorists flooding into Iraq when Saddam was there. You can't argue with those facts. Of course Bush didn't have anything to do with what happened in Beslan - I never said anything of the sort. He doesn't have his hand in every violent episode in current affairs, just the ones he's personally instigated. Please at least try to read a newspaper. I know full well what we're up against. I've read the manifestos of the terrorist organisations, so I know their grievances. You just think "they hate freedom!" and resign yourself to spending the rest of your life looking over your shoulder. The US army has killed hundreds of innocent children in Iraq - by your logic, that makes them terrorists too. See how flawed your world perspective is? It doesn't surprise me you were one of those "warriors" (funny, I don't remember Warriors killing thousands of innocent civilians) - you seem to not question anything your superior has to say.

If you think for yourself, why can you stand for Bush? He's cutting your benefits, and sending people like you out to Iraq underprotected, ill-informed, and into a situation they can't win, all because he wanted some money.

Iraq never had weapons of mass distruction before we went in. Saddam wasn't dangerous. How you think Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror shows exactly how much you think for yourself. It's scary.

If you think the US will win the war on terror by invading countries that have nothing to do with terrorism, unsettling them, causing more people to up arms against the US, you really haven't read much history. It's all been tried before, and none of it works.

The terrorists are normal people, like you and I. They've been through something so harrowing they have had their world perspective altered to such a degree they would kill themselves for what they believe in. You'd do the same if you went through it. Saying "kill 'em all!" enforces the stereotypes these people are so pissed off with, and makes many people want to blow the US up more.

I guarantee I'm more informed and more well-read than you. It's not being elitist, I can clearly see you get your news from Fox, or straight from whitehouse.gov.

Your world perspective is immenseley immature, and I really feel sorry for you. Go to the library and read a book or two. It doesn't hurt after a few hundred pages.

Re:Go Michael

[member57]

He was on the advisory commitee for intel. So yes, he needed to be there. Actaully the military couldn't get enough armor because of Clinton era raping of the military budget, and we were playing catch-up with supplies and material. The military now is getting the material needed after congress allotted more funds, something which you beloved Kerry voted against. So yes, he is weak. He has been on the wrong side on history for many years. Actaully yes they do hate freedom and democracy, these teaching are in direct conflict with their beliefs, look at how they treat their own women and children. If the people have a voice, the imams, etc have no power because they want to oppress, and people don't want to be opressed. So in your views, we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait, a soveriegn country and keep brutalizing Iraqis? So we should leave the 2nd largest proven oil reserve in the hands of a brutal dictator, he has already proven he can't be trusted, 19 UN resolutions have said so. Has has been a major agressor in the region of nearly 30 years, what whould he have been like if would have kept Kuwait? Wait until #20, #21, #22? What was your solution, Mr. Well Read? The reason there were no uprisings is because the people were terrifed, he ruled with an iron fist. Are you blind or deaf? America funded the end to Soviet Russia, that is why we were "meddling" in the Middle East, READ YOUR HISTORY... We helped Osama bin Whacko, then he gets mad at us for "occupying" Saudia Arabia and declares war(jihad) on the US in the EARLY 1990's. BTW, how do you know if terrorist were "flooding" into Iraq? Were you there? If not, STFU. YOU have no facts about terrorists, or WMD in Iraq. You only have what has been fed to you. We could win this war quite easily, we could really mop them up, but then we would be unpopular for being too brutal, so what are we supposed to do? It's easy to critize, but hard to find a solution isn't it? I'm still scratchin my head about Bush getting money for invading Iraq.. WTF, you have a tinhat view, it's all about oil, money, goats, whatever with you lefties. You say I have an altered POV? Let's see, he conspired with Bin Whacko to MURDER 2800 civilians, ummm invade Afghanistan, Invade Iraq, ummm yeah, that the ticket... How does he profit? I know you say Haliburton, or whatever. Can you name a service company that has the resources and ability to do what Haliburton can do? I didn't think so... If not, start one up and you can have a conspiracy all your own. I'm sure US soldiers went out of their way to shoot children and chidren. I was referring to the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. Plus, you stated that the WORLD was a more dangerous place.. You, like most lefties (Michael Moore), distort and take out of context what is really being said or done. The unfortunate truth about war is that people die. Those who don't have the sense to get out of the way, or those caught up in the moment have a tendency to get killed, and it breaks my heart. The ones left might have a better chance than under the rule of Saddam. You have read their manifestos, oooo, you are sooooo more well read than I, I bow to you... I guess a manifesto makes it OK to target and kill innocent civilians? Well heck that explains it all.. You can read all their manifestos all you want, they are cowards. If they want to fight, come out and do it. We liberted ourselves in 1776 with squirrel guns against the biggest army of that time period. Want to talk about beliefs, in that time period it wasn't all that uncommon for thousnds to die in a single battle. Imagine facing a line of soldiers with muskets aimed at you, that's balls boy, balls... IF they really want change, stop targeting civilians, treat their people well, then the west MIGHT open a dialogue. Bin Whacko basically ruined whatever little bit of sentiment he had when he instigated 9/11. It's not strife that has driven to their homicide bombing, it's their religion or perverted version of it. You ask if I had been there you would be the same, that's a hypothetical question,

Re:Go Michael

[dave420]

The Clinton Era raped the military budget? What about the BILLIONS Bush got from Congress for hardware? Why didn't he put a bit aside for body armor? What is Bush doing, if he can't even protect the troops he says he likes so much.

"They" don't hate freedom and democracy. Find me texts that prove it. Those are just lies spread by the people you look up to to justify running around the middle east looking for oil. Believe it if you want, you'll see what's really up soon enough. I never once said Saddam should have been allowed Kuwait - never. Of course not. He's impinging on a sovreign nation, just as the US impinged on Saudi Arabia.

I wouldn't get started on UN resolutions - the US has vetoed more than just 19, which shows that on 19 counts, the US acted against the will of the international community. Those are facts you can't argue over or spin - they're in black and white. Saddam wasn't a major aggressor in the region for 30 years. Since '92 he had no military, and no money to get a new one. If he was so dangerous, why weren't other nations in the area scared of him?

What you write about Afghanistan is true - the US funded Bin Laden, then pissed him off after the first gulf war, and ever since then Bin Laden has been trying to get the US out of Saudi Arabia (where Mecca is, the holiest of cities in Islam). We know terrorists are moving into Iraq, as Saddam Hussein was a moderate Muslim, and the terrorists detested him for it. Due to that lack of friendship, Saddam used all sorts of military power to keep them out. Once you remove Saddam, all the terrorists enraged against the US's poor handling of the Iraqi "liberation" had nothing stopping them coming into Iraq. The US military couldn't stop them, and the Iraqi national guard was disbanded by Bush, so it couldn't do it either. Those, too, are facts, which you can check out for yourself. I have more facts than you do, including the fact the US has been running around Iraq for over a year now, and still hasn't found ANY WMDs. That's a pretty good indication there aren't any. Even Bush and Blair have said they don't think they'll find any. I have only that which I read in many media sources, from books, from the internet. You have only that you read on the cover of TV Weekly, or on Fox.

The US can't win the war on terror. Look - it ran into Iraq, and got its ass handed to it on a plate. It's getting its ass handed to it in Afghanistan, too. The US military is only good against targets they can pick out. Once you're fighting against ideas spreading through a population, the only way to kill the ideas is to kill everyone, then hope no-one is so pissed off that you killed everyone that they fight you instead. The only way for the US to win the war is to kill EVERYONE on the face of the planet. What is the US supposed to do? Get out of Saudi Arabia. It's that simple. The US shouldn't have been there in the first place, and knew what it was doing when it stayed. It really is that simple.

How does Bush profit from the Iraq war? You can't see? He's invaded a counry with the world's 2nd-largest oil reserves, and did it in such a poor manner that oil prices have sky-rocketed. Now, Bush is in control of those oilfields, and with the inflated price of oil, stands to make a lot of money through "donations" from oil companies. Halliburton is also a source for the money, and if you did some reading, you'd see they charge ridiculous amounts for projects (like charging $20m for something the Iraqi builders constructed for $80,000). That money goes straight into their pockets. It's not about what Halliburton does, but how they do it, and how they charge for it. Please read up on how your tax dollars (the same ones that could EASILY buy the bullet-proof vests) are being wasted.

The US soldiers spare no thought for those they kill. They used attack helicopters to strafe appartment buildings, because they were fired at from somewhere in the same town. The term "collateral damage" has appeared in the med

Re:Go Michael

[member57]

I can type for hours as to why Bush had to spend billions to get the military out of the sad shape it was in after the Clinton raping. Does 35% combat readiness mean anything to you? We were at 90%+ in 1992 even after a major conflict, after the Clinton Administration got done we were at 35% by 1998, I KNOW, I was there... I know many, many pilots and soldiers, and know for a fact that they would not intentionally target civilians, suggesting so is a further sign of your ignorance of reality.
Go tell your "argument" to those parents of those children that had wires run through clothing to trip bombs. Convince them why islamic radicals killed their children in cold blood, I don't think they really care... Terrorists ARE BAD, I DON'T care what they want or who they are, IRA, Hamas, Hezbolah, etc. They should be stopped or shown a better way to negotiate.
My argument may be fatally flawed, but yours is just plain fatal. You THINK you know, but it's all politics, so does having a "manifesto" still make it right to target UNARMED civilians? Does "understanding" why they do it make killing children accepatble? What if we do decide to meet their demands? Will they stop? History says NO. They don't even treat their own people well, what make you think they want us be be well? I refuse to listen to their demands, why should I? I really don't care, honestly, until they stop killing innocent people. Get out of Saudi Arabia? Why, so they can take it over too? What makes you think they will stop there? How about evicting the Jews? Heck why not, they WERE there before Islam kicked them out, but what the heck that's what they want. Their perverted form of religion commissions them to eliminate the infidels. So what make you believe they will stop? They got what they wanted. They won't stop until all women are wearing burkas. I once had a talk with an ethnic Egyptian, you want to know what he called the muslin "call to prayer?" He called it the sound of an occupied country. Wake up, this IS a fight for survival for "infidels." I never said killing was OK. Killing in defense is justified, again, we don't have soldiers getting on buses and blowing people up, that is not a policy of the US, but radical islamists, it is, you can't argue that.. Death make me sad.
Exactly when have "those people" had their asses handed to them? YOU are mistaken. The only ones I can think of are the British in 1776 and 1812. The US in Vietnam because of politics. Sodamn Insane in 1991, the French capitiluation in 1939, the impotent League of Nations when Hitler built back hi military and invaded Austria. Oh, which was an "international" (Like the UN) consensus that let him do it. That's just off the top of my head... Humm.... Lets see, recent (last 100 years) history dictates that the US has been on the correct side of history most of the time. How funny, we haven't REALLY had our asses handed to us have we? I think we have handed a few out. BTW, you are the one that brought up history, now you are flip flopping saying history was wrong.(Spouting throught history.., etc..)
YES RADICAL ISLAM is to blame, who the hell is attacking us, I don't see any Buddists, Hindus, Harry Krishnas, etc. acting like primitive savages and blowing up buildings with children in them.
You clearly are out of touch with reality, ideally you MAY have a point, but this is reality, and in this plane of existance, people do bad things and make others die or suffer.
Would you leave town if it was being attacked? I guarentee I would, get the heck out of the area, don't stay there, WTF? I love my family, I want to protect them, including getting the hell out of a war zone...
Propose solutions, not problems, you and others like you attack the President, pointing to problems without offering any real solutions. You and I are not in the know about everything going on, no matter how "well read" you are. All I see with Kerry is indeciviness, he has no real substance, he changes his ideas constantly. I don't trust him, he condones forging documents, etc... I don't like al

if he really wanted to have it shown

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't he dip into his profits from his record breaking documentaries, books, TV Shows etc. and just give his distribution company x million to compensate them for breaking the cinema -> DVD -> television cycle?

Regardles of whether you agree with his policies or not, he's still making a shedload of money, and it appears he would like to make 'moore'.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Republicans couldn't. Nothing in the DNC compares with the incredible actions taken, or not taken by George. Not even close.

Re:Hell yeah

[rlglende]

So, tell me again how Kerry would be better.

Because he would spend even more gov $ than Bush, who is one of the all-time greats in gov growth?

Or because he has promised to grow the military faster than Bush? (He has.)

Or because he will repeal the anti-Constitutional PATRIOT act and all its anti-Constitutiona predecessors? And roll back the FBI/CIA/military power in civil affairs? (Kerry criticizes Bush for doing too little in all this?)

Sorry, there is no difference between these fools.

If you want freedom, you have to vote for it, and that means Libertarian or Constitution.

Lew

Presidents don't make jobs?

[TrentL]

Bush would disagree. He has run up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt (trillions in the long term) claiming his tax cuts would add jobs. Hasn't happened (they claimed we'd be adding 300,000 a month at this point. Um, no.)

The president also thought he could save jobs by using steel tariffs and lumber tariffs (this from a "free trade" president). Didn't work. Bush flip-flopped and dropped the steel tariffs after nearly setting off a trade war.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[isa-kuruption]

And Bush has created jobs. If you do the math (which I know is not hard for most slashdotters), the unemployment rate is currently at 5.4%. Also of note the unemployment rate when Clinton was re-elected was around the same rate. However, in the last 8 years, the U.S. population has increased in size.

Therefore, even if the US working age population in 1996 was let's say 100 million and today it's 120 million (not real numbers, just numbers pulled out of my ass) it means that in 1996 there were 94.6 million people employed. Today, that 120 million with 5.4% unemployment rate would mean that 113.5 million people are employed.

Therefore, there is a net gain in the number of jobs in the US simply because the population increased while the rate stayed the same.

This is why Republicans say Democrats are PESSIMISTIC on the economy. While they look at the number of 5.4%, they will say "hey that's 6.5 million people unemployed which is higher than the 5.4 million number from 1996." The Republicans look at the number which shows that there are actually more people working today than in 1996.

FACT: There are more people employed today than there were in 2000 simply because the population has grown at a greater rate than the unemployment rate.

(Yes, I know you want to compare to 2000, but the logic is still the same)

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why democrats say republicans are just plain liars, or at least untruthful.

what does unemployment measure? It measures the percentage of people who are *actively looking for jobs* who do not find one. So what if this percentage is the same as when Clinton? What percentage of the population is actively looking, and how many have given up looking?

Another measure is the quality of the jobs for those who are employed. What is the median salary today as opposed to when Clinton was presidency?

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

To answer your question. The median salary is 1000 to 9000 dollars less, depending on what demographic you are in. A lot less if you were previously moderatly wealthy. the moderatly wealthy have started slipping into the middle class, while the extremely wealthy have been a tad static.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage of the population is actively looking, and how many have given up looking?

And why should we give a rat's ass about people who can't even be bothered to look for a job?

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[orim]

5.4% Nice number.
It's the trends that matter. Look at the chart on this page:
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm ?lesson =EM219

Clinton inherited almost an 8% unemployment rate. Brought it down to 4%
Then Bush happened to us, and whammo, look at that trend. 4% up to 6.5%, now it's down to about 5.5%, just in the last year.

Dems = unemployment falls (also record surpluses). Reps = unemployment rises in 3/4 years they're in, with record deficits.

What are we to conclude from that?

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[mod_parent_down]

the "hundreds of billions" may come back to haunt soon, as "CBO also forecasts that the federal government will reach its $7.384 trillion debt limit in October. The U.S. Treasury has asked Congress to raise the borrowing ceiling for the third time in three years, a sensitive vote Republicans would like to avoid ahead of the election."

Give a little credit to Bush on the steel tariffs, though, since he only backed down at the end of an economic gun. Personally, why not a little trade war? We run a monthly trade deficit of $55 billion. The country could use a few less plasma TVs.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[saddino]

FACT: There are more people employed today than there were in 2000 simply because the population has grown at a greater rate than the unemployment rate.

Actually, you're mistaken.

The jobs figure is an absolute measurement. It does not depend on the population. In fact, it has to increase by about 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. Thus, in a flat ecnomony, the expectation is 150,000 jobs per month.

By comparison, the unemployment rate is a percentage of people who don't have jobs, but want one. It obviously is affected by population growth.

Both figures have meaning, but are not correlated in the way you imply.

FACT: The only reason the unemployment rate has stayed at 5.6% is because 392,000 people have left the work force. Hence, fewer people are looking for work.

FACT: there is truly a net loss of jobs since 2000. As of last month's figures: Bush had created 343,000 jobs over his tenure, while losing 2.3 million jobs. This month he did better, but he is still on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss in jobs in the U.S.

For more info see:
MSNBC

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[strike2867]

Because anyone unemployed over 6 months is considered not actively looking and is not part of the working force, therefore not part of that 5.6%. The average time to get an Engineering position in IL after unemployment is 8 months. Other states is over a year. So the statistic is slanted since it doesn't account for people who just can't find jobs.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[FJ]

I'd say that any tax cuts & tariffs don't create jobs. The help give people more money in their pockets. Most people consider this free money despite the fact that they gave it to the government. As the old saying goes, "free money ain't got no home", people spend it. The money they spend goes to businesses. The businesses see an increase in sales, they then increase output, which mean more jobs. The more jobs, the more money people have. The only way the government creates jobs is to increase the payroll of the government. The best thing any government can do is to get out of the way of businesses who try and create jobs.

This isn't a new idea and Bush certainly did't think of it. I believe Regan, JFK (a democrat), & others did this long ago. The results were about the same. A mild boost to help stimulate the economy. I'd bet that if Gore were president he would have done the same type of thing & Republicans would be complaining.

The president can help the economy a little, but he can screw it up majorly. Too high taxes on the extremely wealthy or taxing a certain industry is typically the worst thing to do. The very wealthy can move to another country much more easily than you or I.

Picking particular industries is typically a bad thing to do. A while ago a very high tax was introduced on luxury boats manufactured in the US. As a result people stopped buying them or bought them outside the US. The industry pretty much colapsed in the US and many manufacturing jobs were lost. The net result was that the working class, not the rich, was really hurt.

If you want to know who really controls the economy, talk to Mr. Greenspan. If he were to simply step down the economy would take a serious hit. He is definitely more influential than Bush. Every time he speaks, you get news coverage followed by a news commentary on the impact to the stock market.

As far as debt goes. Yep. We have a big one. However, remember two things.

1.) As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the debt isn't nearly as big as it has been in the past. That means we are producing more than ever before. Think of it this way, which is worse. To be in debt $1,000,000 and be producing $2,000,000 worth of goods, or be in debt $1,000 and be producing $1,000 worth of goods?

2.) The worst thing that could ever be done would be to have zero debt. Since the first days of this country, Hamilton realized that a federal debt is a good thing and healthy. The amount that debt can be debated, but this country should have some amount of debt.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[gcaseye6677]

Unemployment measures the number of people actively looking for jobs. It doesn't count those that are "long term unemployed". This is the way it is measured it 2004 and the way it was measured in 1996. To say that there are more unemployed people now just because more of them have been unemployed long term is faulty reasoning at best. How do you know there weren't long term unemployed people in 1996? I guarantee there were.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[isa-kuruption]

You may want to take a look at the results of the HOUSEHOLD survey as opposed to just the PAYROLL survey. The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment since it does not take into account those who are self employed.

Here's an interesting link which explains the differences in the results and how there have been a gain of 2.15 million jobs since Bush's tax cuts alone.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Kenrod]

You could conclude that Congress has more impact on unemployment rates than Presidents, and credit Congress with the drop from 8% to 4% (Republican since 1994).

You could credit welfare reform or lower taxes (both Clinton and the Congress).

You could try to remember that Clinton inherited the elder Bush's recession when it had started to recover, so unemployment rates were heading down anyway.

You try being halfway intelligent and blame the rise in unemployment on 9/11, the internet bubble, the rise of competitive powers in China and India, and rising oil prices. None of these events were Bush's fault (or Clinton's).

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[saddino]

The fact is, the payroll survery is not a true indicator of actual employment

Of course it's not. No labor statistic is "true indicator" -- it is simply a statistic which has meaning only when compared to itself.

Notwithstanding the National Review's "spin," the simple fact is that the Wall Street, the media, and politicians on both sides talk about "jobs" they mean the Payroll numbers. In fact, Cheney referred to the 144K Payroll jobs added this past month said this yesterday:

We think we've made very significant results -- progress out of that. You can look at the fact we've added 1.7 million new jobs over the course of the last year. (Applause.) We've got growth for the last four quarters of about 4.8 percent in GDP; 144,000 jobs last month alone. Source: White House

Interesting that he didn't mention the "HOUSEHOLD" numbers, huh? No, not interesting at all. The Household numbers are a nice way of supporting the National Review's so-called "gain of 2.15 million jobs" under Bush, but even Cheney and the White House know that it's the Payroll numbers that count.

And under Bush that figure is and will be a net loss since his "tax cuts alone."

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[isa-kuruption]

So you're saying that people who are self employed are irrelevant? I don't understand your logic. Whether the media and some politicians believe that the payroll survey is "the indicator" or not is irrelevant. The fact is, the household survey, which finds out from the homes themselves who is working and who isn't, it saying there are more people employed today than before the tax cuts.

It seems more like you would rather dismiss these numbers as pointless when in fact they are a better indication of who is actually earning money and supporting their families.

BTW, the unemployment rate that we see reported every month is actually based on the household survey, which lends merit to the fact that the household survey is the true indicator of actual employment status.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[saddino]

So you're saying that people who are self employed are irrelevant?

No, being self-employed myself, I would never say that. I have a hunch you know this, but are trying to refocus your argument -- it's not a useful tactic, BTW.

You began by saying there were more people employed due to population growth. This is incorrect. You then switched your argument to include "household" payroll.

You obviously very much want to say "more people are employed today than before the tax cuts." That is fine, and you are correct given your use of the household figure.

But saying that "Bush will be the first president to preside over a net job loss since Hoover" is something I very much want to say. And I am correct, given my (and Cheney's and Wall Street's) use of the payroll number.

So we're both right, which is what people often find with statistics.

Whether anyone who reads this finds your argument more compelling, or mine, given what we've decided to believe (the National Review, or everyone else) is of course, up to them. ;-)

As an aside: I don't believe Bush's tax cuts have anything to do with jobs, just like I don't think Clinton's policies had anything do do with jobs. To answer the original poster: Presidents do not make or lose jobs.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Overzeetop]

i conclude that an non-governmental related stock market boom created unsustainable capital gains income for the US. Those numbers were used, however, to promote a tax cut which would not affect the natinoal debt. Add to that additional unanticipated spending on military expenitures without an offset in budgetary decreases or revenue increases and we're back in the red.

Clinton got lucky (that's his trademark, right?). GWB made some popular short-term financial decisions at the expense of long term financial viability. He's no different than every dot.bomb CEO, or most current CEOs for that matter. He's trying to make the books look good THIS quarter, and he'll worry about next quarter in three more months.

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every economist except those with political motivations agree that the household survey is flawed. Greenspan has testified before congress on numerous occasions to exactly this opinion.

http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/067063.htmFed Chief Alan Greenspan, however, disagrees: "I wish I could say the household survey were the more accurate,'' Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman, said in his testimony at a House hearing on Feb. 11. "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow.''

Re:Presidents don't make jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The president also thought he could save jobs by using steel tariffs and lumber tariffs (this from a "free trade" president). Didn't work. Bush flip-flopped and dropped the steel tariffs after nearly setting off a trade war.

The tarrifs were always intended to be temporary. What you refer to as a flip flop was in fact President Bush carrying out his original plan for short term help for the steel industry to restructure, and which would go away.

What Mr Bush called "temporary safeguards" to allow the US steel industry to undergo a long-postponed restructuring will hit British steel exports and make the domestic market vulnerable to far east imports diverted from the US.

Was it the fact that a government program actually had an end planned into it from the start that fooled you, or were you over-reaching to make a political point?

Re:Hell yeah

[ackthpt]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

Presidents don't make jobs.

Presidents do, however, erase jobless numbers. Reagan fudged the unemployment figures to eliminate those who no longer qualify for unemployment. Ta-Da! Unemployment dropped. Have you noticed how congress has not extended unemployment benefits?

"like a million souls cried out and were suddenly silenced"

Re:Hell yeah

[funny-jack]

Hey, I guess you didn't get the memo, but this is politics.slashdot.org. We only post emotionally charged flames here, not well-reasoned arguments.

On the subject of propaganda...

[jdreed1024]

It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal (or accessible via your local public library), it's real hard to call something propaganda.

Flash back to World War II, for example. Consider the famous German propaganda broadcasters - they were on government-owned radio stations, broadcasting to the German people that England was about to surrender, and Hitler was marching through London. The average person had no way of knowing whether or not that was true. They couldn't go online to someone's blog showing the Allies storming the beaches at Normandy. They couldn't flip to FOX News showing German troops freezing in Russia. And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border. It was either accept what the government said, or die.

Nowadays, however, you can find hundreds of sites devoted to debunking Michael Moore. You can go look up the Congressional Record and see if all those people in F9/11 really did object to certifying the election results and if it was really true that no member of the Senate would sign their objections (it was). You can search newspapers and see old video clips and see if Moore really did edit Charlton Heston's speech in Bowling for Columbine (he did). You can see if the family Moore interviewed really did lose a son in Iraq (they did).

The days of newsreels in the movie theater are long gone. If you go to any movie and take what is says as fact (Be it Fahrenheit 9/11, I Robot, the Passion of the Christ, or the Pokemon movie), you're an idiot. Moore has said many times that he wants his movies to raise questions, not indoctrinate people. That's why I go to see them - to have my values and viewpoints challenged. But you can't suddenly base your entire life on them, any more than you should change your values based on someone coming up to you on the street and saying that your political party sucks.

I'm not a huge fan of Moore outside his movies - I think a lot of his speeches are grandstanding, and I thought he was kind of a jerk at the Oscars, but that doesn't mean he can't make movies that make you think. I mean, David Lynch makes good movies, but man I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes along with him.

Re:On the subject of propaganda...

[StrawberryFrog]

It's only propaganda if you let it be propaganda. In the age of the global internet, with hundreds of different news sources at your disposal ... They couldn't flip to FOX News

Yes, but the percentage of Americans who let thier information on current events begin and end at fox "news" is what? Far too high anyway.

You say it's not Propaganda, millions of couch potatoes to lazy to change the channel or read something say "let it be". I say "you'll get the government you deserve, you cretins". Unfortunately, I'll get it too, even though I live in England.

Re:On the subject of propaganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And they couldn't turn on AMC showing Steve McQueen jumping his motorcycle across the border."

I KNEW he made it - I never did believe those Nazi propagandists at 20th century fox who showed him wiping out and getting captured.

Re:On the subject of propaganda...

[Dumbush]

umm.. if Fox was operational at that time, it would be showing German's V2 WMD devasting London.

*It's a joke. I know V2 had a very limited impact

Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

And now for the slow paintfull demise of Slashdot.

Let's get irrelavant and uniformed people to bitch about politics on a site that should be about technology and geekhood.

Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.

This is just going to be useless bickering...

"The movie is full of lies!" vs. "The movie is SO true!"

Does the movie have lies... YES. Does it also have some truth.. YES. Until you yourself can admit this, you're not going to get anywhere or ever be better informed.

------------------

Oh, but that won't be it.... We'll have moderators split with their party ideals and mod up what they like and mod down what they don't. So intelligent posts will get modded down just because. And it won't matter what political party the poster belongs to, it will just happen.

------------------

In the end this whole "politics" section is silly... Let it die like the "radio" http://radio.slashdot.org/ section.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Stevyn]

Well said. I didn't want to post and start a flame war. I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[mabu]

Well said. I didn't want to post and start a flame war. I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.

Inevitable Nazi reference by right-wingers in 3.. 2.. 1..

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

My point has been made. you have nothing to add to the conversation, just a stupid statement that means nothing.

But if you want a Nazi reference. Nazi Germany killed 11 million jews (Source: http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/people/victims .htm )

Or the Nazi "Luftwaffe" unit of suicide bombers.
(Source: http://www.2worldwar2.com/kg200.htm), I always find suicide bombers REAL heroic.

------

While we're at it, Russia finally came to their senses.

"Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid= 15 03&ncid=732&e=4&u=/afp/20040908/ts_afp/russia_atta cks_military

I guess it takes a "terror" attack to realize that you can't appease.

Stupid responses coming in 3...2...1

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Alan Hicks]

And now for the slow paintfull demise of Slashdot.

I think you're a good bit too late. Slashdot has been slowly dying for some time now as a news and discussion sight for technology and geek related news. A lot can be said for the occasional thread on things like the PATRIOT act or the DMCA, but slashdot seems to be nothing now but a sight for trolls and liberals (read: mostly young college kids) to bitch about whatever happens to be their fancy. The audience here is very liberal for the most part, and I think a large reason for that is the youthful ideas most people here have about how priviliaged people must be wicked and that they can (indeed should) somehow change the world.

Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.

To that I'd like to add uninformed as an adjective. Most people here "discussing" politics (indeed anything) are largely uninformed. They spout off only what they've heard other people say without doing an in depth intelligent analysis of the issues. You can tell it by the tone they write in, that aggresive "I'm right and you're ignorant" genre, and by the repetition among the posters. They all have the same thing to say in a juvenile confrontational way, and if you disagree then you're just plain wrong and usually get modded down by slightly more intelligent people who realize their argument isn't strong enough to refute your points.

It's sad, but I think this is the logical conclusion of a site like Slashdot that was once so focused on linux that it largely attracted only hard core geeks, the kind of people who will do their homework on a subject and know what they are talking about. Today's linux user is more mainstream though. They're script kiddies and windows users who want to be 1337 by using Mandrake. I participate in a mailing list that is populated by people both very conservative and very liberal. We have some serious knock-down drag out flame wars from time to time, but no one takes it to heart. We respect other people's opinions because everyone there is a real geek and as such, mature enough to realize that his/her opinion isn't the only one, and isn't necessarily always right.

About the only interesting threads on Slashdot anymore from a discussion perspective are those concerning astronomy.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you have been moderated up means that you have just disproved your own argument.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Edax Rarem]

Let's get irrelavant and uniformed people to bitch about politics on a site that should be about technology and geekhood.

I think you took a wrong turn... this is: http://politics.slashdot.org

I disagree that this section is silly... it keeps all the politics OFF the Tech site.(hopefully)

So, please, stay on topic.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Pentagram]

I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down.

I have noticed this also. I have also noticed anti-bush comments being modded down and anti-moore comments being modded up. Maybe the moderators are responding to teh quality of the comments rather than the political beliefs of teh posters? OK, you can mod this funny now.

The bias here is getting pretty bad I think

In both directions. And both the left and right are whining about it which is pretty bizarre.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[MasonMcD]

I've already noticed comments anti-bush being modded up and comments that are anti-moore being modded down. The bias here is getting pretty bad I think.

Democracy=Bias

I get it now. Moderating opinions has some yardstick somewhere. Can you tell me where that yardstick is?

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[advocate_one]

hey, it keeps the activists, axe-grinders, trolls etc. in their own section where they can have fun to their hearts content... meanwhile, I can enjoy relative peace and use my mod points where I want...

To put it mildly, nobody forced you to read this topic... so shut it... ;)

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Idarubicin]

Yup, so let's see... there's a bunch of Germans and Swedish people bitching about a President they can not elect nor vote against.

They can vote as long as they remember to fax in their absentee ballots...

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[SEE]

I've specifically told my preferences to exclude "Politics", yet this showed up on my view of http://slashdot.org/ anyway. So, no, it doesn't keep politics off of anything.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[HeghmoH]

If you don't like politics.slashdot.org, turn it off! You have an account, which means you can set prefs as to which stories you see. If you don't like it, filter them, and remain blissfully ignorant.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

Ignorant is the poster I'm replying too...

Check my sig... take it to heart. It's so true.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Edax Rarem]

Sorry... I saw the story on the Politic site and of course your post. But indeed, it is on the main site.
I apologize for my confusion.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[HeghmoH]

So why don't you correct my ignorance, hmm? I have no clue what you're talking about. Did I misunderstand you? Am I mistaken about the ability to filter articles? Did I get the 13th digit of pi wrong?

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[KarmaOverDogma]

I always get annoyed by people's sigs which, like yours at the moment, taunt/mock/tease others.

It may or may not be true that "most" of the people who respond to you are "idiots," but do you honestly think your .sig helps to facilitate the kind of meaningful discussion you seem to want to have?

Put another way:

Be careful of the .sig you type, make sure its soft and sweeet, or someday you may find its the .sig you have to eat.

.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

6 million jews, 11 million people in total.

It's bloody apparent you don't even read your own links, so YOU have nothing to add to the conversation.

"Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy. It was the explicit aim of Hitler's regime to create a European world both dominated and populated by the "Aryan" race. The Nazi machinery was dedicated to eradicating millions of people it deemed undesirable. Some people were undesirable by Nazi standards because of who they were,their genetic or cultural origins, or health conditions. These included Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other Slavs, and people with physical or mental disabilities. Others were Nazi victims because of what they did. These victims of the Nazi regime included Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the dissenting clergy, Communists, Socialists, asocials, and other political enemies."

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

heh.. You ARE an idiot. That's the funniest part too...

You want me to turn it off, but then say I'll be ignorant? Ha... The ignorance is yours boy... I'll challenge you to a debate anytime anywhere. You have no idea how much of an informed person I am. You on the other hand hold ignorance bliss and dear to your heart.

Hope you enjoy.

Remember read the sig. I replied to you.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[linuxrunner]

Quote:

It may or may not be true that "most" of the people who respond to you are "idiots,"...

Well, I replied... So the answer is not that it "MAY" be true, but it IS true. Case in point, your post. You have not facilitated in the conversation at all, just critisized something that had NOTHING to do with the parent conversation. But you bicker on someone's sig. There's a lot of dumb sigs... Your's included. If Samuel Clemens is the best you've got, then you better buy a book.

Remember, I replied. Read my sig.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[KarmaOverDogma]

You must be one of those people who is rarely able to deal with those you who disagree with you (or your .sig).

Your response just further proves my point: more attacks, more taunts, more teasing.

Children do this all of the time. But they (usually) grow out of it.

.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[HeghmoH]

I'm sorry, did I miss something? I never said you'll be ignorant. I never said you are ignorant. I never said you were ignorant. It's called "reading comprehension". Try it sometime.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[Edax Rarem]

Hey!
You stole my sig! ;->
And I am glad!
It is my favorite quote for these political times and when you get accused of being un-American if you dissent against a regime that is headed towards facism.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!!!

[KarmaOverDogma]

Ah! you were the person I saw this from :D I hereby acknowledge & give you full credit for it :-) The sentiment behind it fits these times completely.

.

too biased

[Cat_Byte]

Michael Moore is too much of a Bush Basher and leaves too much out from other administrations that were actually involved more than the current administration. If you want a less biased version of this, download '9/11 the road to tyranny' by Alex Jones. He goes back further than the Bush administration and covers much of the same material without the democratic viewpoint. Its freely distributable from infowars.com. Yeah I know some people will call him a right wing nut...and some of the information is stretching it...but so is Michael Moore & his left wing bias. If you see both its easier to decide for yourself. FYI the 9/11 thing is on Kazaa and is about 1 1/2 hrs long.

The US electorate

[The Ape With No Name]

helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

You don't understand US politics at all, do you? Most people in the States vote on a single issue based on an emotional attachment to that issue. People who are dual-issue voters (for example) will often vote for logically inconsistent co-positions such as pro-death penalty, but anti-abortion. Remember people in the States do not get their news from a multiplicity of sources and when the do access it, it is from outlets like FoxNews, which is unabashedly biased to the point of attacking critics of its coverage with pointed ad hominem smear campaigns.

Re:The US electorate

[Inthewire]

Logically inconsistent?

Murderer::executed for comitting murder.
Child::executed for being in the way.

Re:The US electorate

[The Ape With No Name]

All killing is wrong. If you are against abortion, you must be against killing in general. Of course, you can claim some ridiculous thing like 'Original Sin,' but you have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Fascinating how anti-abortionists fought to save the life of a murderer who murdered to stop murder. Completely nuts. As to being in the way, a child is not in the way, it is simply out of the womb. To quote Dennis Miller, 'The death penalty is nothing more than abortion in the 93rd trimester.'

VOTE FOR SOMEBODY

[stratjakt]

Not "against" somebody else.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. If you don't believe in Kerry (I personally see him as another ivory tower asshole with no agenda besides "I'm not Bush"), then don't vote for him, no matter how much you hate Bush.

Don't buy into the bullshit that voting for a third party candidate is "helping Bush", or "throwing your vote away".

This is merely propoganda spread by both the two major parties, scared shitless that the American people just may be sick of both of them. When Ross Perot got himself into the televised debates, it terrified them. So they had their media buddies change the rules of whos allowed in a debate (to exclude all third parties).

Look at other contries around the world. "Third parties" can and do come to power when people are sick of the old guard. Canada used to be just Liberals and Conservatives. Then the New Democrats came along, then the Reform party. Both came out of nowhere to become true political forces to be reckoned with. The two big parties aren't so big anymore.

Hell, there have been independant and third party governors, congressman and senators. There's nothing preventing a third party president, except for the fact the public has been brainwashed into thinkin there's only two parties.

Vote your conscience. Vote for the man, not the party, and vote for the man you feel is best suited for the job. If that's Bush or Kerry

Voting for Kerry because you hate Bush (or vice versa) is just whoring your vote out.

The two party "flip a coin" joke of a democracy has to end.

I hate both, and will vote for neither. Imagine them seeing 25% or greater of the population with the balls not to vote for either of them. That sends a *strong* message.

Re:VOTE FOR SOMEBODY

[Zed2K]

So who you going to vote for? Nadar? That guy is more of a crazy wack job than the other 2.

Re:VOTE FOR SOMEBODY

[Cro Magnon]

Since I live in a battleground state, I'll vote for Bush (lesser of two evils). But, if I didn't, I'd probably vote for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[WindBourne]

Just about all talk radio
Fox News
And if you want a joke on video just watch the SBV crap
Liberal Media? Very little of it. There is a sensationalist media, but little liberal media.
But Fox and Clear Channel (except for airamerica) are most definitly republican controlled.

thoroughly contemplation

[r3al1tych3ck]

That is what most bush voters do before they realize they should have been thoroughly contemplating what the hell they are doing.

Eve of election propoganda!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I gaurentee that Osama Bin Laden will be 'caught' just before the election. What a fantastic coup for Bush, capturing the great terrorist threat and saving the world.

8 months ago I said that OBL would amazingly be caught just before the election.

He is probably sitting in an Army camp in Afghanistan waiting for his big TV moment..

Here's a wild proposition

[Otter]

Think about this...

Whatever contributions the Republicans get from the RIAA/MPAA, Hollywood is fundamentally not on their side. Entertainment industry money is one of the cornerstones of the Democrats' fund raising, it provides Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks with their pulpits -- and now Michael Moore, Harvey Weinstein and Bruce Springsteen have turned the film and music industries into arms of the Democrats 527 machine.

So, when do the Republicans drop their principle (that's what it is, really, regardless of whether you support it) of supporting big business at all costs and stop propping up this industry that only harms them? What if Karl Rove decided that, you know, this filesharing isn't such a big deal and maybe it's not the government's responsibility to bend over backwards to protect Barbra Streisand's bank account? And mentioned that to Orrin Hatch?

Re:Here's a wild proposition

[mabu]

lame.

The GOP has plenty of their own "hollywood-types" they exploit as well: Schwartzenager, Alice Cooper, Brittney Spears, Travis Tritt, Charlie Daniels, Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent, etc.

Your black-and-white world is not the real world.

Hollywood is not a homogenous group of liberals.

Bush, Moore, what's the difference?

[jarran]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

Yeah, because I bet that Bush wouldn't even dream of trying to influence the elections with last minute emotions. It's not like his entire campaign is based on promoting an unjustified fear of terrorism in the American public.

Moderating the politics section

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a prime example of how rampant moderation abuse will be in this new section. There's no way this comment, with link included, should have been modded flamebait. That's a blatant attempt by someone who disagrees with Moore to shout down this post.

Re:Moderating the politics section

[haxor.dk]

Quit whining. It's nothing but advertisement for MM's website. Didn't deserve a high rating anyway, but thats abuse of the rating system of another kind.

All propaganda

[clausiam]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process

Why should this be different than any other political statements. It's ALL propaganda!

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees.

Bullshit.

you cant get quality employees at the extremely low pay rate you are offering.

Every time I hear that bullshit line from a "business owner" I jump all over them ape-shit style.

if you use that line than you are a lying asshat. there are PLENTY of high quality employees out there ready to jump on-board to a company that is willing to pay them a semi-decent wage (hell even a living wage) and not treat them like slave labor.

you CAN find great workers, only the incompetent and greedy thenk that they can not.

Bread and Circuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you think a majority of voters would base their choice on thorough contemplation?? RAH described the problems of democratic systems very well. Even if people base their votes on logic as opposed to emotion, they will vote for a free lunch and some entertainment, not for the greater good of all. Such a pity that all the non-democratic systems tried so far are even worse...

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[cL0h]

And business doesn't have a political stance. ?? Now who's being naive. Ever since laissez faire capitalism was introduced in Britain by Adam Smith politics and business have beeninextricably linked. Governments facilitate getting business done. Business funds government through taxes and often through blatant lobbying

Thoroughly contemplation?

[beamin]

Spelling error aside...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

What thorough contemplation is there in politics these days?

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the first two paragraphs of this page very carefully:

http://www.anyonebutbush.com/

The current economy is entirely W's work. And it WILL get WAY worse if he knows he has another 4 years and no chance of re-election after that. He'll have 4 years with nothing to lose and no reason to hold back (not that he has held back on anything yet)...

Which ones?

[iceperson]

The ones he altered to push his agenda?

Re:Which ones?

[powerlinekid]

Have any sources of your own to prove this?

Re:Which ones?

[iceperson]

That's really hard to do. Let me take 15 seconds to find some...
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9

Re:Which ones?

[jsebrech]

That's 3 sources (pantagraph, AP, and an independent article) to support the same allegation, not 9 sources. Besides, if that's the only thing you can find factually inaccurate about fahrenheit 9/11, I will have to conclude fahrenheit 9/11 is extremely factually accurate. After all, for a 2 hour documentary to have only 5 seconds worth of inaccuracy, which doesn't even allege anything that isn't true, is quite the mark of factual excellence.

Re:Which ones?

[powerlinekid]

You're joking right? 9 sources claming the same thing?

I may as well quote 200 articles discussing Bush and his search for WMD and claim that all 200 accounts are evidence of him lying to the american people.

Re:Which ones?

[powerlinekid]

I should also point out that every article mentions that the paper "claims". There is no proof. It may of happened, it may not of happened.

Did you even read the sources you linked too?

Re:Which ones?

[iceperson]

You asked for sources for my information that he changed "source" material he used in his film not for every lie and half truth. Are you arguing that he didn't? Here's a link showing what he put in his film and what was actually printed in the paper.
enjoy

Re:Which ones?

[powerlinekid]

Very interesting. I stand corrected on this.

However I don't think this justifies the levels that the anti-moore crowd scream that his facts are wrong. This looks more like Moore style slant then anything else. It did appear in the paper, just not in the same place. I'm not saying its right but much worse has been printed or spoken by his opponents.

We all know Moore is biased. The whole movie was made so that Bush is not relected. While this does shake his credibility in my eyes, it does not change the fact that F/911 was factually correct on the important issues. Whether Moore's slant was correct is another issue entirely.

Re:Which ones?

[robwestcott]

I don't think this justifies the levels that the anti-moore crowd scream that his facts are wrong,

is that a joke ?

moore is wrong more than he's right, he makes shit up. period. he is a criminal. an enemy combatant. end of story.

inform yourself. take a look here:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

and finally, someone has stepped up and made a documentary exposing moore for what he is:

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

later
rob

http://www.robwestcott.com/

Propaganda of the 1980 Election

[mariox19]

I remember the Presidential election of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running agains Jimmy Carter. (Some of us remember back this far!) It was a different world then. The US was shamed over the hostages in Iran, and many people worried about the perceived military superiority of the Soviet Union. Add to that the notion -- half-believed by some -- that the world might come to an end in the year 2000.

Now, many of you too young to remember all this might laugh in disbelief, but google the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth. This movie came out in 1979, and was basically a survey of the current world-political situation illuminated by the Bible's Apocalypse, the predictions of Nostradamus, and so forth. This movie got a lot of attention and play before the election.

At the time I was young and impressionable (12 years old), but I remember watching the movie on television (maybe cable) with my father and brothers and being scared out of my wits.

What does this have to do with the election? It was thought by many that Reagan was the only chance for America to regain power and respect on the world stage, thereby averting the triumph of evil and the likely destruction of the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Of course, this seems kind of crazy to me now. Nobody worries about such things. (Now kids and other impressionable people worry about some kind of ecological holocaust.)

I don't know how effective this movie was in getting some people to turn out to vote and vote for Reagan, and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be propaganda for Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was somewhat effective.

Michael Moore's movie could be as much hogwash as Nostradamus. That won't matter if it makes it to TV though. It will be the kind of propaganda that will make a difference. Personally, I think it is nothing but out-of-context "truths" carefully edited to promote lies. Whoever one wishes in the White House, no honest person could wish for this kind of propaganda to become a part of the American political scene. If that happens, it would be a worse thing than having the wrong guy in the White House.

Michael Moore is a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

You silly little liberal fools, Michael Moore is a rich Republican raping your pocketbook at theaters and bookstores. The man has made a fortune off of the built in prejustice of Democrats. Why else would someone put out such easily debunked propaganda about Republicans? Moore is guaranteeing the reelection of President Bush. Also did you know that Michael Moore is richer than Bush?

God Bless you Michael Moore!

thoroughly contemplation

[SpaghettiPattern]

thoroughly contemplation

It's not the the grammar error I'll point at but the fact too high a percentage of voters think watching Arnie's popularism is their share of thoroughly contemplation.

Beware of freepers

[Anonymous Coward]

This stroy will soon (if not already) turn into a disengenious astroturf campaign by the mindless freepers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1209321 /p osts

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Um, congress DID extend unemployment benefits after 9-11, up to one freaking YEAR! I know several people who benefited by this by not seriously looking for a job for an extra year. Sad but true. You might want to google that extension, its not exactly new news.

As a TV Network what would you do?

[Jakhel]

A) Money. Risk losing political ties and make a ton of money by airing Moore's documentary (think of the advertising revenue + amount of buzz this movie has stirred, this could be bigger than the super bowl)

or

B) Power. Risk losing a ton of money by NOT airing Moore's documentary and gain political ties.

Television Inertia

[Hug Life]

While this seems like a good idea to get people thinking about the actions of our government, there is no way this will be aired on national television.
You have to remember that the major networks are all huge multinational corporate entities that can't afford to rock the boat. They have much greater concerns then just getting viewers (let alone enriching them). And there is far too much money at stake for them to risk enraging the Bush administration. -js

Because Right wing people don't lie

[Anonymous Coward]

And Ann Coulter's book where she accuses everyone who was ever a democrat of Treason?

Or any other similar book?

How about the Swift Boat veterans, at least one of whom recived his bronze star for the same combat action that never happened that Kerry was awarded for. Or the one who stood next to Kerry eight years ago and praised his valor under fire during that same combat action that never happened?

How about those republicans who claim that the Clintons "may have" had up to seventy people murdered?

How about the 70 million dollar investigation of a sub-million dollar land deal where everyone lost money, and blow jobs? Compared to the indescretions of the company Cheney headed with many millions in mistated earnings, the subsequent defrauding of the government in no-bid contracts, and energy industry meetings the American people aren't allowed to know the substance of for no reason beyond "I would prefer not to."

Is Moore a paragon of unassailable objective truth? Hell no. But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading. On the other side of the aisle, they're out and out making shit up with no basis in fact. That's the fucking crime in all this. And the republicans brought it on themselves. Just wait, since it looks like Bush is going to win. Why on Earth would the Democrats NOT adopt the exact same tactics as the republicans next time around?

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[bwt]

I think Americans need to decide whether they want political discourse that is dominated by the Michael Moore's and Ann Coulters of the world, or whether they want an actual discussion of issues that matter. I recall the Cheyney-Liebermann debate from 4 years ago was a very high quality discussion of the issues, with little propaganda and mud slinging.

Is Moore a paragon of unassailable objective truth? Hell no. But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology.

This is contemptible. A liar is a liar, whether he or she wears red or blue. People on BOTH sides need to reject bogus propaganda from their own side. People in the middle need to reject it from all sides.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[gfxguy]

I'll accept your counterargument when you prove two wrongs always make a right.

While I may like Ann Coulter, for example, I don't deny she's a fact twisting, liberal bashing shrew, but I agree with most of the major points she makes.

The difference is that M.Moore defenders generally think he's some sort of left wing god and can't admit that he decieves and twists facts, and that everybody ought to see his movies because they're so fact filled.

The difference is I'd never recommend Ann's book to anyone as some sort of definitive source of facts.

The difference is one of us is realistic.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[Anonymous Coward]

You just did what you accuse him of. Changing the context.

Reguardless, though I share in your dream of a world of reasoned debate, I know there's no basis in reality for it. The debate from the last election was an aberation. Blame the death of journalism, short attention spans, the focus on quick turnover. It doesn't matter. The problem is endemic to how we get information, and to the burden of wealth beyond the integrity to support it.

Unlike liars, not all lies are created equal. And the combination of the particularly odious lies and the mind-bending hypocrisy from those on the right, put me in the improbable position of finding something more repulsive than that attention whore Moore. Oh he's a failure as a human being alright. But to attack him when those who oppose him can't even rise to his level of half-truths, that's just too much to take. Maybe they should ask themselves "What Would Jesus Do?"

This last gasp of integrity we're witnessing during this golden age of sophistry, is the balloon payment for excesses of the eighties.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[Slime-dogg]

But he's a lot better than those of opposing idiology. He's simply misleading.

I don't distinguish between "misleading" and "misleading" very well. Anyone who subscribes to either of these two sides is a moron.

Now, if you choose to think for yourself, you would start to be concerned with things that actually have an effect on American lives. Such things as social security, health insurance, economics, and whatnot seem to have been swept under the carpet in the face of these obviously more important "maybes." I dunno, perhaps I'm just old school. I have my own beliefs and ideas, and I find the content of Michael Moore is truth spun into fiction, just as the content of Rush Limbaugh is.

Do I care if so-and-so wounded himself to get out of the war? Do I care if so-and-so "joined" the national guard to avoid the war? Hmm. Last time I checked, that was all more than 20 years ago. Now, do I care if so-and-so is going to do the job of being the president correctly? Absolutely.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't respond to anonymous cowards, period.

At least you're a man of your convictions. Damn flip-flopper.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey... wasn't that an Anonymous Coward you just reponded to. Period.

Re:Because Right wing people don't lie

[Minna Kirai]

The difference is I'd never recommend Ann's book to anyone as some sort of definitive source of facts.

Her books don't contain shocking, never-before-seen footage.

Thoroughly contemplation???

[fpillet]

Sure... Who still believes that people's emotions are not being used to manipulate them?

Making people think that Saddam was associated with 9/11 was one very emotional way to win hearts for a caseless war. The Jessica Lynch story is another forged one made specifically to play with emotions. There are hundreds of other examples...

Also, gloryfiying the army while refusing to show dead soldiers is another way to play with emotions, or actually prevent them.

Let it be clear: as much as any others, Americans are being manipulated by their politician AND mainstream media. You'd better prepare for it to get worse in the next two months..

I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[Tri0de]

Thhe fact that this is a underhanded flamefest is a Good Thing, IMO.
If Kerry thinks the leaders of other countries are going to be any nicer than thhe WORST that Rove and the swifties can throw at him he's nuts. Welcome to the big leagues, John.
But then I'm a Libertarian and so I KNOW my party is going to lose, so let 'em rogh each other up. There really is no hope until we shitcan the two party system and Greens, Libertarians and everyone else can have an actual reason to VOTE for someone they give a crap about.

Re:I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[DarkSarin]

good for you.

I really think that us that identify with the libertarian philosophy are going to have a REALLY hard time getting a candidate we like (and this year's lib candidate just doesn't have what it takes.

Re:I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[nate nice]

I agree with you in that the nasty comments from both sides can help us as possibly exposing people to the dirt that both parties are made of and hopefully change their thoughts on what they are voting for one day. The problem is, people will only see that the other side is a falicy and always lend a deaf ear to complaints about their own side. How do you tell someone they've been wrong their whole life?

Re:I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[archen]

I decided to go third party long ago (reform for me). So I'll forward my own personal agenda here. We have two guys who have had a silver spoon shoved in their mouths all of their live bickering over issues of "the common man", and I'm surprized anyone even believes them.

Maybe some people at slashdot would be interested in the Libertarian candidate who actually WORKED for a living as a programmer. You'd think Slashdot would be all over a candidate who can actually write code, but I suppose it's the two party system that's so entrenched that it's even prevelent here.

Re:I *LIKE* nasty, dirty flaming campaigns

[jwilcox154]

You'd think Slashdot would be all over a candidate who can actually write code, but I suppose it's the two party system that's so entrenched that it's even prevelent here.
Well, Could It be Because don't have a heart?

The thing I don't understand about the Libertarian Party is that they want to give a dollar for dollar "Tax" credit for people giving to private charities, but yet they want to eliminate ALL taxes. Also in one article they are not for "Survival of the Fittest" but "Survival of the Kindest, then they turn around and Say that if you're not of the fittest, then in their eyes, you're worthless.

Also, I think it's because They Support Nambla, a very sick orginization. Heck I would vote for Bush before I would vote Libertarian.

Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against Bush

[revscat]

Or maybe more people than you realize that Bush is a bad president. Maybe it has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with "intelligence" and "critical thought." Just maybe, just maybe, many people have very good, substantial reasons for disliking Bush, and labelling it "bias" is just a cheap way for some to avoid having to face that reality.

Michael Moore

[Reality Master 101]

I can't prove this, but I highly suspect that Michael Moore has gained Bush more votes than he has cost him.

People generally hate obviously unfair propaganda. Michael Moore has done more damage to the left than anything the GOP could have done.

What I always find interesting about the left is how they sabatage themselves. Look at all the ridiculous things they say about Bush... comparing him to Hitler, saying that he's out to kill as many people as possible, that he wants to poison everyone, on and on. I remember exactly the same thing happening with Reagan. The things they were saying about him were insane. (Literally, saying things like, "He WANTS a nuclear war!!").

The left seems to do this far more than the right. The naive left starts believing all this weird crap and alienates the middle. Of course, the GOP has the religious right spouting weird nonsense, but not nearly to the degree that the left does.

Canadian politics.

[glrotate]

The few times I've watched the Canadian Parliament it consisted of a lot of cries of 'liar'. It was quite undignified. I saw nothing for the US to emulate.

Re:Canadian politics.

[md358]

Too true. Parliamentary sessions in Canada, Oz, and the UK are always full of loud, rowdy MPs shouting at each other. America's pretty well-mannered in comparison.
The most violent ones I've ever seen were South Korea's and Taiwan's... actual fistfights and battle royals. Bet poli-sci classes are more interesting over there.

Re:Canadian politics.

[Hatta]

So canadian politicians are at least honest enough to call each other liars. Good. If only they'd admit it about themselves though.

Re:Canadian politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never seen a Canadian Parliamentary session. Or you enjoy exaggeration.

Referring to someone as a liar gets you ejected from the house.

Does it ever happen? Yes but it's once or twice a year and makes the headlines with respect to the individual ejected.

Re:Canadian politics.

[glrotate]

I haven't seen a session for 2-3 years, there really isn't anything important enough occuring in Canada to warrant coverage in the US, but I distinctly recall a level of decorum just slightly greater then the circuses in Taiwan. There were several jeers of Liar! Liar!

Re:Canadian politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

UK parliametary sessions are quite rowdy, but no fist-fighting. The thing I find most creepy about U.S. politics is the exagerated reverence given to authority. I know USians think the U.K. is full of people who bow to the Queen and tip their caps to the Lords and Ladies -- but it's not like that.

People in the U.K. do not and have never had much respect for authority figures. I can't speak for USian people in general, but your media spends most of its time crawling on its belly to politicians and treating them like religious figures.

Cuba did it...

[Raynach]

As response to some of Bush's attacks on the Cuban government, Castro ordered Cuba state-run television to air the movie.

More info here.

wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

The media already does this through projecting winners, that is subtle manipulation of the vote. Secondly you have both parties using really dirty politics when its close to the election (attacking each other rather than focus on who the canidate is) thus another manipulation of the vote. Hell even a war or political fiction based movie can still do the same. The point is its already being done. Republicans are very good at this game, even moreso than the democrats, so isn't about time we see the same from both sides? I for one would be very interested to see if any of the media (which seems like a majority these days are right-winged based) would even play fahrenheit 911 .

Free speech is free speech. Leave it alone!

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the first two paragraphs of this page very carefully:

http://www.anyonebutbush.com/

That is a small glimpse into the control the president and his administration have over jobs.

Bush has consistenly allowed things to happen that are terrible for the American public, and great news to his cronies (the top 1% of the wealth in this nation that are so effectively manipulating him for their good).

We're screwed if stays for another 4 years, because he'll have no reason to hold back (not that he has in the last 4 years).

And if he really gave a rats @ss about the war on terror, we'd be invading Suadi Arabia, not Iraq and planning on Iran.

emotional manipulation is everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

What's the difference between last-minute emotions and the entire campaign season based on emotion? Bush's team's brazen attacks on Kerry's service in Viet Nam countered with photo ops of Kerry kite surfing don't really offer that much to contemplate.

And why is that? Because there really is not a big difference between the two. They both represent the powerful elite, and are dependent on them for the money.

American politics so out of touch with the needs of the general populace. You know, like Greenspan suggesting to cut social services for baby boomers, but not a word about Bush's record breaking deficit. Where did all that money go????

The real problem is privately financed campaigns. Our elected "reprsentatives" are more loyal to the big bucks than the real needs of their constituents. Elections are won by strategic smearing and slurring, rather than clearly laid out policies and positions. It's the way the system works.

It's sad and kind of funny too how emotionally connected people are to their political "team." Ever watch a "liberal" and a "conservative" discuss principles and policies? The conversations don't last too long!

Until we the people start demanding cleaner elections, and actual positions on issues beyond abortion and gays, we will have nothing but emotion driven political discourse, I mean sound bites!

whole election is propeganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitting in the UK watching the US election from a far it looks to me like the whole election is being fought solely on the basis of propaganda. I heard an interview with some lady from the Bush camp on the radio a couple of weeks ago (sorry can't remember her name), saying in reference to Kerry "By the time we've finished with him they (the American public) won't even know what side he fought for." It sounded like a rather extravagant claim at the time but I'm starting to believe it now. There doesn't appear to be any discussion of the major issues: Bush's appalling environmental record, his politicising of the US aid budget, his dismal economic record, his holding huge numbers of prisoners of war outside of the Geneva convention in Guantanamo and trying to have it both ways by claiming to be fighting a war whilst the "enemy" is outside of the normal rules of engagement. All of these achievements and more in his first term. So anything that gets rid of Bush is OK by me, I admit it. He is, by a long way, the most dangerous individual on the planet. At least the Moore film is focussing on a real issue. As the US death toll in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark this week, and estimates on Iraqi casualties reached 11,000 (no official numbers are recorded, of course, so we'll never actually know), anything that makes someone in the US think "hmm, maybe this wasn't such a good idea" is OK with me. Please, America, get rid of Bush!

Huh?

[Microsift]

Why would it be illegal to air the movie, but not illegal for the movie to be in the theater?

Striking down poorly written laws that mean well, and are politically popular is the epitome of ballsiness. That is exactly what they did to the law that tried to make simulated child porn illegal.

McCain-Feingold isn't perfect, but I'm not sure it silences any political speech (just ask the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" (quotes added))

There is no liberal media...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an uninformed moron, just like the majority of everyone else in this country.

Instead of simply taking what you overhear others say, how about doing some research on what you're actually talking about?

All those stations you mentioned are CORPORATE stations. Do you even realize who owns what and what side they take? It sure as fuck isn't liberal.

I thought that'd be pretty obvious.

Re:There is no liberal media...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find an issue that's important to conservatives, like gun control for example. Now, find some pro-gun stories by the so-called liberal media. Or the way the same people say, "Rolling back the Bush tax cuts," double-speak for "raising taxes."

Are you scared

[narsiman]

When did CmdrTaco turn republican. Why is everyone scared that airing this movie will tilt the votes. Havent everyone made up their minds yet.

Hitchens v Moore

[caller_number_six]

On the eve of elections I'd rather see a Christopher Hitchens / Michael Moore debate. Anything'd be more interesting than the coming presidential debates.

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, will Moore have a heart attack before Hitchens has a stroke? Find out at 8 eastern, 7 mountain.

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[Lordrashmi]

Fuck a debate, THUNDERDOME!!!!!!!!

2 men enter, 1 man leaves!

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[|/|/|||]

Yeah, well you're not likely to see many Kerry/Bush debates, anyway. If you do they'll probably have been given the questions in advance, so Bush's speechwriters can come up with answers for him. He can't speak on his feet, and his administration knows it.

Debates are pretty worthless, anyway. Both sides can stand there and lie at each other without having to back anything up with evidence. When's the last time you saw a list of cited sources presented along with a political speech? Words that politicians say have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned - but luckily I can base my vote on information from a variety of more reliable sources.

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[Mr_Huber]

500 quattlues on the tall combat vet!

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[Mr_Huber]

Sadly, this is what currently passes as a debate. I want a real debate. Have the speaker present a topic. Give the candidates 2 minutes to state their side, then let'em at each other.

I want to see the candidates directly question each other. I want to see the press call the candidates on any obvious dissimilation or obstrifucation. I want to see a real, no holds barred debate.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Re:Hitchens v Moore

[caller_number_six]

2 men enter, 1 man leaves!

But either way, we win.

F 9/11 not a documentary - it's a propoganda film

[d_jedi]

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.

Emotions?

[starseeker]

Frankly, I doubt many people vote on anything more weighty than who looks the best in front of a camera.

And the current system encourages that. Did you ever stop to wonder why there seems to be so little discussion of issues? It's because that's not how you win.

People who actually take the time to think about issues will have an opinion, and probably a strong one. Hence, a political party taking the opposite stance from the one the person decides on won't get their vote. Then there's the problem that most people WON'T think about it, and tune you out as annoying. Thinking is uncomfortable. And no ears/eyeballs means no victory. But wait! Rather then focus on issues, what if we attack the other candidate as a bastard unworthy of the job? People like sensationalism and soap opera. Doesn't drive away people who disagree with us on issues, and our supporters will like it too. Our would be opponents will vote for us to stop the bastard from entering office! Perfect! The only people who get offended are the people who actually CARE about issues, and they're too small a segment to worry about.

If we actually had an election based on ISSUES, people like third parties might actually start to gain more public mindshare. But in a street fight, they're irrelevant and can be safely ignored.

On the whole I think the averaging effect of having large parties is fairly safe - it prevents most oddballs from gaining more power than they should have. But when they totally ignore issues and attack personality their averaging effect becomes almost an apathy. People who care have no voice, and the system doesn't want them to. Those people are too annoying and upset the power structure.

OK, I'm getting cynical again. Maybe I'm justified, maybe I'm not. But our current system has put a LOT of people in the position of voting AGAINST Bush rather than for any particular candidate. That's a heck of a way to have to vote.

Michael Moore

[jimmy_dean]

Michael Moore is an idiot. That is all.

and the swift boat add...

[ArcticCelt]

"...One has to wonder whether airing such a controversial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Well it's how to political process works right now. The swift boat add is not much better and its the major point who turned the pools around. The convention is no what turned the pools around like some people like to pretend. It began with the add.

Re:and the swift boat add...

[lcsjk]

What were those swift boats doing in the pools anyway?

Re:and the swift boat add...

[Anonymous Coward]

Addition, apparently.

Propaganda

[steelerguy]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

Is there any question that this is propaganda? Moore himself is admitting it if he wants it to be aired before the election because he wants to further his cause.

What scares me (and I would hope a lot of you) is when it is shown in countries that were controlled by communists and they compare it to the propaganda they had to endure for so many years. These are countries where the people for the most part to do not agree with Bush's politics, but are still very uncomfortable because it is like the communist/socialist propaganda they had to endure for many decades.

I put this shit on IGNORE - why is it on homepage?

[MobileDude]

Screw that fat bastard Moore and F Lie/11. Why the hell is this political drool still showing up on my /. homepage after I selected EXCLUDE?

Oh, and all the flamers from both sides are double-dipped asshats.

The economy started backwards AFTER Bush moved in

[beamin]

Nice try, though.

The documentary on Lions the other night...

[glrotate]

that was on Discovery channel was SO biased. All the y did was show lions laying around and killing every once in a while. I couldn't stand it and had to turn it off.

I hope Moore's got a bodyguard

[Programmer_In_Traini]

I really like what Moore is doing, I think its good that someone dares to do what he does

That being said, maybe I've seen too many mob movies but if he succesfully gets his movie on TV ... the eve of the election ... boy ... he's gonna get shot.

I don't even need a high school grade to know that a lot of things happen in silence, behind the curtains.

I sure admire his work but I for one wouldn't do that just yet.

Not propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

F911 is not propaganda. Fox news is.

The people who slam F9 as propaganda also happen to be the ones who drool in front of Bill O'Reilly without any qualms

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as unemployment being the same as 1996 levels, it is funny that the US Census bureau doesn't agree with you. Furthermore, when the exectutive branch gets the country into superfluous and immoral wars, that certainly does affect employment levels as salaries have dropped in large sectors of several industries as the government isn't spending money there.

Gee

[Anonymous Coward]

" one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation"

Kinda like those Swift boat ads where a bunch of guys lie over and over? Everthing they have said in those ads has been proven to be a lie by both official records and people who were ACTUALLY there for the times in question. I say show Moore's movie and let the nasty karma that GW and DICK are spreading come back and bite them in the ass.

oh btw did you hear the lastest? According to DICK if we elect anyone other then GW we will be attacked again. How dirty and unmoral is that? What's next? Photoshoped versions of Kerry with Osama showing him giving Osama money?

Hurting the process?

[fw3]

By the exercise of first ammendment rights?

I think not. Yes Moore is bombastic, biased etc. His *facts* seem to be pretty well done, however he's certainly chosen to lay them out to best make the point he's trying to make. This is something that the 'free press' in our nation does all the time. usually when cornered they even admit it.

It's also as likely to bolster Bush's supporters with the degree of venom that Moore brings to his subject and protrayal.

Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:

Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

...

Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented.

And as far as even-handed, I'll take even Moore's work over the 'swift boat veterans for truth(sic)' group, many of whom had nothing bad to say about Kerry, and some of whom earned medals in the same engagement that they now accuse him of lying about.

So Moore 'hurting the process' vs a group that has gotten advice from a (now resigned) administration (US-tax-paid-for) attorney ??!

No comparison. One is clearly using presentation to make a point, the other has clearly broken the rules in recieving material support from actual administration employees and is full of people who can't make up their minds whether they liked Kerry or didn't depending on what office he was running for at the time.

Re:Hurting the process?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Coupled with this arrogant bastard's repeated ability to ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports in favor of his own fscking agenda (basically "we need to eliminate SH from Iraq to stabilize the region") The decision that this moron needs to go was firmly cemented. "

Maybe you were unaware that the intelligense reports from the CIA is exactly what Bush acted on. Perhaps you didnt read the comission report placing the blame on the CIA? Or maybe you were unaware that Clinton was also told the same intelligense and acted on it as well.

Re:Hurting the process?

[Zed2K]

"Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:

Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'"

Just like Moore that is taken out of context. It was said at a political roast of sorts. You know when they get up, make jokes and rag on each other to raise money? Comedians do it all the time when they roast each other.

I'm sure there is a quote somewhere that has Bush saying something like "I have gas." But the full quote might have been, "I have gas in my tractor for my ranch in texas now." Or something stupid. (for those of you idiots out there i don't have a clue if this was ever said, just an example of taking a perfectly normal statement out of context to be used by an idiot).

They do this all the time in movie reviews. A reviewer will say sometime like "This movie is the absolute best at being horrible." But the poster will just say "This movie is the absolute best..."

Re:Hurting the process?

[tigeba]

Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you. Based on watching the film, you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army. In fact, this occured at the Al Smith dinner, which is a charity dinner that traditionally hosts presidental candidates, and of course the candidates are encouraged to make self depricating remarks. You would probably be surprised to know that the other guest of honor that evening was Al Gore, who I believe re-stated his claim that he invented the internet (as well as virtually every invention of the 20th century) as well as some other gems about keeping various types of produce safe in his fridge.

You can find a brief blurb here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politi cs /main242210.shtml

Feel free to draw your own conclusions about who is telling the "truth". And remember all facts are always true :)

Re:Hurting the process?

[Anonymous Coward]

intelligense

GWB.... posting on Slashdot!?!!

Re:Hurting the process?

[Theaetetus]

I'm sure there is a quote somewhere that has Bush saying something like "I have gas." But the full quote might have been, "I have gas in my tractor for my ranch in texas now." Or something stupid. (for those of you idiots out there i don't have a clue if this was ever said, just an example of taking a perfectly normal statement out of context to be used by an idiot).

Yup... Just like "I voted for it before I voted against it." ;)

Stop the spin - read the full transcripts.

-T

Re:Hurting the process?

[Ragica]

"you were probably under the impression that Bush delivered this line at some sort of secret fund raising dinner, rallying the his vast right-wing army" There, you see, you went too far in the other direction. It's true that probably nearly everyone (myself included) did not know the lines came from a often jocular fundraiser dinner, also featuring the comic stylings of Al Gore. But this does not mean that I (nor why would anyone?) think it was a "secret" dinner; and while one might reasonably assume Bush would be speaking to a more partisan crowd, with such comments, your phrasing goes to far in making it seem like people watching who disfavour Bush think that that makes it some sort of conspiracy.

Your info does put things in an interesting new (to me) context though. I even read the article you linked (after removing the extra space before the slash).

It's interesting to reflect on the nature of the jokes of the two gentlemen. At least the jokes quoted. One is a sort of elitist joke, a sort of (half?) joking show of self-aggrandizement. While the Jokes attributed to Gore humorously phrase his real positions on issues he cares about and affect America.

Why is it so easy to believe that those (perhaps) joking lines of Bush flow directly from his heart, and that it is actually a confused grin on his face when people laugh at what he said.

I am reminded of the phrase Al Franken so desperately wants to have introduced into wide use, and attributed to himself, that George is "kidding on the square".

Well, and so was Al Gore. I'm sure he was being (almost) entirely serious about the lettuce, while at the same time hilarious.

In other words, it seems to me, that even in light of this fuller context to the lines, doesn't really seem to change their effect or meaning, or tone very much.

Re:Hurting the process?

[sheldon]

This is a perfect example of the benefit of doing a little simple research and thinking, instead of absorbing information served to you.

It's not quite clear to me how this statement, even in context, is any less disturbing.

Re:Hurting the process?

[tigeba]

"There, you see, you went too far in the other direction. It's true that probably nearly everyone (myself included) did not know the lines came from a often jocular fundraiser dinner, also featuring the comic stylings of Al Gore. But this does not mean that I (nor why would anyone?) think it was a "secret" dinner; and while one might reasonably assume Bush would be speaking to a more partisan crowd, with such comments, your phrasing goes to far in making it seem like people watching who disfavour Bush think that that makes it some sort of conspiracy."

Yes, that was over the top. I was merely attempting to inject a little of the flavor of F911 into my post.

Personally, I would speculate that most people watching that clip would come to the conclusion that Bush was engaging in an attempt at humor. Some might not find it humorous however.

My favorite soundbite in F911 comes from Condoleezza Rice.

In the movie we hear Condi state:

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

And here is a transcript from the morning show she was appearing on when she made this statement.

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."

Again, draw your own conclusions about why one might omit the second sentence.

swift vets?

[minus_273]

how is this different from the swift vets controversy? ok moore is not a 527, but aside from that he is a rich guy trying to buy the election

Re: Hell yeah

[Hug Life]

Well of course it's the same!
It's Greenspan's job to keep unemployment at constant rate.
Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman based much of his work around the theory that low unemployment would lead to inflation. The lack of avaliable workers would force employers to pay better, which would lead to inflation.
He also argued that high unemployment would lead to crime and civil discontent.
I don't know if I agree, but the goverment sure does, so don't expect any change in unemployment figures other than those brought about by accounting. -js

MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[garcia]

You can't think of anything intelligent to say yourself so you have to repeat exact comments in the same thread?

Your link to the religion and IQ post was a blogger talking about two other bloggers' post about this topic. Sorry, back it up with facts and not with some blogger bullshit. The downfall of our society will be research papers based on "material" cited from blogs.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Foofoobar]

Hmmm, your logic (if you call it that) is interesting. I can't think of anythiong myself? Well considering that was my post, I DID think of it myself, moron. And since you chose to repeat the exact same thing someone else did, I don't see the point in wasting my breath on the ignorant. :)

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[garcia]

You posted uneducated non-sense from a blog. That's not intelligent thought. That's spewing shit.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Foofoobar]

Hmmm... a newspaper is a blog? A website that posts information from a United States census is a blog?

You are right that it's not thought though since thought is intangible. They are facts however.

And considering the evidence that you love George Bush so much, I can understand how you confuse facts with 'shit'.... but try not to confuse the too or else you may convince yourself that those are facts spewing out your ass. :)

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link to the religion and IQ post was a blogger talking about two other bloggers' post about this topic.
That's funny.
That's just like the bullshit argument religious nuts make for their religion.
Christians point to the Bible, Muslims point to the Koran. In both cases it's a nut pointing to the writings of another nut to prove they're right.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[garcia]

And considering the evidence that you love George Bush so much, I can understand how you confuse facts with 'shit'.... but try not to confuse the too or else you may convince yourself that those are facts spewing out your ass. :)

Wow, another post with no factual basis. You really shouldn't assume that because I disagree w/your post that I side with one candidate or the other.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Tiroth]

If you hand in the same paper twice in school, you are probably running afoul of the plagiarism rules, even if the first paper was your original work. In the same sense, posting the same comment verbatim on slashdot in two places is pretty questionable. The usual (and preferred) practice would be to write an explanatory introduction and cite the original.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[dylan_-]

I just thought I should point out that the article about children lowering IQ was in fact satire. There was no such survey. A quick google should reveal this, though the (cruelly funny) comments supposedly made by the Head Researcher should have given it away.

The IQ vs Religion graph is done by country. It's not about individual attitudes. As they say, the USA scored oddly because of the high numbers saying religion was important and yet having a high national average IQ.

Hope this helps...
(ps. re my political views: I'm not from the US and I think that all politicians everywhere are wankers.)

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Foofoobar]

Actually the report on Children was NOT parody; the Kinsey Institute actually does exist and they actually did do this study. It was also reported by several other newspapers.

The census info is of course only pertinent in the US because we only do the census for us... duh. And the high national IQ has no bearing on the stats since they just show IQ's in comparison to religious zeal(otry).

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You posted uneducated non-sense from a blog. That's not intelligent thought. That's spewing shit."

Indeed!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[dylan_-]

I know the Kinsey Institute exists. The link you gave it to a newspaper that has as its other main story "Man eats Dog". It's like giving a link to The Onion. Can you show me this story appearing anywhere else? Why isn't the study in the Kinsey Institute Catalog? Why does a Google for "Dr. Hosung Lee" AND IQ only give your link and two other sites that link back the the Hoosier?

Re the IQ stuff: I said nothing about the census data. You misunderstood. Please re-read either my post or your own link.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN, REPEAT POSTINGS.

[Foofoobar]

Hmmm... never let it be said that I can't admit I''m wrong. I even called the Kinsey Institute and they said it was a hoax. I then asked if anyone had ever done that research and they said they didn't know.

But at least I still have religion making people more dumb. The Census Bureau can't take that away from me :)

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't create jobs directly, but he could propose heavy taxes for any corporation that ships jobs overseas. He's allowing jobs to hemhorrage out of this country like mad.

If I were a TV network . . .

[tubbtubb]

I would think that if a network exec wanted to air f911, [s]he would probably want their network to at least *try* to appear unbiased. So in the spirit of the equal-time concept, a similar right-leaning crockumentary could be aired. This brings up the question, what would this be, if it does exist?

Re:If I were a TV network . . .

[Telepathetic Man]

Just play a 9/11 "what went wrong?" documentary with it, that seems to work pretty well.

Advertising=Money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because you say it is?

That's the name of the game

[Tairnyn]

"one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Just like telling voters that voting for Kerry will be the prelude to another serious terror attack. Almost sounds like a threat to me.

That's a laugh

[unsinged int]

CNN is not biased in favor of Kerry. Woodruff seems to hate Kerry, as do most of their political analysts, and Kagan is dating Rush Limbaugh. Come on man.

Re:That's a laugh

[artemis67]

So what, Rush is dating Kagan. That doesn't make her a conservative any more than marrying James Carville made Mary Matalin a liberal. When the Washington Post reported on the story, they described Kagan as "part of the liberal media axis and a feminist -- but, then again, opposites attract."

And Pat Buchannan, who worked at CNN, casts Judy Woodruff as a liberal.

Re:That's a laugh

[unsinged int]

I don't accept comparing Rush to Carville or Matalin as a valid comparison. You could at least have a reasonable discussion of issues with those two. Rush, however, I doubt you'd get very far. He's in the same category as O'Reilly as far as I'm concerned.

Re:That's a laugh

[artemis67]

Would that be the same Carville who suggested on TV that the Republicans drugged up Zell Miller before his speech at the Republican convention? And drugged him up again before his interview with Chris Matthews?

And yes, it's the same Zell Miller who officiated at Carville's wedding.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Frymaster]

He lied about X ohh yeah, well you lied about Y.

where x equals claims about weapons of mass destruction.

Why the Slashdot front page?

[mattmcarroll]

This is an article that should have been posted *only* to the newly-created Politics section of Slashdot.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree with you if we were living in the ideal society where government stays out of business and economy. However this is not the case.

In a country where our government is the biggest spending corportion, oversees corporate governance and allows corruption to run rampant how could this not be the case?

If the leaders of countries don't affect economic outcome how do you explain some resource rich countries like Zambia being a poor nation, yet England being a resource starved nation being one of the richest.

You might want to look up a word called Macroeconomics.

Cop Out

[RadioheadKid]

I call bullshit on the liberal media. That's just a catch-all used by conservatives to ignore anything and everything in the media they don't agree with. Like global warming, caused by green house gases, that was suppose to be some liberal idea. Well now even the Bush administration has stated that human action from driving automobiles to running power plants helped cause global warming.

Now, Salon for example is liberal, but I don't think they are hiding that fact. Most of the media is relatively conservative.

On a side note:
I think most people confuse a free society with a liberal society. If you live in a free society there will be things that offend you. Just because they offend you doesn't mean they are liberal or conservative. They just don't align with your beliefs. That's the beauty of democracy.

Re:Hell yeah

[hypnagogue]

Who is President simply does not affect jobs the way so many state, but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Actually, it's not so much bad luck as it is bad choices on the part of Wall Street. The reality: the dot-com boom created unsustainable jobs based on poor business models. For 2 straight years, the economy operated at a few hundred thousand jobs beyond full employment. You all remember it well -- being offered absurd sums to go work for a company that had no product, no customers, and no plan to change that situation. The economy was burning VC money -- and the fed wouldn't step in to fix it.

Now, in the crater of that foolishness, we have finally recovered to near full employment... and folks would like to panic and declare failure. You want to create jobs: great! You do it by being sensible with your money, and demanding the same from your employer, your vendors, and your investments. Anything else is a crap shoot.

The President doesn't move the economy -- you do.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

an interesting look at the movie: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Looks at what Moore says and how he misleads the viewer by omitting facts or spinning them a certain way. Follow the link for a trailer of the movie re-editted with facts inserted.

Bush = pure propoganda

[lothar97]

Anyone who doesn't think that Bush hasn't relied upon propoganda is nuts. The whole Iraq thing is and continues to be pure propoganda. Remember the justification they used for the war? "We know where the weapons are;" "There's a line in the sand, when we cross it they'll use their gas;" "Iraq collaborates with Al Queda."

None of these have been found to be even remotely true, hundreds of billions of dollars later, thousands of lives lost- and we're still no safer today than we were before attacking Iraq. If we're safer, there should be less terror alerts, not more. I'd argue that we're less safe, because now we've launched a pre-emptive war on questionable reasons, and the Arabs hate us more.

Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editing

[slaker]

Here's the thing: No matter how you feel about Moore's filmmaking, or Moore himself, the fact remains that, in the middle of that movie, there's footage of George W. Bush sitting around with a bunch of little kids, reading a children's book for *seven minutes* AFTER he was informed of the WTC tragedy.

His facial expression didn't even change! An airplane filled with Americans crashes into a de-facto national landmark, and he can't excuse himself to maybe, I dunno, get a briefing or turn on CNN.

That is real. That is a moment that stands by itself. He couldn't step away from a feel-good PR session in light of something that was at the very least (at that moment) a horrible accident.

The sickening thing is that the same group of people now raise the "terror alert level" every time their oppononents do anything that might attract media attention. Yesterday Dick Cheney came out and said that the consequence of a Kerry win in November would be another terrorist attack (so, that won't happen if George stay in office? Does he know something we don't?). These unctious fuckers, who were so unconcerned in the very first moments of a national tragedy, have gotten untold traction in the mind of the American public by exploiting the fear and the grief stemming from 9/11. I for one hope that people realize what's going on before it's too late.

Welcome to the world of Fox News

[Anonymous Coward]

If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view

Anything that doesn't agree with your world view gets ignored.

gewg_

Just fud...let him air...america is not stupid

[toolshed7]

He just spreads fud, like SCO. The guy had one great doc, and with his celibratity image he spreads lies to promote his own agenda. When he was on Oreilly his true colors shown.

Follow the timeline of bowling for colombie(sp?), it is out of order and uses tricks of the camera. I dont agree with Pearl Jam's politics(greatest band ever), however these guys have been rockin the vote for years. He needs to do something like that...not blow smoke. You cannot spread fud and except people to believe...the media has made that clear with their bias newsshows....but that is just what I think.

I say let him broadcast it, America will still vote W in with a landslide victory. Kerry does not stand a chance, because he does bring uncertaintly to the oval office, america wants stability. U are either for terrorism or you against...u cannot ride the fence, like Kerry.

Just vote, most people dont get this priviledge that alot of Americans take for granted...it is not god given, it is a right.

More like 12.5%

[thelexx]

Check out the whole article here.

But here's the most relevant section to your claim of 5.4%:

"The current Bush administration has expanded upon the Clinton era initiatives, particularly in setting the stage for the adoption of a new and lower-inflation CPI and in further redefining the GDP and the concept of seasonal adjustment.

As a result of the systemic manipulations, if the GDP methodology of 1980 were applied to today's data, the second quarter's annualized inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 3.0% would be roughly three percent lower (effectively netting to zero percent or below). In like manner, current annual CPI inflation is understated by about 2.7% against the pre-Clinton CPI methodology (would be about 5.7%), and the unemployment rate is understated by about seven percent against its original design and what many people would consider to be actual unemployment (would be about 12.5%)."

Perhaps you should read this!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3608006.stm

Now who's crying at foreign criticism?
Know your stuff before you name call!

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if the republicans released a video like that (which actually there probably are some) they would never get the kind of publicity that.

Liar.

Imagine if the republicans released a commercial that was filled with blatant lies and distortions about Kerry, who actually went to Vietnam as opposed to W. and Cheney who stayed far away.

Oh yeah, the "liberal" fucking media wouldn't give any publicity to a commercial like that, right?

People like you give honest Reupblicans a bad name. There is no "liberal" media, dittojerk. Get over it.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Bullshit.

you cant get quality employees at the extremely low pay rate you are offering.

Every time I hear that bullshit line from a "business owner" I jump all over them ape-shit style.

Perhaps you should actually ASK what I paid before telling me how low the pay was? Or ask what city I live in?

Greensboro, NC paying $20 an hour for a basic computer/electronics tech to work 30+ hours a week (any hours they wanted as long as it was mon-fri) in a shop open 50 hours a week. I am not the only one here that has this problem.

Go flame elsewhere jr., I am smart enough to pay well to get good help. The problem wasn't pay or environment, there just wasn't enough people here that had the skills or wanted the work. At my other business, I pay on average 20% higher than anyone else in the industry and have better luck keeping employees. Avg. employment length is measured in years. These jobs, however, are non-skilled.

Get your facts before assuming. The vast majority of small business owners are not the greedy idiots you assume. You don't own a successful business very long if you are.

Re:Hell yeah

[Chess_the_cat]

There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any?

That's why it's called the Silent Majority.

Happened In Sweden

[pt99par]

A documentary with similar characteristics was aired in sweden just before election. It was indirectly attacking the conservative party by showing local leaders of the party beeing provoced to say rasistic stuff.. It affected the actual result of the voting if you look at statistics prior to the airing of the documentary.. I would rather have the US voting carrey for president but it would be unfair to show souch propaganda before the election. Even if there is an escence of trouth in the documentary it is presented in souch a way that it makes bush look like he is worse than hitler. Way cant jounalist make documentaries without presenting them like a propaganda from the cold war...

Re:Happened In Sweden

[multimed]

Way cant jounalist make documentaries without presenting them like a propaganda from the cold war...

Michael Moore is not a journalist. Has has at times been a documentary filmaker and a successful, if not good one. He has fairly explicitly stated that his whole purpose of his latest movie was to get Bush out of the White House. By definition, then, Farenheit 9/11 is propaganda--whether it is truthful (which is tenuous at best) doesn't really matter because his expressed purpose was not to inform or entertain but to serve his agenda. He most certainly has every right to make his opinion heard but it should not be called a documentary and most certainly should not air on television the night before the election. If we had any real sensible campaign rules they would address something like this. Oh wait that'll never happen.

Turnabout is fairplay

[rogerbo]

Gee the Republicans have used Propoganda, lies and emotional manipulation through scare tactics for years, decades even.

I say about time the left resorted to the same tactics, they didn't start fighting dirty...

Personally I don't care if F911 is truth or not as long as it helps stop Bush getting reelected.

Re:Turnabout is fairplay

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's so true I'm sure. Lets just get the lying rapist back into the white house and forget all about the decades of Republican lies.

Ok, seriously:

[Mongoose Disciple]

You can say what you want about Edwards, but he's a guy who started poor and, as far as I know, without handouts from government, worked his way up to being rich.

Isn't that sort of the Republican ideal? That poor people don't need welfare or special advantages, because the American way is to pull yourself up through hard work?

It would be hypocritical to encourage people to rise from poverty through whatever lawful means necessary, and then condemn their way of doing it.

Re:Ok, seriously:

[avandesande]

alot of people have done the same thing, by selling crack, making porno movies, or strong arming people into using their garbage business.

I am paying 12,000$ a year to insure my family (health)
I would say that half of that is to pay insurance companies. Lawyers like edwards are human garbage.

Re:Ok, seriously:

[Mongoose Disciple]

You'll note I said lawful means. Two of those examples definitely aren't. Making porn, depending on its type, probably is, and you know? If you believe welfare etc. is a bad thing, I think you'd have to support that too.

On the other hand, if you don't think poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps by dint of hard work and, generally, by taking jobs that other people find distasteful and can't or won't do, then I have no problems with you hating Edwards.

If your problem is just with health care costs, maybe the solution is to change how we handle it in America. Maybe the solution is to reform malpractice laws. The solution is probably not to hate poor people who manage to get jobs as lawyers.

Hate the garbage, but not the garbageman. He's just trying to feed his family and get ahead in the world the same as you are.

law allows anything w/regards to campaign ads

[Mr. Cancelled]

I believe it'd be an easy arguement to say that the movies being ran as an "infomercial" for the Democratic party.

If I recall right, this is the whole reason that Larry Flynt's threatened to run for pres in the past, since the law allows you to run anything to support your platform.

In Larry's case, he intended to show hardcore porn (which would proably get a lot of the Slashdot readers to vote for him). Although the length might be an issue, I don't think the content will be.

Welcome to Politics

[StormyMonday]

American style.

• Joe Coors smuggles anticommunist tracts into the Soviet Union. Nobody cares.
• Ross Perot makes TV infomercials attacking NAFTA. Nobody cares.
• Richard Mellon Scaife founds and funds right- wing think tanks. Nobody cares.
• Sun Myung Moon funds a money- losing newspaper that becomes known as the "voice of the Republican Party". Nobody cares.
• George Soros funds a "liberal talk radio network". The right wing screams like a roomful of little girls at a horror movie.
• Michael Moore makes a movie that shows George W. Bush in a less than flattering light. Suddenly it's the End of the Republic.

I see a bit of bias here.

My brother is a fanatical Clinton- hater He has dozens of "documentaries" on the Clintons' numerous crimes, including mass murder. The only difference here is that Moore is a talented filmmaker who sticks to the facts, as opposed to a hack who just makes stuff up. The Right has trouble attracting artistic types; it's pretty obvious which side of the aisle is telling artists "You can't do that!"

BTW, the only error of fact that I've heard of being sustained was that the story was "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat".

Is /. now kuro5hin??

[Anonymous Coward]

An honest meta-question for /.

Why do political stories that do not involve technology make the front page? It's true, we can set our filters to turn off postings from this group, but the questions still needs to be asked.

Re:Is /. now kuro5hin??

[Cro Magnon]

Is /. now kuro5hin?? Nah, Kuro5hin is full of mindless elitist trolls who can't have a civil discussion. Hmm, OTOH, you may be right!

Illuminati manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want the true take a look at this webside.

I found this comment on the forum:

Just FYI only.
Michael Moore is a plant !! He is there to collect the "REACTION" of the people.

His parents are on The Committee of 300, a staunch Illuminati Group !

Bu-shit 9/11

[essreenim]

As someone who is not from the U.S (Im from Ireland), its really none of my business.

Some of you may remember G.W Bush's visit to Ireland some time back. It was not televised really, even though our Taoiseach (president) was the then E.U leader, hence the visit to Ireland.
He was most unwelcome here, which is strange concidering that of all the countries in Europe, Ireland has one of - if not - the strongest affinity with the US - there are many Irish-Americans. You can contrast the warm welcome given to good old Clinton with the cold military pitstop of Bush's visit. There are many reasons I want to see the end of Republican government. In fact I think this American election will attract more outside interest than all the previous ones simply because there is a such a strong repulsion for this Republican 'regime'. Anyway, you have a 2-party system. Nobody wins really! I think the U.S needs to reform its whole political system. Sadly thats probably not going to happen..

Re:Bu-shit 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the internet high in poor quality content [internetisshit.org]?

Could I just say, this is the shittest site I've ever seen on the Internet.

Re:Bu-shit 9/11

[JWW]

I just want to comment about the 'regime' change part of your statement.

I sure hope those outside of the US (and in it as well) appreciate the fact that at most Bush's 'regime' will only last 4 more years, or just a few more months. Contast that with Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and many other countries where regimes last decades.

I do agree however that we need more than two parties and probably 4. The only way this will happen would be for a viable 3rd party to actually win the presidency, not just be competitive for it like Perot was. A party would build around that person and the other parties would hopefull fracture into factions after that.

Anne Coulter? Zell Miller? TheyShe's nuts!

[lothar97]

The "questions" raised by "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" include com

It's possible to be truthful without being honest

[hey!]

In fact the smartest way to be dishonest is to take true bits and put them together in a misleading and suggestive way. You don't risk being caught in an outright lie.

I can't say I particularly admire Mr. Moore, but the Republicans have their nose out of joint because he's using their own diabolical tools against them. What he's done isn't any different than what they're doing to Kerry's voting record or his testimony on Vietnam as a young man, and considerably less vile than what they've done to Kerry's service in Vietnam (and along the way the ruthless character assassinations on James Rassman, a Republican, and the Rev. David Alston).

I don't know how I feel about Mr. Moore. On one hand, part of me says that if one guy hits below the belt, then you should get rough too. On the other hand, I'd rather people be flocking to a documentary that followed journalistic standards of presenting information in a balanced way.

A documentary

[rd_syringe]

I disagree. A documentary is supposed to objectively document something. It's like a visual textbook. Nature documentaries aren't biased. It's all about filming the lions, explaining how they live, what they eat, and so on. Those are objective facts.

The reason Michael Moore pisses me off isn't because of his politics. It's because there are a lot of sheep who believe everything he says. If I'm told that I'm going to be watching a documentary on the Bush administration, I expect to be given actual hard facts, with sources, and viewpoints from both sides aired in the film. I expect the film to prove its own points irrefutably. But Fahrenheit 9/11's falsehoods have been extensively documented online. Showing Bush playing golf is silly. Moore's man Kerry is always seen windsurfing, riding bicycles, etc. The film is a one-sided worldview that doesn't reach a conclusion--it tries to prove one from the outset. Even from the beginning, where Moore reports that Al Gore won the election...despite a joint study by five independent journalists including the Washington Times, CNN, and others which showed that no matter which way the votes were counted, Bush won (note that despite that, I still believe the Supreme Court should have given time to count the votes...but the point is that Moore picks and chooses his sources).

Quite simply, Michael Moore's film is not a documentary. Facts are cherry-picked and spun to reflect a certain viewpoint. He is giving his opinions throughout the movie. That is not a documentary, that is an op-ed piece, or a propaganda piece. The film is propaganda because it is trying to put forth a persuasive argument to convince the viewer of something. A documentary doesn't try to convince you of anything. It merely documents. Saying "all documentaries are biased" is a strange phrase I haven't heard until recently, from people trying to justify Moore's methods. When I grew up, documentaries actually attempted not to be biased.

Oh, and this load of crap about Michael Moore not seeking Best Documentary Oscar because he wants to "give others a chance" is so hilarious. He's not going for Best Documentary because he knows it wouldn't win--it's not a documentary. What a load of spin. Bowling For Columbine has already been torn to shreds as a hacked-together spin piece (Watch Charlton Heston's tie change midway through his speech. Why? Because it's two speeches a year apart edited together! Geez...), and with Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has shown himself as the spinster he is. He completely ignores certain polls and only cites unnamed sources in arguing his viewpoints. When actually put to the test and challenged like he was on O'Reilly, he crashes and burns.

This is the same sort of spinster crap that spawns movies like Outfoxed!, where the filmmaker actually zooms in on a split-screen interview so that all you see is the Republican, and then claims that only Republicans appear on the show! Or quotes a reporter praising someone in the Bush administration, meanwhile without showing you the full footage where the reporter is actually quoting someone from the Bush administration. To the world of the extreme left, anything popular that isn't leftist is suddenly a Republican conspiracy.

And then, of course, after a year of anti-Bush ads and "Bush=Hitler" garbage and feature film "documentaries", some veterans put out a couple of ads in a few states and suddenly there's a "smear campaign" going on! Bush is supposed to condemn the ads, even though Kerry never condemned any of his 527 ads or films the entire year they were running. Those evil Republicans. Poor, innocent Democrats. To me, it sounds like sour grapes over the fact that one of Bush's 527 groups was more effective with less money than all of MoveOn.org's spin pieces put together. Kerry is now the worst-rated candidate in history compared to an incumbent--a double-digit lead in the polls.

Politics has become a battle between two organized religions, and Michael Moore is the spinster for

Re:A documentary

[OldSchoolNapster]

This is the same sort of spinster crap that spawns movies like Outfoxed!, where the filmmaker actually zooms in on a split-screen interview so that all you see is the Republican, and then claims that only Republicans appear on the show! Or quotes a reporter praising someone in the Bush administration, meanwhile without showing you the full footage where the reporter is actually quoting someone from the Bush administration. To the world of the extreme left, anything popular that isn't leftist is suddenly a Republican conspiracy.

Have you seen Outfoxed (not heard about on Fox News)? I defy you to find one inaccuracy on a single point made in that movie. I don't mean "I can't believe they zoomed in on the republican". These arguments about the style of the movie instead of its arguments is how the Right sidesteps sooo many valid points. When John Kerry gets pissed about, as Jon Stewart put it, "The ironically named swiftboat veterans for truth, which are neither swift, nor truthful" the Right only says that since there are 527s on the left that John Kerry is flipflopping or some such nonsense. Kerry isn't attacking republican 527s, he is attacking one specific Bush campaign directed (there are proven links) smear campaign to discredit Kerry's war record. You can never have a straight argument with these guys. They build straw-men like they have a crow problem.

Re:A documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Love,
rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

Re:A documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the one that wrote a page and a half of gibberish. only took me a paragraph to prove you were full of shit.

Re:A documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

You suck as a troll. There is a difference between being a troll and being a tool. You are a dumbass. You have lost at not sucking dick. Go write another "troll", but try not to make it as crappy and sad this time.

Re:F 9/11 not a documentary - it's a propoganda fi

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually the spinning on that site is even worse. Often times it works around what Moore is actually trying to say.

It's more of an exercise is knocking down strawmen than anything.

One of the confusing things people have about F9/11 is that for large parts of the movie, Moore doesn't give a conclusion. He just puts up the facts, which frankly add up to something even worse than what reality is. Was this done on purpose? I actually don't think so. I never even noticed until I had some non-political types watch it.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

I dont consider the Iraq war immoral. I consider it overdue. I have been bitching since Desert Storm I that we left the Iraqi people out to dry. It was about time we had the guts to finish the job, give the Iraqis a chance to live in peace with a democracy of their own choosing.

To me, its a big deal, and this is from someone who has actually served in the military, and was raised in a military family with a father that served in Korea and Vietnam. I am more than a little aware of the risks and the costs, and in my opinion, it is a small price to pay.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Jett]

Are we in fact winning? I hadn't noticed what with 1000+ dead troops in Iraq and no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs and Osama bin Laden still on the loose and hundreds of children being blown up in Chechnya and airplanes being blown up in Russia and the anthrax killer never found and the Taliban regaining power in parts of Afghanistan and bombings in Bali and Turkey and Moscow and Madrid and...

Re:Hell yeah

[mattkime]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

I really doubt that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the job market. We've been in a recession long enough that many people without jobs are no longer being listed as unemployed. Further, many people are underemployed or working for less money than they were a while back.

Congradulations for such a stellar work record. You're lucky and a rare exception. But don't point to those of us who have bad luck and say it solely our fault.

Also, Bush clearly hasn't helped the economy. Look at gas prices - which are a result of the instability in Iraq. Thats the simplest example I can provide.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he would spend even more gov $ than Bush, who is one of the all-time greats in gov growth?

No, it's because he wouldn't cut taxes at the same time. When a Democrat is more fiscally responsible than a far-right conservative, that should be a sign that the conservative is doing something very wrong.

Thoughtful Ccnvention

[Raunch]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
As opposed to the recent speeches at the RNC?
Zell Miller, who told lots of "Truths" (Propaganda that purports to be unbiased),
or the Terminator, who made that comment about girly men, now there is a thoughtful issue.

Personally, I would rather watch something where the bias has been admitted and is known.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The current economy is entirely W's work.

BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you know what kind of machine the economy is? It's MASSIVE! It's not an app running on a box on George's desktop. You can't turn it this way or that. Certainly one man can't bend it to his own will. It takes hundreds upon thousands of changes to move it and even then it takes YEARS! Clinton's prosperity can be attributed to Reagan's tax cuts. Bush's current troubles can be attributed to Clinton. Bush's tax cuts seem to be working pretty well and whoever gets in next will benefit from those policies.

Re:The economy started backwards AFTER Bush moved

[MasterOfMagic]

Because, of course, you can get an immediate measure on any given day at any given hour exactly how the economy is doing. Read your precious studies and indicators. The numbers that they were reporting are duing Clinton's time in office.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using lies and deception may not be the way your debate teacher told you to win a debate, but it seems to be working well enough for the Republican party as a whole. Why get mad at MM for using the same bullshit tactics?

Re: Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

I don't know if I agree, but the goverment sure does, so don't expect any change in unemployment figures other than those brought about by accounting. -js

There is a huge difference is "the government" and "the president". The President, by him/herself is not as significant in job creation/deletion as the Congress, the Fed and many other institutions. I stand by my original statement. The one office is not that influential when it comes to jobs.

Critical Thinking?

[Doc Ruby]

Moore can say what he wants, even Swift (other) Boat Veterans for War can say what they want - that's what free speech is all about. We, the people, must consume all these messages, and think for ourselves. There are no definitive sources, there are no final answers. We have to make our own decisions, after finding diverse sources of info, and cross referencing them. We have to keep in mind that reality is largely self-consistent, though surprising in its details. Once we have our best guess of what happened, we have to decide whether it will happen again, or what will happen instead. We have to factor the contribution of whatever our own choice will be. We will have to live in the world to come, so we have to consider all these communications, and make our own decisions for ourselves.

A child left behind.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone explain to me how the presedent hurts/creates jobs, that is something that has never made any sence to me."

Increasing the audience?

[herrison]

Release a torrent.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everyone I know is planning on voting for Bush, except for this one woman who is a Lesbian and looked me right in the eyes and said she would rather have Saddam Hussein as president.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but all of that money going to the top 1% is just being kept warm for a while - it will trickle down, so it's not a big deal. Why, a nice man in a suit gave me $2.35 in change just last week. $2.35! Under Clinton I'd be lucky to get a quarter. Bush/Cheney 2004!

Re:Hell yeah

[raider_red]

Congress missed extending unemployment benefits this year by one vote. The reason: John Kerry didn't bother to show up at the Senate that day.

Re:It's possible to be truthful without being hone

[CashCarSTAR]

You don't want balance 'tho. That's the problem with the US media.

Balance reduces everything to a "he said-she said" format that basically gets nowhere. What you need is a return to the old journalistic standards of accuracy. Was F9/11 perfectly accurate, no. Was it more accurate than most things you see on the nightly news? Yeah, most nights.

Why? The nightly news mostly reports claims without any sort of fact-checking. F9/11 on the other hand, did allow those on the other side ample airtime to explain their views. (Ok, so it's kinda old, but it was their views. That they changed them so often well...who's fault is that?)

Emotions are the most important part.

[lcsjk]

["one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."]

I would guess that more than 90 percent of people make up their mind based on emotions. (Vietnam, National Guard, IRAQ war, terrorism, Taxes on the rich, Your money belongs to you, Healthcare for the Elderly, Lowcost drugs) They are all presented in a way that appeals to emotions and little reason and never any quoted sources for the information that is presented.

I don't support Bush but Moore is a POS.

[bretharder]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/p osts

Re:I don't support Bush but Moore is a POS.

[EnderWiggnz]

you linked to FreeRepublic?

good lord man - they have negative credibility.

Re:I don't support Bush but Moore is a POS.

[Anonymous Coward]

good lord man - they have negative credibility.

And Michael Moore has....

Re:I don't support Bush but Moore is a POS.

[EnderWiggnz]

>And Michael Moore has....

an oscar for best documentary.

"Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain"

[ImaLamer]

When it comes to influencing the vote with emotions Bush and Cheney take the cake.

A good article on this same subject is Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain by Thom Hartmann.

It of course applies to all candidates but is very harmful when even mentioning 9/11. Remember when Mike Tyson took a chunk out of Holyfield's ear? Well, later Tyson said that the head-butting and bad calls made him remember another time that it had happened and he snapped. It's called an "Amygdala Hijacking", a phrase I believe coined by Daniel Goleman.

You develop emotional responses by experience. Now that we've all gone through 9/11 every time it's mentioned we become overwhelmed with the same emotions that we experienced at that time. That is why it was mentioned during the Republican National Convention so much (*).

Good articles on the subject:

How the neuroscience revolution can change your practice.
and...
Emotional Intelligence - Stop Amygdala Hijackings

(*) Notice "Osama" was not mentioned once.

Re:"Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain"

[syrinx]

Notice "Osama" was not mentioned once.

No? Search for "Osama" on this speech transcript, for example.

http://www.2004nycgop.org/cgi-data/speeches/file s/ 9447gro3ajf8nb99ou8t0p4151346qbl.shtml

Re:"Cheney Speaks to the Reptile Brain"

[ImaLamer]

Oh... I'm sorry he was mentioned exactly once.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Actually we just hired several new people because of outsourcing. By shifting growth (and risk) overseas, our US plant is more stable and we need more salesmen, warehouse workers and customer service people. Had we not been able to expand by creating jobs overseas, we would not have hired anyone else. No one lost a job here.

I know this is not how it works for every outsourced jobs, but all this outsourcing bashing is just uninformed.

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[stratjakt]

You're right, but they do have a "stance", it's just based on profit and not ideals.

Way back when, the country was largely conservative, and most media outlets reflected this. People got bored. All of a sudden bleeding hearts like Donahue get really popular, because they're bucking the trend and doing something different and controversial.

So the pendulum slowly swings the other way. Boardroom types see the popularity of the liberal hosts, and saturate the media with them. Now the bleeding heart liberal stuff starts to bore, and folks like Rush Limbaugh gain popularity, because his message is different and controversial.

Which is sort of where we are now. PC liberalism is the norm, and the Limbaughs and Hannitys and G Gordon Liddys are the "rebels". Of course, the airwaves are becoming slowly saturated with these guys, and the pendulum starts to swing the other way.

None of it is about ideals or political views, just attracting audiences as you say. All with the "the views expressed in the following..." caveat, of course, so you can never blame the media outlets themselves for hypocrisy.

Let's all see it

[Anonymous Coward]

After Moore said he encouraged p2p sharing of his movie I found it on torrent and watched it out of curiosity. I despise Moore for his attack on the Second Amendment, his "Bowling for Columbine" movie was a blatant and cowardly attack on my right to keep and bear arms, including my right to own assault weapons and handguns if I so choose, which I do.

I don't care about his politics, I don't buy into the right wing v. left wing crap, it's all a puppet show to distract people from the truth that "other people" run this country from afar.

But, this movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 is pretty damning. Bu$h is so deeply connected to the $audi's that it's far beyond disgusting, it's criminal. Of course ALL politicians are criminals, none of them have clean hands. I would like to see Moore expose the rest of the profiteering criminals in our government.

Spin or not, Bush shouldn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if people aren't happy with the "spin" Moore put on the FACTS in his movie, the bottom line is pretty simple:

-Bush spent billions on a war we didn't need or want instead of dealing with record unemployment at home

-Bush shouldn't be in office because there are inherent conflicts of interest related to him and his family's businesses. No one should be allowed into office if they or their immediate family can profit from his actions in office! Can you trust him to make decisions that benefit American citizens rather than the Bush family coffers??

Re:Hell yeah

[MasterOfMagic]

It was about time we had the guts to finish the job, give the Iraqis a chance to live in peace with a democracy of their own choosing.

Assuming that we liberate the people and "finish the job", why should they be forced into a democracy, and if they are, how is it of their own choosing?

Read the sources. Do they support him?

[GQuon]

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.)

Bush's 527 Two-step

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's denunciation of 527s was simply the capstone on a very, very bright political operation. It went something like this:

First step: Rove's extended political network finances and places the SwiftVet commercials on TV in three contested media markets.

Second step: SwiftVet media exposure, handled again by people in Rove's orbit, places the issue front and center as a major media story.

Third step: As KE04 cries 'foul' over the ads, BC04 disavows 527s as an institution. When that (rightly) fails to placate, Bush simply says that he "respects John Kerry's service."

Here's where it gets good: Because Bush doesn't directly disavow the SwiftVets, the allegations remain active. But because Bush has rhetorically distanced himself from the SwiftVet commercials, he doesn't have to defend the veracity of the ads. With no major media figure defending the SwiftVet ads, the media turns its attention elsewhere, leaving the misleading impression that the SwiftVet ads are basically true, instead of almost entirely false.

This was, let me make clear, a brilliant political move that further cements Rove's reputation as one of the best handlers in the business and a worthy heir to Lee Atwater. But don't be suckered into thinking that Bush "said 'lets [sic] ban the 572s.'" Rove simply maneuvered the media into a position where BC04 didn't have to defend the charges they secretly put into play. (See also: McCain, John, black love child, rumors of.)

- Watchful Babbler

Re:Bush's 527 Two-step

[avandesande]

I agree totally. I never thought it possible but kerrys campaign is even worse than al gores.

You think when they organize these things they would require everyone to watch tapes of Clinton's campaigns-- they were perfect.

No class

[Kenrod]

Michael Moore called a CNN staffer a "Fucking cunt" at the Democratic National Convention. Her crime? She wanted him to return his CNN security credentials after he was finished with an interview. That's the real Michael Moore.

Why is this on the front page?

[Smitty825]

Why is this on the front page of /.? While I have my personal opinions of the movie, IMHO, this has nothing specific to do with "News for Nerds", and thus should be buried in the Politics section for those who wish to discuss it...

Re:Why is this on the front page?

[Akuinnen]

I agree. I tried turning Politics off in the settings, but it still shows up.

There are plenty of other sites where people can rant and rave about politics, why does Slashdot have to become the next Metafilter?

Re:Why is this on the front page?

[Smitty825]

Thanks...Hopefully the editors will listen to us ;-) (Note: I have no problem with stuff like "$CANDIDATE says $XYZ about $TECHNOLOGY" making the front page, nor the annual "Interview the Presidential Candidates" thread...)

Believable Sensationalism

[what_the_frell]

Michael Moore's works, especially F-911 are great examples of how to make a good slanted argument. You can still rely on good facts to present your case, while conveniently omitting the other facts that negate what you want to say. You can't refute (many of) the specific facts he brings to light, but at the same time, there are many more facts that can be added to topple the house of cards. I think Moore picked and chose his subjects well, built up his argument, and wrapped it up in some very good quality filmmaking and scripting in order to say what he wanted to say.

Re:Believable Sensationalism

[praxis]

Isn't that what it's all about? Each participant crafts their argument how they please, then they back it up with facts. They need only include facts which support their claim, although the better ones might preempt attacks on their argument by including some opposing facts and supplying a plausible rebuttal. Each participant does the same, and observers can then make informed descisions.

It won't happen, but it should

[calstraycat]

I doubt any network will air the movie. But, they should.

Michael Moore is no different than Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. Those guys get tons of airplay and they are biased, spinning shills for their party. Why shouldn't Moore get some airplay? Jeez, it's just a two hour movie. The right wing windbags get more air time than that every single day.

I say let it air

[SuperKendall]

I am in the camp of believeing F9/11 is propoganda of the worst sort. Some of the stuff he did in Bowling really irked me, and he continues in the same vein.

That said, I say let it air. The people that are so weak minded that a Moore documentary would sway them are probably not the ones headed to the polls anyway...

But it also could backfire. If you piss off enough apathetic conservative people you might drive even more conservatives to the voting booth.

Racism and Stupidity

[Shihar]

I won't vote for Bush in the upcoming election. I almost changed my mind after watching Fahrenheit 9/11.

I personally am always blown away that main stream Democrats support Fahrenheit 9/11. It is like a main stream Republican supporting a film put out by the KKK in more ways then one. Fahrenheit 9/11 was by far the absolute most racist movie I have ever seen, short of old World War II propaganda. I think the scene that captures that sickening level of racism in that movie is when it shows a solid minute of two of various Bush officials shaking hands with people who are obviously Arabs (all from Saudi Arabia), and then implies that this should piss you off because 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Audi Arabia. The movie tries to make it sound like the fact that Bush meet a Saudi official after 9/11 was a bad thing. The entire movie uses Saudi like a curse word.

Further, it is the most revolting display of propaganda that I have ever seen in my entire life. The movie spent a solid five minutes or so showing Bush administration officials putting on fucking make. What exactly was the point of that? To show that people like to cover up their blemishes before putting their face up in front of a few million people? The propaganda tactics it uses could fill a Soviet hand book. It slows down certain scenes, edits out the sound, it makes some pictures grainier then they were, it cuts and slices scenes, and uses just about every single trick in the book. Hell the entire structure of the movie is classic propaganda. Throw out facts to make an implied argument, but never exactly state what the argument is. Then, after you have thrown out your stupid strawman of an argument, bash the audience with something highly emotional that they can't help but agree. In this case, they emotional hook is 'war is ugly'.

I think airing Fahrenheit 9/11 could be a disaster for Democrats. Most of the people that saw Fahrenheit 9/11 were already dead set to vote against Bush and didn't need encouragement. Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been any anti-Bush movie and they would have cheered at the end, no matter how sickeningly thick the racism or propaganda in the movie was. I think Moore confuses this as popular support for the movie. I have a strong feeling that if a wider audience viewed the movie it would have the effect of turning them off and voting for Bush out of spite. It might help to charge the fanatical democrat base, but I think it would probably equally charge the conservative base.

Whatever the case, I think it is a moot argument. I highly doubt that any major network would air Fahrenheit 9/11. The fact that it is pure and naked racist propaganda being launched right before an election that no sponsor in his right mind would want to be associated with will likely decide the issue fairly quickly. I think the best Moore can hope for is to freely distribute the movie with no licensing agreements to prevent it being shown to mass audiences.

Re:Racism and Stupidity

[iamacat]

Fahrenheit 9/11 was by far the absolute most racist movie I have ever seen... The entire movie uses Saudi like a curse word.

Saudi who is probably in a government or big company doing business with US, but not "Arab" or an everyday Saudi citizen - unless he is cheering 9/11? I don't see how cursing leadership of a particular country is racist or any other word except "normal" given that people have different opinions.

Saudi government is not democratic - they have a king for heaven's sake - and they could well be acting against popular will of the people by supporting US and especially by allowing US troops in the country. The bait is money and no doubt a good sum goes to the "royal family".

If they listened to their people more, US might have more difficulty in the region or have to drive fuel-efficient cars, but Bin Laden would have much less support.

Michael Moore is a genius

[Schnapple]

Michael Moore is a genius and is good for America.

I'll explain.

He comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11. It's full of things. It's a very effective piece of propoganda. And there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie.

It's been my experience that it's by and large intelligent people who go see his films. Think about it - it's the intelligent people who will give his work the time of day. It's been my experience that the people who say "he's a damn dirty liar and I won't support that" haven't done their research and are on the whole the ones who would rather not hear anything he has to say.

Consequently it's these same intelligent people who walk out of the theater saying "wow, that was pretty bad for Bush & Co. - but I bet it's only one side of the story". And it is.

Moore tells you about the VA Hospitals Bush closed down, but not about the ones he opened up.

Moore tells about the opinon piece that says Gore won, but he doesn't tell you about the dozen stories that say he lost.

Moore tells you about the judges Bush couldn't get appointed, but not about the ones he did.

People have made it their goal to point out the one-sided arguments in the film while others have pointed out the fallacies in those arguments against the film.

56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film. There's no way in hell that 56% of Americans are informed about politics. So they learn a lot from Fahrenheit 9/11. Then they learn a lot more from the people against F911. Then they learn even more from the people who are against the people who are against F911. And they decide for themselves who they want to believe more. Or more importantly they decide for themselves which information is important to them.

And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.

And that's why Michael Moore is a genius. Thanks to him there's a ton more informed voters out there, if for no other reason than people need to see the movie and get their ducks in order in order to hate Moore and his arguments. In many ways he's leveled the playing field.

Re:Michael Moore is a genius

[member57]

You are correct, people must remeber that during election time, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Re:Michael Moore is a genius

[linuxpaul]

56% of Americans have either seen the film or plan to see the film

<propaganda style="michael moore">
A recent poll also shows 56% of Americans said they are planning to vote for George W. Bush in November. </propaganda>

Draw your own conclusions. :)

Re:Michael Moore is a genius

[Mongoose Disciple]

And then they're informed. In ways they never would have been before. I wouldn't know most of this stuff if I hadn't seen the film and then read all the debates. And I wouldn't have read the debates if it weren't for the Internet. Hell, Michael Moore used footage he got from the Internet to make the movie.

I think that's the point a lot of people are missing. The movie brings up things that either didn't receive coverage or didn't receive enough coverage in the normal media.

I know maybe a dozen pretty undecided people that saw the movie. A couple were totally swayed by it, and one had the total opposite reaction, but most were somewhere in the middle. They basically said: "You know, I think there's some truth to what's said in this movie, but I also don't think I can take it all at face value; some of it's probably distorted. I need to find out more about this." (Although, again in most of those cases, they believed enough of it was true to be horrified or disgusted with GWB's administration at points.)

To a large degree, the conventional news media set up F911 to have the power that it does. Some of what's in the movie is definite retread, but a lot of it isn't. If we had seen at the time, for example, GWB sit seemingly dumbfounded for seven minutes after hearing of the WTC attacks, it probably wouldn't have been all that big a deal -- and if Moore brought it out again three years later, no one would have cared. It's precisely because this is new that it has the power it does, and it's precisely because it's new to us that Moore has the freedom to spin it the way he does. If FOX News had covered it at the time and spun it as the President taking a moment to mourn the lives lost or some such thing, Moore couldn't tell you it's confused stupidity instead and have it seem so plausible.

Here's hoping what really comes out of all of this is an increase in the quality of journalism in this country.

Re:Michael Moore is a genius

[asabbott]

I agree that Moore creates discussion which leads to people being better informed.

I ask you this though.

Can this process be done all the night before the election? What is Moore ultimately trying to gain by airing his movie Nov 1st?

IMHO he is trying to gain votes from people who are not already informed, people who can and will be emotionally affected by this film.

Re:Michael Moore is a genius

[Coryoth]

You are correct, people must remeber that during election time, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Realistically I think it is often more likely that the truth is somewhere in a completely different direction away from the nice artificial dichotomy that the media have chosen to draw on an issue. Having a very narrow (but vociferous and heavily partisan) debate is a very effective way of moulding opinion. Remember, the media doesn't work for either the Republicans or the Democrats, the media works for themselves.

Jedidiah.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely why do you think the President, any President, controls employment?
Businesses provide jobs, and if they can compete with fewer people, they take advantage of it.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why get mad at MM for using the same bullshit tactics?"

Because it lessens his film as a documentary (what it wants to appear to be) and makes his cause appear to be less then honest. With all the dirt on Bush a person should be able to rip him apart on facts alone, without bringing emotion into the debate. For instance, simple facts:

Kerry is a decorated Veteran.
Bush has never seen combat action.

No emotion and you can see the military records of both.

I am one of the "anybody but Bush" people but when so much of the country is undecided, I think appearing more honest and civil will help win more votes then dishonest attacks

Re:Hell yeah

[ageoffri]

Actually you have it backwards. I don't know a single Kerry supporter. Everyone I know is either for Bush or one of the mindless drones screaming Anybody But Bush.

My officemate has a picture of Bush on his wall and most of the conversations I hear around work are pro-Bush and we have several thousand people working here in Boulder.

Re:bite me asshat.

[danheskett]

How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11.

Now, does that number match what you would have perceived on 9/12?

The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

Re:bite me asshat.

[JWW]

Just a note in relation to your comments on Russia.

Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic. I am fully expecting an action more reminicent of Sherman's march than anything else. This is truly a global war on terror, and while Michael Moore and you can debate how its going here, you won't have any say in what the Russians do, and I think it will be a very dramatic statement.

This movie will have opposite effect on it...

[linuxrunner]

Moore wants people to vote against Bush, but this movie will have an opposite effect.

Let's say an undecided person watches the movie the day before. The day of the election he comes in all pissed off about Bush. His Co-worker then points to one of the numberous sites calling the movie a "work of fiction" with source to reputable newspapers, etc.

The guy is then pissed off that he was "duped" by Moore.

Whether the being "duped" is true or not, I'm not arguing, but I DO see this transpiring. He'll then go into the voting booth feeling like he was lied to, and will NOT be trusting of the other candidate, i.e., Kerry. And will either vote for Bush, or vote for Nader if he still hates Bush.

My words of advice:

Vote for who you like, and not who you Hate. If you hate them all, vote for your mother instead. You still don't hate her right?

Re:This movie will have opposite effect on it...

[Skeezix]

It had the opposite effect on me, for sure. Before seeing the film I was actually undecided. I watched the film and thought, "There is something seriously messed up about this film." So I did research, went to various sites, looked into the facts as much as possible and watched both the republican and democratic national conventions. After all that I have decided to vote for Bush. I think F911 is an important film, but I don't think it's necessarily going to have Moore's desired effect. He's a radical, egotistical propagandist and I think the majority of people who see the film will see right through his ranting and spinning.

Re:This movie will have opposite effect on it...

[n8_f]

Let's say an undecided person watches the movie the day before. The day of the election he comes in all pissed off about Bush. His Co-worker then points to one of the numberous sites calling the movie a "work of fiction" with source to reputable newspapers, etc.

You're right, they need to air it two days before the election. That way, the undecided person's other co-worker can point out the web sites debunking the site debunking the movie. Then, the undecided person will be all pissed off with Bush and his conservative co-worker. Obviously, three days would be disastrous.

He'll then go into the voting booth feeling like he was lied to, and will NOT be trusting of the other candidate, i.e., Kerry.

So, if I lie to you, will you hold it against Kerry as well? This amazing reasoning ability is why George W. Bush will get elected and why most of the population thinks Saddam was working with Al-Qaeda.

Re:This movie will have opposite effect on it...

[CGP314]

Vote for who you like, and not who you Hate.

Seriously, just who is there to like?

Don't underestimate Americans

[erick99]

I don't beleive that Americans are so easily manipulated that showing Michael Moore's documentary on the "eve of the election" will have any effect on the election results. Michael Moore, whether his movie is accurate or not (I think not) has become consumed with his own inflated sense of self-importance. He can show his film every night for 30 days before the election. I am one republican who doesn't mind. The more shrill the noise, the sooner people are turned off. And Moore is the King of Shrill as of late.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Thank you for stating it correctly. People drive me insane when they sit at home all day, crying because they have no job, and just blame SOMEONE, like the President (any President).

I can tell I need to avoid politics.slashdot.org, because I am one of those guys that will be the first to tell people to get off their ass and go invent something, go learn something, go start something, but quit bitching, and obviously many moderators are bitter unemployed programmers that wont seek a job unless it pays 1999 wages. I'm actually making over twice what I did in 1999, perhaps because I didn't spend very long licking my wounds and blaming Clinton/Bush, and instead took responsiblity for my future. Personal responsiblity seems all too easy to avoid.

It does not matter...

[LuYu]

...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

It does not matter: Diebold machines do not have emotions.

Re:It's possible to be truthful without being hone

[hey!]

I see your point. In an ideal world, which I know we aren't living in, I'd like to see something like the standard placed on peer reviewed scientific articles applied to political information. Science is full of controversy and vociferous disagreements, but articles still manage to get written from a particular viewpoint. The rule is you just can't ignore possible alternative interpretations of the facts, much less facts unfavorable to your position. You have to state your opponent's position as strongly as he would, then refute it and show that your position is better.

It's just an idle dream, I know.

Minor nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

A war against an improper noun, which means there is nobody to surrender, negotiate, or lose

Actually this is incorrect. There are losers - the American people.

Trust the ones "questioning" F9/11?

[lothar97]

The "questions" raised by "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" include commentary by Anne Coulter & Zell Miller. Are we really supposed to take these two talking heads seriously?

Anne Coulter is the one who gave us things like "McCarthyism was a myth created by the liberals", compares Howard Dean to a war criminal, and "Liberals don't care about the environment."

Zell Miller is the Democrat who gave an angry keynote speech at the Republican Convention. (on a side note, these speeches are usually positive and lay out an agenda for the party- and are not angry rants). In his speech, Miller said that anyone who referred to our troops in Iraq as "occupiers" instead of "liberators" was an insult to our country and our armed forces. Perhaps Miller did not watch President Bush's prime time news conference earlier this year, when he referred several times to our action in Iraq as "occupation," and said something like "Of course I'd be unhappy if I was occupied too." After some hard questions from Chris Matthews on "Hardball," Miller said he would like to live in an era when he could challenge someone to a duel, and ended the interview (source)

So with all the insane things coming out of their mouths, I'm supposed to believe them over Moore? Not likely.

Re:Hell yeah

[dasmegabyte]

Reminds me of that old Streisand line..."Nobody I know voted for Reagan."

Face it cats...a lot of people vote on integrity, not on issues. Republican supporters (I don't say "Bush" because I doubt he had anything to do with the Swift boat shit, that was purely the product of independent connizers) have called Kerry's integrity into question and painted Bush as a strong, moral everyman.

Unless Kerry gets his shit correct and starts acting like a leader, until he and his campaign stop calling fowl at every moronic attack on their candidate, until they find a message that rings true with people who just want to feel safe from the terrorist menace the Republican political machine has invented...he's in danger of losing.

Even though Bush is a shitty president.

Resonable/Objective Mod Points

[chrisatslashdot]

How about a '+1 Resonable/Objective' mod option for politics.slashdot.org. There are many great arguments expressed in these political threads that deserve to be set apart from the equally fantastic rants.

Are you serious?

[Haxwell]

This election hasn't been anything but emotionally based. People are scared. And the Bush campaign specifically, sees it. Cheney telling people a vote for Kerry means we'll get attacked again, or slip into a pre-9/11 mindstate (like that shouldn't be a goal). The most visible parts of the Republican convention were based on rallying people's emotions. Only Bush can protect us. He's our commander in chief. Its un-american, unpatriotic to challenge him and what he's done (not said at the convention, but it has been said in the past).

All of this masks the fact that HE LIED. He lied about Iraq, and got us into a war that we didn't need to be in, and 1,000+ American soldiers have died; far and away more than any other nation in our coalition. This war is the US's burden and Bush gave it to us.

Bush claims as well that we are safer, the world is safer, with Saddam Hussein gone. So that may be true, but are we safer with an Iraq that is very unstable? Are we safer with a president that lied to us, telling us that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq had connections to Al-Qaida? Are we safer with Bin Laden still out there? Are we safer because Bin Laden is no longer mentioned by the campaign because that would mean another thing this war on terror hasn't accomplished? Are we safer because $200 Billion has been spent in Iraq, when so much of that could have gone to protecting our homelands? Are we safer with a President who creates Executive Orders allowing Presidents to indefinitely keep their administration papers secret? A DOJ who openly told its agents to resist giving any information to the public in FOIA requests?

Think about it. Thats the truth. And now he's telling people don't be scared, that he can protect us. From what? the sh!t he started? C'mon man.. this whole election is about emotions. You can see mine worked up.. I'm sure there's stuff Kerry has done as well to work on people's emotions, but I'm too biased to write that here. And even if someone else does, it just goes to prove my point that this election is already being based on emotions, and primarily by the Bush campaign.

Hax.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Assuming that we liberate the people and "finish the job", why should they be forced into a democracy, and if they are, how is it of their own choosing?

Finishing the job is removing the small band of brutal rulers, headed by Saddam, that would not allow the will of the people to be expressed. Really, if you can type, you are simply too old for me to explain this to you, or you are just trolling for an arguement. We can debate the wisdom of going into Iraq, but the fact that Saddam murdered millions (yes, millions) and did not allow representation by the people is not debated by the UN, any Iraqis, or any reasonable person.

Re:bite me asshat.

[macdaddy]

How about "F***'ed your Fellow Vietnam Vets", or "French owned."

Do you think it was wrong of Kerry to come home from Vietnam and tell Congress we should end the war? Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with? Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen. Kerry didn't turn his back on his fellow soldiers. He turned his back on the administration that got them in that Fucked up Ware to begin with. He tried to get his fellow soldiers out of that hell hole before more lives were lost in vain. That one hell of a noble thing to do in my book. And you can bet that he did it knowing full well that piss ants like yourself would never let him forget it.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, does that number match what you would have perceived on 9/12?

Yes.

Re:questions have been answered

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, no. Goss set up the 877 number *after the movie was released*. Take a look at this house transcript from July (PDF, sorry) in which Goss states:

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am the chairman of, regularly conducts oversight, and it has proven to be effective and reliable. To that end I have frequently described the Intelligence Committee when I make public speeches, which I do frequently, as the metaphorical 1-800 number for anybody who has concerns about abuses under the PATRIOT Act or any intelligence-related activities. The number to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been and continues to be publicly listed and available to anybody who wants to call from around the world. If you have experienced a specific problem with the PATRIOT Act, you can now call us at our toll-free number. It only costs the taxpayers. The number is 1-877-858-9040.

Note that he said that 1-800 was a metaphor he was using to describe the committee. Note that he says that a number *has been and continues to be* published to contact them, but doesn't specifically say which one it was. Note that he says that taxpayers can *now* call the 877 number.

This isn't about Goss saying 1-800 when he meant 1-877. When Goss made the 1-800 comment, and at the time Fahrenheit 911 was released, there was not a free number to call Goss' committee about the PATRIOT Act.

I dare you to find a reference to, or any published material indicating that 877 number was in place before June 25th, the day Fahrenheit 911 hit theaters. Moore would be lying if he said it today, but when the movie was released, it was factual both in semantics and in spirit.

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[Zed2K]

Troll is right.

What the hell was he supposed to do? Jump up, have secret service grab him and rush off to an awaiting helicoptor in the school parking lot? Scare the kids, parents and the entire nation half to death?

There were no nuclear missles inbound. There wasn't anything happening that would have destroyed the entire country. The situation was in progress and being taken care of. Being the President is not about jumping up at every bump. There is also a presentation aspect of showing strength and courage when under a scarey situation.

If he would have rushed out of the room at the arms of the secret service he would have been criticized for scaring the hell out of the entire school.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Michael Moore is a liar, its as simple as that. He took facts and twisted and turned them through clever editing to make his own timelines and make up his own "facts".

It's proven. It's not a documentary, it's a movie. Entertaining or not is left up to personal taste.

Robert Novak

[ImaLamer]

Robert Novak should face jail time over that act... he's a fucking traitor.

Sorry, I had to say that.

Re:Someone already aired Fahrenheit 911

[Izeickl]

Cuba is actually a really great place to holiday, I and many people I know have been there for 2 weeks/month stay and enjoyed it greatly for its beauty and beaches. Yours is nothing but an uninformed US media fed image. Some aspects of what you say has truth, but you have no clue about visiting Cuba.

Don't forget MSNBC

[artemis67]

Chris Matthews, who was a former Carter speechwriter, seems to drop his neutrality from time to time in his unabashed support of Kerry. A month ago he brought Michelle Malkin on his show to promote her book, and then brow-beat her about claims in John O'Neill's book, Unfit for Command. It came out during the interview that Matthews hadn't even read O'Neill's book and didn't understand the charge he was attacking, but he bounced Malkin off the show, anyway, and Keith Olbermann said she made a fool of herself. He never gave her the chance to promote her book, the whole reason she agreed to the interview.

Then, right after Zell Miller's rousing speech at the Republican Convention, Matthews attempted to browbeat and filibuster Zell Miller. Fortunately, Miller the career politician didn't lie down and take Matthews's attempts to obfuscate the message.

Re:Don't forget MSNBC

[semafour]

If I recall correctly, Matthews tried to get Miller to clarify his statements in his speech that implied that Kerry would leave the military without adequate supplies. Miller did like this, and ended up saying he wished he could challenge Matthews to a duel. In 2004.

Politicians are very much against being asked real questions and then not being able to get away with talking around a real answer. A interviewer who follows up on a question until he gets an answer is not browbeating or filibustering. He is doing his job.

Re:Don't forget MSNBC

[artemis67]

Miller produced a whole littany of topics to talk about in his speech... isn't it significant that a senior Democratic senator is offering a blistering commentary on the continually leftward push of his party? Yet Matthews tried to frame the speech as if Miller was merely a tool of the Republican party.

Miller's speech was an important speech that will transcend the 2004 election, but Matthews tried to spin it as just a bunch of hate rhetoric.

Why did Matthews keep coming back to the spitball comment? He was obviously trying to force Miller to back down. Why didn't Matthews want to talk about the extensive documentation on Kerry's record that Miller had brought with him?

Come on, Miller is no lightweight; he's spent his lifetime debating. He knew a spin job when he saw it, and he was ready for it.

Re:Don't forget MSNBC

[Angry Toad]

He knew a spin job when he saw it, and he was ready for it.

With what? Shrieking insanity? Did you actually see that interview? The one where he wished he could challenge Matthews to a duel? He sounded like a man teetering on the edge of dementia. He's been persona non grata with the Democrats for a while now, and really shouldn't be called one.

Re:Don't forget MSNBC

[artemis67]

He's been persona non grata with the Democrats for a while now, and really shouldn't be called one.

So much for the "party of inclusion".

He didn't leave the Democrats, the Democrats left him.

Re:Don't forget MSNBC

[semafour]

The problem with Miller trying to say that Kerry is or was against providing supplies for the troops is that Miller, Bush, and Cheney all know that it is simply not true. Matthews was trying to call him on that.

Yes, Kerry voted against the version of the $87 billion dollar spending bill that passed and was signed by the President. However, there was more than one version of this bill. Kerry voted for the version that would have paid for the $87 billion up front instead of borrowing the money (i.e., increasing the deficit and the debt).

To say that Kerry voted against supplying our troops with needed materials is disengenious at best. His vote simply means that we should pay the bill now, and not 20 years from now (us or our kids, depending on your age).

TV Bleah, just buy the DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

Just came back from Beijing, F911 DVD is going for ~6 Yuan (75 cents). Buy it on any street corner.

Why doesn't Moore try that that style of marketing in the US?

Of course its propaganda

[glsunder]

The right has been doing the same thing, but for many years. And the right is MUCH better at it. They twist phrases much better than the left. How many of the urban legends spread through email have a left slant? Almost none. Most politcal ones are heavily slanted to the right. It doesnt matter that very few things forwarded through email are true, most people aren't sketical at all and automatically believe them. This isn't even touching the right wing loons like Rush or Coulter. Expect things to get a lot worse in the coming years as the left learns to fight the way the right has been fighting.

Re:Hell yeah

[neomac]

Not to mention the fact that all of the VC money went to launch parties, free lunches, advertising, promos, and other intangibles (except Herman Miller Aerons, of course).

At the end of the day there was nothing to show for all the money that was spent (read: immolated), and that's when the bubble burst.

what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

he's not putting it in for Best Documentary because its an editorial consisting of half truths. Documentaries are unbiased informational presentations. This film doesn't qualify since it's politically motivated spin.

Just put it on between Rush and O'Reilly

[LilMikey]

... that way we can have a mind-numbing propaganda trifecta. At least Moore tries to back his claims up with facts. He may read more into the facts than some consider reasonable but at least he just doesn't spout off the party line, right or wrong, proven or unproven, truth or lie, like those other do-do heads.

The way I see it, the Repubs rule the news channels with their pill-popping fat man (Rush) and ignorance-spouting loud mouth (O'Reilly). Not to mention the 'we can win every debate if we stage it' crap that is Hannity and Combs. The Dems rule the theaters with their whale-of-a-good-time Moore and the comedy-satire scene with folks like Jon Stewart and Al Franken.

Looks like an even playing field to me.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[baldass_newbie]

No emotion and you can see the military records of both.

No, you can't.
You can see Bush's record, but Kerry still refuses to release his records.

Considering how many lies he's already been caught in, I can understand why.

No such thing as a brute fact

[s1283134]

In a world with many differing views only 1 can be right. Facts do not stand on there own. They have to be interpreted in a worldview. Everyone has a worldview, even if it is that you don't.

Moore's worldview is that the white-man is the cause of all of the problems in the world. It is also that if Bush hadn't been elected that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Moore would rather blame the person fighting the terrorist, over the people that actually committed the atrocity of 9/11. Do you see how Moore's worldview or presuppositions shape the end outlook?

We do have the right of free speech in this country. We also have laws against slander. I think it says a lot about Bush that he can take the constant bereavement of his character by people without character.

Kerry on the other hand freaks out when one group of people, whom he actually spent time with, question his character. Kerry could simply prove them wrong if the charges are false and sue them for slander. They are making clear and concise claims. He, or should I say his wife, has enough money to sue the pants of these guys. In this issue with Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, there are 2 versions of the story. On the Swift Boat's side they have multiple people with 1 version of the events. On the Kerry side, you have 1 person with multiple versions of the events. Who seems more believable?

In conclusion, I am glad we live in a land where a bigot like Moore can make his movie and not be put in jail. I wish Moore had more morals and some truth in his movie, but I will defend his right to show it.

If you don't want to see it on the front page..

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you filter out the politics section and quit your whining?

It's up to the editors what appears on the front page. Taking your comment farther: Why even bother having a front page? Just make links to the various sections and have everyone go look at the sections they want.

What? You want control over what appears on the front page? Then get a job at OSDN where you can control it.
Otherwise, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND QUIT WHINING!

Re:If you don't want to see it on the front page..

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, especially since what's going on in Russia isn't Al Queda at all, it's just the latest string of attacks by Chechnian revolutionaries, who want to cecede from Russia.

In other words, it's not terrorism. It's a civil war. Unless you think Sherman's march was a string of terrorist activities, Russia's next actions have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Afghanistan or Iraq or any other action that we, the US, need to be interested in (beyond watching Russia explode in civil war. again).

He did, knucklehead.

[cat_jesus]

Kerry almost immediately denounced the Hitler ad.

Re:He did, knucklehead.

[dasmegabyte]

Wow, I didn't know that. Meaning he probably should have been more vocal, but good for him anyway.

So then, vote libertarian

[bokmann]

All the political discussion on slashdot recently, yet very little discussion about the libertarian party.

I am almost to the point where I could consider myself a libertarian... The party is basically fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

You can read more about the libertarian presidential candidate here:

http://www.badnarik.org/

Caution - some of the position papers make far too much sense. Granted, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2004, but I think he has a hell of a good chance of increasing awareness of the party and its platform.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

And you think the US is fucked up NOW? Just wait till the libertarians turn ALL governmental control over to the corporations! WHEE!

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[norkakn]

please please please please read some locke to understand where librertarianism comes from. It sounds good at first, but once you start digging about its roots, you may begin to notice some stuff missing.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[bokmann]

Ok, I'll bite... what's missing? I don't claim to know a lot about the libertarian party, I just know that as far as I have looked so far, it sounds good... I'm all for smaller government, less intrusion into personal matters, etc.

The little political quiz at This site ranks me as a Libertarian too. I have always thought of myself as conservative, although wihout any alliance to a particular party.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[mbbac]

I voted for Browne (Libertarian) last time around. I never would have voted for Gore. Without Browne, I probably would have voted for Bush. However, Bush has done everything (domestically) that I was afraid Gore would do and more. At least Gore wouldn't rape the environment like Bush has. So, this round I'm voting Kerry.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[norkakn]

one of the main things that always ticks me off with it is that the initial justification for how the world works was completely reliant on christianity. Later revisions have dropped the religious aspect, but they never replaced it. It also incorporates a lot of conflicting ideas (depending on implementation) that need fancy arguments to sustain the theory.

"I'm all for smaller government, less intrusion into personal matters, etc."

something about this is that under libertarianism, you have no protection from corperations. While it would not be fit for the government to spy on you, or take over 100% of the airways (because they could make better use of them, and at thattime they weren't claimed..) private rich jackasses and their companies could and would do this.

I loke a lot of the basic ideas in libertarianism, but whenever I really try to sit down and think about what the world would be like, I always come to the conclusion that using the principles outlined, the result would be very negative.

it is also strongly based on an open world model, which may again work if we start flying about the galaxy, but we are running low on resources, and under libertarianism, anything that isn't claimed by a person who is using it can be claimed by someone who can use it. so all of our natioal forests would be junked in days. There is no way to limit consumption because that goes against the core ideas, so we'd run through resources as quickly as possible in order to last longer than the poor suckers next to us. Future generations would be screwed. but it would be interesting until that happened.

Locke was living at a time where they had jsut discovered a whole new world where no one cared about the people living there and it appeared to have unlimited resources. In that environment, I can see how he would look at unlimited resources as a valid assumption, but in 2004 I can't really see how one could say that.

I also think that libertarians would set a new record for quickest party to be bought out by corporations. with all of the media and funding restrictions removed, they could finally merge into one huge dystopian metacorp that would run the whole world with its killer robots with ion beam eyes, walking through NY scorching all of the umbrellas in peoples' drinks. Err, scratch that last bit.

I'm kinda fucked by our current system in that I think that there is a positive right to life, that this would benifet everyone and that we ought to be economically responsible and that we have a moral duty to go back to our country's original intent of fucking over all huge corporations and limiting them to their charters. (we revolted more against the Mass. Bay company and the like than the king.. one thing that has been forgotten)

So, I'll probably vote for kerry because I hate bush so much, but I'll wash my hands 20 times after I do so

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

not true.
not true.

while they do not specifically mention this in their platform, they do stand behind the idea that big business is NOT people and therefor are not guaranteed any of the rights that people are.
So, based on that alone, big business will not continue to have its hand in things it shouldn't.
Right now the federal court applies constitutional rights to big business, and when this is abolished big business will have less influnece than it does now.
While its ok to say that doing away with the big government will put more power in the businesses hands, its not truth.
Also the libertarians are very much in favor of punishing corporations for disregarding ethical standards.

Re:So then, vote libertarian

[norkakn]

this is one of the gaps between theory and practice

in theory, they know corps are bad and should be punished or shrunk

but that is a lot of capital to move around.. as in socialist revolution of the world, all the workers unite type level.

I just can't see it working out.

The ways that the rules are currently set, the laws that could be changed would allow the corps to take control long before we could tweak the constitution enough to maybe protect people.

Who will play it?

[chaoticz]

You know the station that signs up to play this movie will be threatened with boycott by the Bush team. This is going to be interesting, because boycott or no boycott, millions of people will still watch.

Re:Who will play it?

[grolschie]

Who will play it? Well obviously not the Disney channel. :-)

A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[dpilot]

Specifically, the scene of Bush reading to the classroom during the WTC incident(s) and the delay before response:

I had presumed that the delay was after the first incident. Recently I heard that he had been informed of the first incident on the way to the school, and the filmed delay was after the second incident.

Which was it?
How long was the delay? (I saw F911, but forget that detail.)

One other thing worth mentioning...
One rebuttal for the delay said that the kids drew great comfort from the President being with them through those trying times. At the time the President was with the kids, *they could not have known that they were in trying times, yet.* They were in a classroom with no outside media.

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[kibbey]

Your country has been attacked and your president is reading to some school kiddies with cameras rolling. Do you want him/her to jump up, announce to the cameras that we are under attack! Or, calmly wait while the secret service and his military commanders figure out a safe route back to a place where secure communications can take place? I think I want a measured calm response. 7 minutes is about right for the secret service detail to make arraingements for transport back to air force one.

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[dpilot]

Appropriate actions, IMHO:

Stand calmly, announce, "I'm sorry boys and girls, but an urgent matter has come to my attention, and I have to leave. I'll come back another time and we can finish this."

Start getting information. What was the initial communications link that got him the news? Presumably it's sufficiently secure to begin the briefing process. I'm also sure that "daily operations of the President" insure that he has at least some amount of secure communications *always* available. By the way, at this point the Secret Service would have made sure the entire school was secured, before the President ever set foot inside. The Principal's office would make a dandy temporary intelligence post.

Over that reasonably secure line get someone else at the Top into some sort of charge for the interim, at least gathering information and making sure everyone is talking to each other. Perhaps only that one thing, get someone more connected into a coordinating role.

The coverage that came out over 9/11 painted a picture of the FAA, ATC, and the Air Force all pretty confused and stumbling over each other, at least in-part not knowing who was in charge. At a national level things *might* have gotten in-place to stop the 4th plane, but maybe not. Fortunately there were some truly heroic passengers.

IMHO rapid institution of top-level coordination might have helped - it might have gotten those agencies working together more effectively. It might not, but it doesn't appear that it could have hurt. Now imagine that the attack hadn't been *only* 4 planes. Original plans, scrapped for simplicity, called for something more like a dozen planes.

Plus I asked a serious question. Was the plane strike when he was in the classroom the 1st or the 2nd? Was he notified of the first strike in the car on the way to the school? That changes the time-scope of things considerably.

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[fishbowl]

"Was the plane strike when he was in the classroom the 1st or the 2nd?"

The 2nd.

After the first strike, he thought it was an accident. In the classroom he got news of the second strike.

"IMHO rapid institution of top-level coordination might have helped - it might have gotten those agencies working together more effectively."

And President Cheney was right there on top of things, the whole time.

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[man_ls]

Hell, thinking it an accident is perfectly reasonable.

I heard it on the radio minutes after it happened...my initial reaction was "Oh, shit, that's terrible for the families and such." But "terrorist!" was nowhere near my thinking -- I'd heard of small planes colliding with buildings in the past on accident; thinking that a larger aircraft incapable of the same freak accident was irrational.

Then the second plane hit and I changed my tune a bit. But Bush isn't to be blamed for slow reaction on this one.

Wow, I just defended Bush's actions.

I'm voting for John Kerry, but Bush isn't half as bad as people make him out to be. (However, that half is plenty bad enough, in my opinion.)

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[dpilot]

An "accident" might seem reasonable to a layman, but I suspect not to a pilot, maybe not even at first hearing. But coverage after the fact highlighted that it is *hard* to fly those planes that low - even harder to get down low enough and hit a skyscraper like they did. Heck, back in 1987 I had a darned tough time taking off from Miegs Field in Chicago and hitting the Sears Tower in a Cessna. That was before I learned to land in MS Flight Simulator 1.0, of course. I would think that anyone from the Air Force in the loop would have examined this news quite carefully.

Perhaps another question is when it became apparent that there were multiple hijackings in progress? Remember that in August the intelligence community was picking up quite a bit of chatter, though no sense of direction toward focus inside the US. I also remember seeing that there was some confusion about which airplane was which, and it wasn't clear that this was a multiple hijacking.

Based on the August chatter, if sure knowledge of multiple simultaneous hijackings existed, that should have had major alarm bells ringing throughout the Administration. Combine that with the first strike and that it was an attack would have been readily apparent instead of an accident.

That clarity of information might not have even existed, let alone made it upstairs. I'll grant Bush that.

But I was on Slashdot that day, until someone set up a TV, then I saw the second strike. Even looking at just the first strike, it didn't look like an accident. It was too precise, and besides the word 'attack' was floating around even before the second strike.

BTW, though Bush bothers me some, it's the people he's surrounded himself with that really scare me. (Well, Colin Powell doesn't scare me, I feel sorry for him.)

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[Edax Rarem]

Good research done here.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main /e ssayaninterestingday.html

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[Edax Rarem]

The VP isn't authorized to shoot down commercial aircraft. All Dick could do was twiddle his thumbs and wonder where The POTUS was.
Read Richard Clark's book, he tells exactly what happened that day from inside the White House.
And if you think he is a Leftist dissenter, keep in mind that he served under Reagan and Bush H.W. too.
The Right wants you to believe this because he exposes how unprepared the White House really was, even though they had been warned.
The POTUS's 7 minutes that Moore refers to in his movie is nothing compared to the truth. NORAD knew of the first hijacking and thus so did the POTUS, and still he went into that classroom for a PHOTO OP. Then even after being alerted to the 2nd and that the country was under attack, he still did nothing. Not for 7 minutes, but far longer.
Here is a well researched timeline of what happened that day and wht the POTUS did and DIDN'T do.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/m ain/e ssayaninterestingday.html

You decide. (if you haven't made up your mind already)

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[Edax Rarem]

The secret service did indeed try to get him out... but for some reason, he stayed, for a lot longer than 7 minutes.
Please read this:
url:http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time line/ma in/essayaninterestingday.html

It documents what the POTUS did on that day pretty clearly and references many sources.
Micheal Moore was kind compared to the actual events.

Re:A simple, factual question about one F911 scene

[fishbowl]

"You decide. (if you haven't made up your mind already)"

I don't even require 9/11, Iraq, or Vietnam service as issues in the campaign. My mind is not only made up; I've been active in the Kerry campaign from the start.

Re:bite me asshat.

[EnderWiggnz]

>I can come up with better F-words than W-words.

go ahead, but the context is missing, as the entire Kerry campaign isnt based on branding of the letter "F".

did you see the bumper stickers that say "W '04" ? you dont see any "F '04" stickers, do you?

"W" is a branding campaign. Its a damn good branding campaign. Its the *only* thing that make George W. Bush electible. If you'd like I can go into it more...

I think Bush Flunked Politics.

[andr0meda]

Bush Jr,
History Class,
April 2003

Given:

A, B,C
B prooves A, C refutes A, B contrdicts C

Question:

Ignite Politics With Claim A

Answer:

Send Claim A To World
Receive Claim C From World
Search For Claim B In World ...

Search Some More For Claim B In World ...

Bomb The Hell Out Of World Untill Destroyed ...

Spend Tax Money On Anti-Democrat Commercials
Get Re-Elected

Even though the 9/11 commission says otherwise?

[Anonymous Coward]

So despite the fact that the 9/11 commission shot Moore's piece of agitprop full of holes, he still stands behind it and wants to shove it down peoples' throats?

Whoo, what a fucking wanker he is. OK, Mikey, we'll watch your piece of trash if you admit you lied.

Torrent Link

[KrackHouse]

Michael Moore is encouraging people to download his movie. Here's the torrent.

http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2523/Fahrenh eit.911.DVDRiP.XViD-DvP.torrent

Re:Liberal media is teh suck

[Bimo_Dude]

The only this that I can give Bush credit for is his leadership quality.

I would not even give him gredit for that. I remember during the 2000 election, Bush said that he was choosing a really smart group of people for his cabinet, so that he could listen to and follow their advice. Since then, Bush has consistently ignored any intelligent advice they have given (e.g. Iraq could not reasonably be blamed for the 9/11 attacks).
Also, there have been numerous reports of Bush ignoring polls ("I don't need polls to help me decide what to do"). Is that really a leadership quality? It was not taught in any management and leadership training that I've ever had. When a "leader" refuses to listen to people - be they his cabinet or the public - he stops being a leader and becomes a dictator.

It's News for Nerds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuff that matters.

Not "Technology news, we're only gong to put the most l337 tech stuff here 4 u 2 c."

Yes, that is why you can turn off the politics question, so your question is pithy whining about how you're not getting your technology only fix. Log in, set your prefs and live in blissful ignorance.

Or the lady Bush kept on the side...

[Anonymous Coward]

in the Woodlands (Texas). So many business people know about this and no one talks about it in public.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[orasio]

BTW I despise both Bush and Moore. Both are propganda machines they prey on peoples willingness to believe distortions of the truth.


That's spin too, by expressing the same opinion on the two people, and showing a similarity, you are showing them as if they were equal. That would not be a fair comparison, because although his credibility might be questioned, Michael Moore is not responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and Bush is. That is spin too, it is a fact that he sent an armed force to invade Irak and Afghanistan, and that they killed lots of people, many civilians, then my opinion is that it is wrong, and another one's would be that it was necessary. Of course, we as humans cannot be objective, because that's not the way we understand the facts.

That someone publishes something "with a spin" is not wrong, it is inevitable. The wisdom is in reading from many sources, so that spin can be cancelled, and you can get your own interpretation. But showing the facts with a spin is not the same as lying. Journalism is mostly related to opinion, just because it is a documentary it doesn't have to be objective, because it is made by someone who does have an opinion. In your advantage, MM tells you that he hates bush, so you know which way he is biasing his documentary, and it is easier to digest it. It would be much worst if he portrayed himself as an objective journalist, and then deceived you.

He is seeking Oscar for Best Picture, though

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14877,00.htm l?tnews

Osama says vote for W

[Anonymous Coward]

He's fears being war crimed by Kerry!

holy crap! You complete debunked him!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah! That's some pretty damning evidence. Michael Moore took something printed in a newspaper and flashed it on the screen as if it had appeared elsewhere in a newspaper? Now I'm suspicious.

For instance, now I am wondering if Bush Sr. really is acting as a private consultant (through his employment in the Carlyle Group) to the Saudi government while still receiving weekly CIA briefings. Could it actually be possible that our CIA intelligence is being used to guide Saudi Arabia in how it conducts its affairs?

Re:holy crap! You complete debunked him!

[DenDave]

Yeah, the whole movie is a bloody farce, why George Bush ain't even president!!

Re:holy crap! You complete debunked him!

[smyle]

Could it actually be possible that our CIA intelligence is being used to guide Saudi Arabia in how it conducts its affairs?

I pretty much like GWB (not that I agree with everything he's done). I do plan to vote for him for president. But if it comes out that this is the case (which I doubt), I'll lead the charge to get Bush Sr. executed for treason.

PBS might do it

[MoFoQ]

I think it's best to air it on PBS primarily because they aren't mandated to censor it.

Maybe even Comedy Central (this also depends on what side of the coin/river u are on) will air it; hell they did air the South Park movie uncensored once before.

Or if he really wants more ppl to see it, Michael Moore might as well release a bitTorrent of it (official one) or webcast (or both). It'll get /.'ed so fast; it'll make Superman look slow.

Re:PBS might do it

[Anonymous Coward]

If PBS airs it, there will be a public outlash against PBS and the government will disband it.

Hitchens is a Drunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitchens is a drunk. And of late he's been nothing but a right "Wing Nut" mouthpiece.


I'd like to see Moore bring an alcohol breath tester to a debate with Hitchens. And for once see Hitchens called for being hammered on the air.

Sure!

[cynic10508]

Of course he can air 9/11 on TV! We'll just need to show Swift Boat ads during all the commercials and have Ralph Nader present it. That way everyone gets their propaganda!

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You think F 9/11 is all facts eh? You are exactly the target Moore is looking for. Congrats on being a sheep.

Re:LOL

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Allright, what _facts_ did it get wrong?

Oh, thats right, you didnt see it sheep boy. An anonymous coward btw. like all republicans, they dont have a good argument but are good at shouting from a crowd.

Re:Hell yeah

[Guppy06]

"There aren't really that many Bush supporters. Do you know any? I've met about three."

You should try to get out of southern California more often.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that from what I know, those Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists. Interesting tie, no?

it's Freedom of Speech

[Blitzenn]

The guy should be able to air his program on any night of the year that he wants to. If he can make a good arguement and influence people, then so be it. To bar him from speaking or using a medium to project his opinion would be infringing on his freedom of speech in my book. Whether or not he can get a station to sell him the time to do that is a commercial or economic issue. If his arguement is so strong that it will influence the results of the election, then isn't it also wrong to not let us see it?

Re:Hell yeah

[grassy_knoll]

There aren't really that many Bush supporters.

I also don't know any Kerry supporters, just people voting against Bush.

[humor]

Kerry could eat a live baby on stage with Edwards handing him tabasco; Michael Moore et. al. would comment "At least they're not Republican".

[/ humor]

what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

...questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda...

I don't see what the issue is, Fox news gets aired all the time...

Re:bite me asshat.

[terrymr]

I'm not sure what your point is, how many were there before 9/11 ... there hasn't been enough time to tell if there's going to be more attacks.

That's because the first attacker wins

[roystgnr]

John Kerry voted for one version of an appropriations bill for Gulf War II, and voted against another. George W. Bush threatened to veto one version of the appropriations bill, and signed another. Because the Bush campaign was the first to figure out how to work half of these facts into a soundbyte, now Kerry is a "flip-flopper" in the public eye.

The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck. I know that for a lot of voters the answers to "Do you want George W. Bush as your president?" and "Do you want John Kerry as your president?" are the same: no! IMHO the Bush campaign is doing a good job keeping the latter question in people's minds, and it's going to win him the election.

Re:That's because the first attacker wins

[laird]

"The success of negative campaigning isn't just the public's fault, either; it's partly because both candidates this time really do suck."

The success of negative campaigning is due in large part to the press being pathetically unwilling to do their job. Instead of determining and reporting the truth, they take the easier route of "he said/she said" reporting where they accurately repeat whatever people say, no matter how absurd. This rewards people who are willing to lie with great authority, because the general public never hears an informed, objective perspective, only two opposing partisans presented as equals.

For example:

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." -- George Bush, quoted in the Washingon Post, May 31, 2003

What the US press did not do is investigate the claims, and provide some context. Specifically, they accurately reported what Bush said, but they didn't bother to do the research to determine that, in fact, Bush's statement was not at all representative of what the intelligence community thought of the trailers.

In the UK, where there's some competition in the press (so they have to actually do real work), they did the (trivial) research of actually asking intelligence people whether the claim was true, and determined that:

*At the time of this statement, the U.S. position was that some analysts thought that the trailers could possibly have been used for menufacturing weapons. --Politex, 06.09.03

Note that in the UK, the press researched the issue and reported their results, while in the US the press only reported what Bush said.

So, because the US press is lazy (and/or fearful of being accused of being "unpatriotic" for pointing out when government representatives lie) the result was that the people in the US believed that biological weapons labs had been found in Iraq, when in fact all that was found were helium production trucks used to fill balloons.

Personally, I really like the idea of he said/she said/we said. That is, after reporting accurately what everyone says, they should do their jobs and tell us what's really going on.

Thats mighty weak...

[NigelJohnstone]

Boy is that Dave Kopel piece weak.

Deceits 1-2
[DK claims something false, then shoots down his own claim.]

Deceit 3
MM: Bush lost on manual recount. [True]
DK: Bush won if only 4 states are recounted: [also true.]

Deceit 4
MM: Jeb Bush Purged the roll of Democrat blacks.
DK: Incomplete explanation.
[Yes it is incomplete, it was far cleverer a purge than that. This site explains in more detail:

http://www.gregpalast.com/bestdemocracymoneycanb uy chapter1.pdf
]

Deceit 5
MM: Bush got pelted with eggs.
DK: It was only 1 egg.

Deceit 6-7
MM: Washington Post says Bush on vacation 42% of time.
DK: It was less than this.

Deceit 8-10
MM: Jokes that Bush should have read the Aug 6 memo "Bin Laden determined to attack in US"
DK: Bush did read it

[Does that my it better or worse? Remember that (from Rice appearance before the panel) sky marshalls had been removed from domestic US flights, if Rice or Bush had told the FTA about the memo those marshalls would have been put back on the flights and 911 would not have been possible.]

and on and on, its all so feable...

Re:Thats mighty weak...

[ArcherB]

OK, here we go again....

Deceit 3 MM: Bush lost on manual recount. [True] DK: Bush won if only 4 states are recounted: [also true.]

No, not true. Bush won every recount that did not change the rules. Can you name one, just one recount that Bush would have lost? The only one is if you take all the undervotes (no one selected) and all the over votes (two selected) and cound them all for Gore. That is the only way for Gore to win and that would violate all the rules and really would be stealing the election.

Deceit 6-7 MM: Washington Post says Bush on vacation 42% of time. DK: It was less than this.

The Prez spent 42% (or so) of his time not in Washington, but even F9-11 shows Bush meeting with world leaders in Crawford. I'd call that working.

Deceit 8-10 MM: Jokes that Bush should have read the Aug 6 memo "Bin Laden determined to attack in US" DK: Bush did read it

This PDB is one of about 250 Bush received before 9-11. The "D" stands for daily, meaning he gets one every day. Also, the PDB did not mention anything that everyone did not already know. After the Cole, the first WTC attack and all the embassy bombins, it would take a real moron to NOT know that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. However, the McMoore movie does not mention the Clinton PDB that says terrorist plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. (Even though, I don't blame Clinton for 9-11 either. I blame the terrorists, which is something McMoore never does)

Deceit 4 MM: Jeb Bush Purged the roll of Democrat blacks. DK: Incomplete explanation.

This has been debunked repeatedly. Names were removed from rolls because they matched the names of felons, not because of the color of their skin. McMoore implies that they were struck because they were black, but this is another conspiracy theory that McMoore fronts. This has been investigated time and time again.

Re:Thats mighty weak...

[NigelJohnstone]

"No, not true. Bush won every recount that did not change the rules"

If I stamp a hole for "Gore" and write "Gore" on the paper, who did I vote for?

On the voter purge, please read the link I gave you, what they did was very very clever. Moore dumbed it down to a couple of sentences, but this book explains the true genius in how it worked.

"This PDB is one of about 250 Bush received before 9-11. The "D" stands for daily, meaning he gets one every day"

Thats what, 3 memos a day on average he has to get through?!

If he was in over his head he should have gotten help to tackle the workload. That's what leadership is about.

In this case Rice admitted they didn't know the FTA had withdrawn air marshals from internal flights because THEY DIDN'T CONSULT WITH THEM!. If they had, the FTA would have known to put the sky marshalls back and the terrorists would have faced armed sky marshalls.

I'm a Bush Republican! (A poem)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Bush Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling

I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.

You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue

I fancy myself
A brilliant tactician
But neither me nor m'buddies
Could even pass basic trainin'

See, I'm above all that
A fightin' and shootin'
I just say "Sic em!"
Then run the other direction

Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'

If I get caught screwin'
Or tellin' wicked lies
"Hypocrisy!" I holler
And that justifies the crimes

Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears!

I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice

'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow

Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts

Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!

----

The last good Republican president was Eisenhower. Vote Kerry: it is in your selfish best interest. Power to the people!

Slashdot's Politics Section

[easyfrag]

I like /. having a politics section, its like flypaper for trolls and flamers, I bet the other sections' signal/noise ratios are way up.

Re:Hell yeah

[splinter]

After your unemployment runs out, you are no longer considered 'unemployed' that 5.4% does not reflect the truth. There are many more people out of work now than in 1996, they just don't 'count' anymore. There are fewer total jobs in America now than when bush took office and much more Americans looking for work than EVER before. Want proof of lost jobs, just look at all the empty office space in any American city these days (except of course defense contractors).

Re:bite me asshat.

[grazzy]

Unless you count the ones killed by american soldiers in iraq, i'd say about a thousand.

Given the power of media today and

[PotatoHead]

the money involved in the process, I have no problem with this move from Moore. Sadly, until we get serious reform that empowers real political discussion between citizens in a way that will be meaningful, we are going to continue to see this escalation of powers in the political areana.

Does GW deserve it? Damn right he does. Maybe answering the questions would help diffuse F 911. Oh yeah.... those answers probably won't help either!

Maybe it't not totally right for Moore to be airing that sort of thing. Having said that, GW has done enough wrongs. Personally I don't want to experience another 4 years. GW needs to go, so we can move forward from there.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you think Sherman's march was a string of terrorist activities,


No. When the state burns,rapes, and kills it is not terrorism. Only when the bad guys do it, does it qualify for terrorism. If you disagree you will be shot.

Re:Hell yeah

[blueskies]

So most people at your work (pick 1 or more):
- Are Fundamental Christians
- Think they are Upper class
- Watch Fox News
- Believe the media

Re:Hell yeah

[MasterOfMagic]

You're missing the point. I'm not asking why we should finish the job - I agree with you there. I'm asking why we should force them into a democracy instead of letting the people exercise their will and select a goverment of their own choosing.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.

The "war on terror" is a con being used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about fifty years ago.

America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.

Quite a few /.ers have now turned 40

[narsiman]

Copied or Quoted by churchill - Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." (somebody else with brains wrote it).

Exactly

[paranode]

Which is why we shouldn't elect Kerry. He said that Saddam was a danger that needed to be removed and that he had (and used) weapons of mass destruction.

Or were you talking about someone else? Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it? Or when he said we should support our troops now that they're there before he voted against funding for them? Perhaps you just meant Bush who's been saying the same thing John Kerry was before the war, only he hasn't changed his mind.

Re:Exactly

[Fascist Christ]

It would be nice if everything was black and white. But it's not. There is never a clear right or wrong. Of course, Bush doesn't understand that.

Maybe you didn't realize that after Congress authorizes military action, they almost completely lose control of the situation. However, if Congress wants the war to end, or at least scaled down, the only option they have is to vote against additional funding. That doesn't mean we have to have unarmed men throwing stones at people. Bush has options to run the war more efficiently, such as bringing some soldiers home.

Voting against additional funds is not necisarily a vote against the war. It is not a vote against the soldiers. It might be a response to careless spending. It might be in response to new intelligence. Circumstances change.

If the President is so sure that he is right and all others are wrong, he should not have cut the taxes so much. Instead, we have been losing a lot of money to the destruction and reconstruction in the Middle East. He claims the tax cuts were to boost the economy. If the economy was such a conscern, there would have been more money spent domestically to promote growth. Instead he came up with laws like "No Child Left Behind" and didn't increase funding enough to assist compliance.

Kerry really didn't "change his mind," he simply used current facts to assist his decision. Black and white is for fascists and fanatics. Kerry has shown that he can think on his feet. Bush has shown that he is arrogant and stubborn.

Re:Exactly

[RubberChainsaw]

"Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it?"

There is a significant difference between allowing someone to do a thing, and them actually doing it.

Re:Exactly

[AShuvalov]

Kerry might have voted for the war when he was fooled by the Bush&Co that Saddam has anything to do with terrorism. And he probably changed his mind when realising that this is blatant lie.

Re:Exactly

[div_2n]

The whole thing is crap. If he had voted against it, he would have been crucified as weak in the "war on terrorism" of which Iraq had nothing to do with as far as the US is concerned anyway.

Bush and company tried very hard to make a return of McCarthyism and politically assasinate anyone that didn't vote their way.

Bottom line is that Iraq never should have happened this time around. If we were going to take Saddam out of power, it should have been done the first time we were there after they invaded Kuwait.

We would have been much better off and the "war" much better fought with all of those troops scouring Afghanistan looking for bin Laden. But Bush didn't do that, did he?

Wonder (oil) why (oil) he (oil) wouldn't (oil) pursue (oil) the (oil) real (oil) mastermind (oil) behind (oil) 9/11?

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? These oft-repeated canards are as specious as anything moore will throw out there. Kerry voted to fund the Iraq war by partially repealing Bush's tax cuts -- voted against the funding bill that left those cuts in place. Kerry voted against an omnibus military spending bill that included a number of pork barrel handouts.

Re:Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it? Or when he said we should support our troops now that they're there before he voted against funding for them? Perhaps you just meant Bush who's been saying the same thing John Kerry was before the war, only he hasn't changed his mind.

This is *exactly* why no one should vote for Bush. Kerry made his decision on the war in Iraq prior to the now, public knowledge, that the war was based on misinformation, and botched intelligence. Kerry simply recognized that he had been had, and changed his stance (a strength, not a weakness) on the war.

Bush on the other hand, knowing full well that the justifcation for war was bad, and that there were no WMDs, no proven links to terrorism, no real threat to the American people, or anyone else for that matter, still chose to stick with a flawed, and false course of action. This is why Bush is a bad leader.

Re:Exactly

[legirons]

"Which is why we shouldn't elect Kerry"

Voila.

You've looked at 2 candidates, and haven't yet found the least evil choice. Time to continue searching.

Re:Exactly

[cheezedawg]

Kerry might have voted for the war when he was fooled by the Bush&Co that Saddam has anything to do with terrorism.

Wake up. Iraq has openly supported terrorism for decades. They have been on the State Departments list of terror sponsoring states since 1979. This is not new information.

Re:Exactly

[killjoe]

"Which is why we shouldn't elect Kerry. He said that Saddam was a danger that needed to be removed and that he had (and used) weapons of mass destruction."

Kerry has been right more then Bush so he does indeed deserve your vote.

Also Kerry said saddam HAD weapons. Bush said saddan HAS weapons. That one letter makes a big difference.

Finally: Many people said Saddam was dangerous and had to go. Only Bush thought it was a good idea to do it by invading the country.

Re:Hell yeah

[Lord Omlette]

North Carolina? Same North Carolina w/ UNC @ Chapel Hill in the same state? And you couldn't find qualified employees? You couldn't even figure out how to work dice or monster or nerdswanted, could you? No wonder you weren't very successful...

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would be much worst if he portrayed himself as an objective journalist, and then deceived you."

He allows the media to portray F-911 as a documentary which is just as bad. dishonesty is dihonesty whether it be by ommision or flat out lies.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but Bush adopted born-again christianity as a political schtick. That, in my mind, makes Bush a hell of a lot worse than Moore - intentionally preying on people's religious beliefs to get yourself elected is not, in any way, shape, or form, okay.

Re:He can suck my ass !

[Anonymous Coward]

A troll!! A real bonafide Troll!! Wow!! Take a picture quick!!

Emotions

[ddelrio]

I don't see the problem with "last minute emotions" influencing voters. The entire Bush campaign is based on emotions.

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer your question, a profound "YES!"

He should have acted instantly. The fate of a single class of children does not outweigh the fate of the entire country.

Bush has no idea how to react to ANYTHING. He's a complete numbskull.

"... so those OBGYN's can practice their love on their patients..."

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

... just as they had been going well before we invaded iraq.

Your 'proof' that the fight is going well is weak.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

what's going on in Russia isn't Al Queda at all, it's just the latest string of attacks by Chechnian revolutionaries

How do you make this conclusion? There's overwhelming ongoing data regarding Al Quada's operations in Chechnya. Many of the 9/11 terrorists were originally recruited to go to Chechnya. There are financial ties, operational ties, recruiting ties, etc. It's rather shocking that anyone would make a comment otherwise - it's like claiming Chirac isn't French.

On a more humerous note, it appears that Putin has adopted the Bush doctrine. From Yahoo news this hour:

Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.

Pre-emptive action? Against bases ANYWHERE? Iran? Iraq? What, and not wait for thirty UN resolutions and negotiations? Good grief, what next?

What does F stand for?

[duslow]

Flip-flop?

Favorite quote:

[presarioD]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

What political process? Oh you must mean the one that a bunch of fanatics gather together in a hall cheerleading on the business show pulled on them with actors, lights, loud patriotic music, catchy images, more cachy images and lines, more patriotic talk, and more slow and agonizing patriotic talk...

Or you must mean the other bunch of fanatics that try to convince some of the former moderate fanatics that they will bomb and plunder just right the current fanatics, but only with a friendlier more inclusive way, so they should change their mind (the moderate fanatics) and vote for them.

Where is politics in all that? What political process are you talking about? Talking about gay marriage is not politics, it's trash TV. Talking about "Leave no child behind" education in a country with 25% illiteracy is not politics, it's demagogy. Talking about patriotism in a country that forbids, punishes or persecutes patriotic talk (the real kind that requires genuine love and interest for fellow human beings) is a joke to say the least.

This is all a circus that you get to participate only if you dress up like a clown and you act like one, saying the proper things. Please call it anything you like but don't call it politics. Otherwise you put into the same category the clown and the politician.

Re:bite me asshat.

[say]

Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists

Understanding the world in terms of Christianity/Islam isn't going to get you anywhere. The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular - non-religious. They are Islamic now, but they are obviously different from Al-Qaeda. They have territorial claims, Al-Qaeda has not.

Actually, the way the Russians have treated the Chechnian people makes quite good soil for fundamentalism. Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.

Fox is as much propaganda as CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox is more fair than CNN anyday. If anything FOX is considered so different because they don't toe the accepted media line which is liberal.

If that is propoganda then our basis for judgement has been so warped nothing will fix it.

Look at the convention coverage. If you want the final proof look at whose vietnam era records are being constantly requested? Tell me where the bias is.

Fox Rush.

Finally. The problem with Moores film is that he sells it as a documenatary and its not. People have a certain expectation of what a documentary is and he abuses that belief.

Re:Hell yeah

[Lord Omlette]

Did anyone else notice that of the 40 senators voting against extending unemployment benefits, the majority were Republicans?

Re:Hell yeah

[rlglende]

I believe that you are asserting that you have a mental model of the world's integrated socio-politico-economic systems sufficiently detailed that you can calculate the outcome of cutting taxes vs not cutting taxes, and thereby KNOW that Bush is doing the wrong thing.

How many 100s of 1000s of equations are in your model? This is a huge intellectual task, fully as complex as a proof to a major mathematical problem. Have you published the model in a peer-reviewed journal?

How much storage does the set of initial conditions take? How ever did you collect those initial conditions without disrupting the economy?

How many TeraFLOPS for how many megaYears does projecting each model ahead one year take? How ever did you prevent the power usage this from affecting the economy you are trying to study?

How did you measure "Best", as the outcomes of the 2 models must have differed greatly in 100s of dimensions, and in more minor ways in 1000s of dimensions?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Lew

MOD PARENT UP

[Tiroth]

This is a valuable, factual response which clarifies the issue considerably.

religion and voting

[No-op]

As a christian, I can honestly say that I think bush mouths all the phrases he thinks conservative christians would like to hear. I think if you look more deeply into his actions, you see someone who has no idea about any of the basic tenets of christianity, and is just playing a game to garner votes.

This holds true for pretty much all politicians, really, but I find bush's efforts in this regard to be quite appalling. I certainly don't want to vote for Kerry (who has always been a loser) but I'm voting against bush, more than anything.

That being said, I know way too many people voting for bush just because he says he's an "evangelical christian". I usually suggest that the actions of jesus sound like scary liberal hippie communism, which draws blank stares.

Re:religion and voting

[FeeNom]

The world will honestly always have war, terrorism, etc. as long as we continue to mix religion and government. When you vote, nothing other than common sense should ever guide your judgement, not cause your a christian, muslim, or jew. The reason we have so many issues in politics is we associate religion with right and wrong instead of what it was meant to be. Organized religion is nothing more than factions who use influence they have over similar thinking individuals. By no means am I saying I think believing in God is bad, but should it be used in making any descision for a country of people? Or a continent? Or the world? No, I agree with alot of what bush is trying to do, I also disagree with alot. Kerry just seems to come off as a wanna-be politician, his life was planned for him. Go to college, go to war, come back to a life of politics. Neither have anything to offer that is all that special. Both are idiots, and yes they attack each other way to much. Do I think Kerry and Edwards would lead this country into war if we needed to? pfft, no. Neither have the guts, and yes, we needed to take sadaam out, and yes we need to take out bin laden. This is starting to ramble. Just use common sense instead of faith. It will get this country alot farther.

Re:religion and voting

[Anonymous Coward]

we needed to take sadaam [sic] out

Why?

Re:religion and voting

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom (jewish) put it very well...

The saying isn't "What would Jesus say" but it's "What would Jesus do"... I don't really think that Bush gets it.

Oh well, I guess that since a large part of the population are suckers for labeling "christian music", "christian book", "christian president", we're all at the whim of the sheeple.

In reality, truth is truth, regardless of where it comes from. And given Bush's record of saying one thing and doing another... well we know where he ranks on the truth scale.

Re:religion and voting

[Iberian]

I question your religious background since you failed to capitalize Jesus. I make alot of typos but if I ever fail to capitalize the name of the One I worship I make sure i go back and correct it.

Re:religion and voting

[Minna Kirai]

I question your religious background since you failed to capitalize Jesus

I question your religion background because you wrote "Jesus". Deuteronomy 12:4 says never to write the name of God.

By writing "jesus" instead of "Jesus", No-op has obeyed the scripture that you broke.

Re:religion and voting

[FeeNom]

I do not reason with anons if you want an answer, post un-anon.

Re:religion and voting

[No-op]

I could only hope you are a troll, but seriously...

As someone who has come to christ relatively recently, I have to say that I've struggled with the split between the new and old testament. Many people really try to stick to the old testament rules, but I would say that the new testament overrides it all. jesus really changed the way that things were done- if it was all the same, why would people get so upset as to have him killed?

I think the message that jesus brought to the world was a much more loving and compassionate one; I don't think he's going to lose it if I don't capitalize his name here.

Starting wars and killing people, while abusing the poor and the sick would probably piss him off- that's one of the reasons why I question the faith of our president.

anyway, whether you were being serious or just yanking my chain, have a nice day :)

Re:bite me asshat.

[CaptRespect]

"no links found to al-Qaeda and no WMDs"

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks). And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.

Re:Hell yeah

[mattkime]

If we went into Iraq because the people needed to be liberated from a dictator, why didn't Bush make that argument? Instead, he chose to scare the country with claims of WMDs that have never materialized.

Then again, I don't see how it could be our moral obligation to provide people with democracy. Is that even possible in such an unstable part of the world? Further, there are many other places in the world where awful things are happening, shouldn't we be in all those other places as well?

The military seems to think that it can take control of anything. It can, as long as its not spread too thin and used appropriately. Unfortunately the Iraq war sets a poor president for justification of future actions which will result in increased hostility from anyone but our closest allies.

Well, at least then it would be both sides...

[Symbha]

That are airing things on the eve of an election to play on people's emotions.

The republican campaign is all fear right now. Be afraid for your security, we are the only ones thinking about that.

As to the movie, well I think more people should be aware of how all these dots are connected.

Chechnya is not US business

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont bother with Russia's problems, if you do it you are going to regret it!

Stay away from Russia, we dont need your compassion!

Moore's critics pervert reality

[mabu]

Here is an example of how Moore's critics distort reality to claim his film is inaccurate - you can go through point-by-point and research things yourself on any of the anti-Moore web sites, and upon further examination, you'll find more distortions in F911's critics than you will the movie itself.

Moore's critics say the movie's claim that "Gore would have won Florida" is a lie.

The truth is, there are two ways to interpret the statement in the movie. The literal interpretation in F911 which doesn't call attention to the nature of the "recount" is 100% accurate. In a *statewide recount* Gore would have won the election.

Moore's critics twist this by implying that Moore meant (but did not say) "the recount requested by Gore", which only included a subset of Florida, in which Bush would have won.

What is the real issue? Bush won Florida and therefore won the Presidency. Any meaningful discussion of a "recount" involves the entire state because it was the entire state's electoral votes that were up for grabs.

However, Moore's critics insinuate that the movie "lies" by manufacturing a specific scenario, that is not represented in the movie, where Bush could have legitimately won Florida, and therefore use it to "prove" that Moore was a "liar." Unfortunately, it's 100% fabrication. The movie's statements on this issue are accurate despite the right wingers' attempt to snow-job the public into believing otherwise.

With so many right-wing resources being expended to tear apart Moore's movie, they were bound to find something. No doubt about that... They discovered that the book Bush was reading when the WTC was attacked was entitled "The Pet Goat" and not "My Pet Goat" as Moore mentioned in the film. Yes, this grevious error is a classic example of the horrendous propaganda and lies that Farhenheit 911 epitomizes!

Almost all of the F911's "lies" fall into these two categories: distortions of reality to imply the movie distorted reality, or expose's of completely irrelevent "facts" and continuity inconsistencies that have virtually nothing substantive to do with the movie's main theme or accuracy.

Right-wing propaganda such as this, told over and over, makes the public believe that Moore's movie is inaccurate when it is not. It's the same tactic that has misled millions into thinking there was a substantive connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There are more right-wing voices sprewing dubious arguments against Moore's film than there are people in the public eye calling attention to the blatant inaccuracy of such criticisms, so people "assume" Moore was distorting the truth when he wasn't.

What's important here is that people need to get wise to the massive effort that is underway to wholly discredit Moore personally, and therefore keep people from giving creedence to ANY aspect of his work. You don't hear people complain about any single aspect of the movie - you hear people merely regurgitate the opinion fed to them, that "Moore is a propagandist". They don't really know themselves.

This is completely unjust. You can't open any newspaper or watch anything on television that doesn't have some bias. This doesn't mean that one can't glean some insight or truth therein. But the conservatives' M.O. is to encourage people to completely disregard (and preferably boycott or destroy) anyone who challenges their version of reality. It is for this very reason that a thinking person should be even more interested in hearing what Moore has to say. With so much caustic counter-propaganda blowing about in the wind, common sense dictates the target of that vitriol probably has something very illuminating to share with others.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[Lord Bitman]

Agreed. The only problem with Micheal Moore is he's the second-worst kind of pompous asshole with no sense of reality. The first-worst kind is of course someone exactly like Micheal Moore, but expressing opinions I disagree with :)
And for that there's Sean Hannity and the gang.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[mabu]

Agreed. The only problem with Micheal Moore is he's the second-worst kind of pompous asshole with no sense of reality. The first-worst kind is of course someone exactly like Micheal Moore, but expressing opinions I disagree with :)

It has always bothered me, comments like this. Do you know Michael Moore personally? How can you so authoritatively comment on who he is as a person, and better yet, what relevance does this have to his work?

I hear Kevin Costner is a dick. What bearing does that have on his movies? Ok, bad example.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[Lord Bitman]

Err, okay, have you ever seen any of Micheal Moore's movies or appearances? Those movies which he independently created and was the center of? And those appearances which are actually him? Do you think he's just trying to keep up the image of his on-screen persona (like hip-hop?) I mean, that's a valid argument in the sense that I have no information which would prove otherwise. I mean, based entirely on what he says, he's either a pompous asshole or a liar. (I guess that would just make him an asshole)

I think I've invalidated your point on "what bearing does that have on his movies" already, but in case you need further explanation: If one personally and independently created a movie, (or Three) which were arogant and exploitive, I think I'd say that not only is the movie arogant and exploitive, but the star (being the one who single-handedly brought about the existence of the movie) is arogant and exploitive. And if you make three arogant and exploitive movies, I also consider you a pompous asshole.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[mabu]

Err, okay, have you ever seen any of Micheal Moore's movies or appearances? Those movies which he independently created and was the center of? And those appearances which are actually him? Do you think he's just trying to keep up the image of his on-screen persona (like hip-hop?) I mean, that's a valid argument in the sense that I have no information which would prove otherwise. I mean, based entirely on what he says, he's either a pompous asshole or a liar. (I guess that would just make him an asshole)

I don't mean this in any disrespectful way, but comments such as yours, in my opinion, show that you're a lot more personally insecure than Moore is potentially pompous.

What's even more ironic is that Michael Moore embodies one of the most distinctive characteristics that his critics praise in Bush: courage of conviction.

I'd say it's a lot more courageous for Moore to stand up for what he believes in when it's a helluva lot less politically-correct than Bush's agenda.

I fail to see what's so pompous about this. Or egocentric. If Moore's self-interests were such a motivating factor, there are a thousand less dangerous ways he could make a living. He's had money for a long time. The guy's a multi-millionaire and he still dresses like a truck driver. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence to back up your claims.

If one personally and independently created a movie, (or Three) which were arogant and exploitive, I think I'd say that not only is the movie arogant and exploitive, but the star (being the one who single-handedly brought about the existence of the movie) is arogant and exploitive. And if you make three arogant and exploitive movies, I also consider you a pompous asshole.

Not everyone finds F911 to be an "arrogant" movie. This is your own insecurity (or jealousy) manifesting itself in my opinion.

I contend that all movies are exploitive. That's the nature of the industry.

I think you are intimidated by Moore's determination and self-confidence and you micharacterize this as arrogance. In all the interviews and public appearances I've seen of his, I would never characterize him as arrogant. If anything, he comes off as an "accidental icon" that has passionately accepted his role and responsibility. If he can make tons of money doing so, that's good for him. I think a lot of people are angry that Moore can make money bashing a lot of more-powerful institutions.

I would however, give him props for having a lot of guts to speak his mind in forums where it wasn't appropriate. I'd venture to guess that if we were talking in general terms and your prejudices weren't in the picture, you'd consider the behavior of someone like Moore to be a positive character trait. Most people do, but he's been so demonized by the mainstream media, it's become apropos to exempt Moore from such respect.

The bottom line IMO is the more personal disparagement people lob at Moore, the more they expose their own insecurities and jealousy. It's a sign they are threatened by someone so strong-willed. You don't have to agree with Moore's agenda to recognize that he's a guy that won't back down, and these days there aren't very many like him, especially on the left. This is probably why the public has such a love/hate relationship with him.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[Lord Bitman]

Okay, here's an example:
When you're standing in front of a room full of people all of which are booing you off the stage, and you dare to use the word "We" (refering to the rest of the room) when expressing your opinions, that is arrogant. Is there any other way to interpret that? Speaking your mind is okay. Speaking your mind in front of a room of people who disagree with you can even be described as taking courage. But using the word "We" when talking about your opinions, when there is clear evidence that absolutely everyone else can see which shows the word "We" really doesnt begin to apply, that's arrogant.

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[mabu]

When you're standing in front of a room full of people all of which are booing you off the stage, and you dare to use the word "We" (refering to the rest of the room) when expressing your opinions, that is arrogant. Is there any other way to interpret that? Speaking your mind is okay. Speaking your mind in front of a room of people who disagree with you can even be described as taking courage. But using the word "We" when talking about your opinions, when there is clear evidence that absolutely everyone else can see which shows the word "We" really doesnt begin to apply, that's arrogant.

I assume you're talking about the Academy Awards ceremony? You don't know what you're talking about. This is classic! I saw the video of the event and Moore wasn't "boo'd" - there were a small smattering of people who whined and then people booed at the people panning Moore. In any event it was totally blown out of preportion. I saw the tape; I've read numerous stories on the subject. You're basing your opinion on heresay. Very uninformed. But this is the the weak evidence Moore's critics have: they base their opinions off others' opinions of third-hand reports; they pan movies they don't go to see, etc.

Even if what you're implying is true, which it IS NOT. It's a really, really, ridiculous stretch to characterize the use of the word "we" as pompous.

How lame can you get? Don't you have something better to do that concern yourself with such childish trivialities?

Re:Moore's critics pervert reality

[Lord Bitman]

you dont think use of the word "We" when it is not applicable is pompous and arogant? I guess you, maybe, dont know about what pompous and/or arogant means.
You've seen videos, I've seen videos. We drew different conclusions. We then both looked to see what others were saying about it and we each read different reports which conflict with eachother. Both of us chose which to believe.

Micheal Moore _IS_ an asshole. And just what in the flying fuck are you trying to pull with "don't you have something better to do?"

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[hkb]

What the hell was he supposed to do? Jump up, have secret service grab him and rush off to an awaiting helicoptor in the school parking lot?

Well, yes. He should have done that. Events like 9/11 require a commander-in-chief for emergency response, coordinating a national heightened alert status. Who knew at the time if a similar attack was planned in Los Angeles at 10am?

Scare the kids, parents and the entire nation half to death?


Uhm, they wouldn't be any more scared than they were from the 9/11 attacks themselves.

There were no nuclear missles inbound. There wasn't anything happening that would have destroyed the entire country.

Hindsight is 20/20. He didn't know that. There probably wasn't anything that would have destroyed the entire country, but again, there could have been a synchronized west coast attack that killed ANOTHER 3,000 people.

If he would have rushed out of the room at the arms of the secret service he would have been criticized for scaring the hell out of the entire school.

He didn't have to rush out, he could have excused himself and walked out, instead of sitting there for several more minutes staring blankly and chewing his lip. You thought THAT was showing strength and courage? Haha!

Michael Moore is a liar, its as simple as that. He took facts and twisted and turned them through clever editing to make his own timelines and make up his own "facts".

I agree with you here. He could be so much more potent if he maintained integrity and didn't try to bend facts or outright mislead his viewers. He's an idiot for that. Regardless, he had several good points in his film.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

You completely miss the point.

For instance, did you know that the original vote for funding for the troops also included an additional 500 million for exploration of Alaskan wildlife refuges for new energy sources. So you can say that Kerry voted against money for the troops and you would be correct. The second bill did not include the Alaskan provision and was passed. You can then say Kerry flip-flopped.

The point is without ALL the facts any argument is worthless. The military record was a very base example of the fats and not to be taken literally.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The economy has been growing at the best rate in twenty years.

it won't happen

[Dr Kool, PhD]

It won't happen unless Moore puts up a bunch of money to buy up two hours of network time like Perot did in '92. No network is going to show political propaganda for free, especially during an election year. They would have half the voters in America calling in to complain and starting boycotts.

Also, it's just wrong to show something so slanted over the public airwaves. What if a pro-Bush documentary was shown on ABC the week before the election? You guys would be screaming bloody murder...

grr

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Considering how many questions have been raised as to the intelligence of those hosting slashdot, one has to wonder whether their editing of submitted posts helps or hurts the editorial process if they neglect to thoroughly contemplation them.

Canadian government sanctioned religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country is trying to figure out how to give religious courts legal standing. I think that American problems with relgious charities and federal funding are bad, among other conflicts of religion and state, but the Canadian idiocy of pushing aside real laws to make way for crazy religious laws is much more astounding.

Mod story up +5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

Okay, maybe just +4 for not knowing how to spell "controversial", but it's still either a very good joke or one of the most naïf posts ever.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that he never witnessed any of these things. They were all lies. You can be damn sure that any POW from that era will not be voting for him.

Propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Moore's movie is definitely filled with half truths, and probably, down right lies. But how is that differenent than what we hear from the polititions themselves? If they can blather on with their version of reality, up to the election, why can't he?

Don't feed the troll

[jmorris42]

Listen up, Moore is the biggest troll since GNAA and the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him. They feed off of the controversy.

The only thing F911 has been useful for is as a quick test of political cluefullness. Just ask someone their opinion on F911 and if they show any reaction other than amusement you can safely ignore whatever else they say because they are clueless.

Slashdot poli-speak

[jeff13]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda,...
---
Hey wait Slashdot...
propaganda must come from an agenda, a group. One fat guy from Michigan is NOT propoganda. It's called a documentary stupid.

See how CNN brainwashes you? They made all of America define Moores movie as propoganda without even checking thier dictionaries.

Ann Coulter is a propagandist. Micheal Moore represents himself and that's it! Buy a frellin' clue Slashdot.

Re:Hell yeah

[gcaseye6677]

Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time believing that a site called anyonebutbush.com is an objective source of facts and information. If you want to read such a site for your amusement, go right ahead, but to cite it in an argument as a factual source will not convince anyone who was not already a Bush basher.

Re:Someone already aired Fahrenheit 911

[mabu]

/yawn

Another authoritative commentary on Cuba by someone whose only first-hand knowledge of the country comes from watching re-runs of "I Love Lucy." Gotta love armchair pundits.

What happend to the banning of political speech?

[nurb432]

Remember, 'campaign finance reform' prohibits this sort of thing.

If the NRA tried this, they would be in jail, why is this idiot allowed to push is crap when its illegal 60 days before an election?

Not that I agree with the law one bit as it squelches our first amendment rights, but if one is going to apply it, at least apply it evenly..

Re:Hell yeah

[ageoffri]

What exactly is your point here besides an attack? I'm sure there are some people who meet all the criteria you assume mean a Bush support. I'm also sure there are many who meet none of them. What we have is mostly educated IT related people representing a cross section.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the 10 Arabs that were involved in the school hostage taking just took a wrong turn and ended up in Russia instead of Iraq? Russia has also said that the Chechnians have links to Al Queda. It doesn't really matter that much. It's just a different brand of Islamofascism that liberals like Moore embrace wholeheartedly.

Leni Riefenstahl

[Detritus]

If he can't have an Oscar, why not give Moore the Leni Riefenstahl Memorial Award for Documentary Filmmaking. After all, his films have broken new ground in the art of persuasion.

You are deceitfull

[Snaller]

If Moore is spinning, then so are you:

"For example, Moore claims that Rep. Porter Goss doesn't have an 800 number that people can use to report problems with the USA PATRIOT act."

No, he doesn't. Porter Goss says he has a "1-800" number. Which he doesn't. Moore reports facts.

"However, Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number for USA PATRIOT act."

No he doesn't. Now you are the one who is lying.
Everybody has a phone these days. As does The House Select Committee on Intelligence. But its not a hotline for "USA PATRIOT ACT", its just the ordinary number.

"Moore was technically correct when he stated there wasn't an 800 number, "

So far everything seems to be in this vain "he wasa technically correct .. but" - yeah, he wasn't lying fancy that.

"...but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception."

Your tactic, in your previous mail - yes it was. But you are probably to blind to notice.

Stop just quoting Kopel, he has an agenda too, and most of his "deceits" are deceits of his own - not The True(r).

Re:bite me asshat.

[torpor]

uh huh ... so, like, the war on invasion by the aliens is going pretty well too, since none of that seems to be happening.

sheesh. baaah!

Get rid of the DUDE

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good news. From a European point of view, getting the Deliberately Untrustful Dipsomaniac Extremist and his junta kicked out of the office they came into by fraud, is a question about restoring the American democracy.

Re:Get rid of the DUDE

[cartervt2k]

Unless your country is part of the coalition, no one gives and f what Europe has to say (except "thanks" for saving your asses 60 years ago).

Re:Get rid of the DUDE

[Anonymous Coward]

And we don't give a f. about your opiniopn (except "thanks" for having born you 400 years ago)

And there is no coalition.

Re:Get rid of the DUDE

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting to see a regular enlightened republican in action. Noe let's see, do you know where Oregon is on the map, Michigan? Oklahoma?

I thought so.

Do you know what the people of Greece are called?

I thought so.

So, why should anyone differ your opinions from trash?

I thought so.

Re:Get rid of the DUDE

[Anonymous Coward]

We were born of freedom and independence, two ideas which are obviously foreign to you. I can understand how your bitterness towards the USA is merely jealousy's way of manifesting itself, but let's not lose sight of the fact, however, that if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking German right now.

Re:Get rid of the DUDE

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not saying Europeans aren't entitled to their opinions - they are. We just don't give a flying f what they are. If you're with us, great. If not, we'll remember next time you need to be bailed out when another neighborhood despot goes running amuck.

Leftist utilitarianism

[n6kuy]

> Personally I don't care if F911 is truth or not as long as it helps stop Bush getting reelected.

Hitler and Stalin didn't care about the truth, either. As long as it got the desired results.

OK, so you don't like Bush. Wouldn't it be more honorable to articulate your reasons for not liking him, and try to convince us of the same?

You can vote for Kerry, but I'm not Fonda Hanoi John.

And another thing...

[Big Sean O]

FOX news had George W. Bush's first cousin, John Ellis, work the election desk on Election day 2000. This wasn't disclosed until afterward. Ellis had direct control over the results that FOX broadcast. But we already knew that FOX wasn't on the up and up.

It seems to me that Carville and Begala consulting for the Kerry campaign part-time, and cheerfully disclosing it, isn't a horrible conflict of interest. Especially since the show "Crossfile" is meant to be partisan opinion.

The most disturbing trend on _all_ shows is the attempt to take 'opinion' people (like Sean Hannity) and dress them up to be journalists. Talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

David Brinkley did it right. He became a commentator _after_ he hung up his anchor spot.

Re:And another thing...

[Cereal Box]

It seems to me that Carville and Begala consulting for the Kerry campaign part-time, and cheerfully disclosing it, isn't a horrible conflict of interest. Especially since the show "Crossfile" is meant to be partisan opinion.

Oh please. Can you imagine the uproar if Bill O'Reilly were to work on Bush's campaign doing what Carville is doing on Kerry's?

Re:And another thing...

[Foamy]

There would be no uproar if
i. O'Reilly had previosuly worked on a Republican Presidential campaign
ii. The reason for hiring him was i. above
iii. He hosted a political "debate-style" show which pits known R's vs D's.

O'reilly working for Bush is like Scarborough working for Bush, which he basically is. And guess what? No uproar.

Re:And another thing...

[Big Sean O]

I really don't have a problem with it if (a) they disclose their activities and (b) they don't pretend to be anything but commentators. Carville and Begala did both. After all they're Democratic Strategists.

Carville's wife, Mary Matalin, is a GOP Strategist. She was a regular on Crossfire all through 2000, even while she was working for the GOP. In fact, she left Crossfire in Jan 2001 to serve as assistant to President Bush and counselor to Vice President Cheney. Nobody freaked out when she did that, did they?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The answer is extremely simple

[Rui del-Negro]

If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?

Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).

Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).

If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

RMN
~~~

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael Moore's Oscar for Best Documentary (for "Bowling For Columbine") is comparable to Milli Vanilli's Grammy for Best New Artist. Whatever the textbook definition of "documentary" might be, that class of work is implicitly objective -- I bet if you asked a hundred people on the street whether they thought there was a difference between "opinion piece" and "documentary," a significant majority would say yes.

The relationship between Moore's films and the truth is very similar to the relationship between the text of a ransom note made from words cut out of newspaper articles and the content of the articles themselves.

-HJ

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[feepness]

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

Actually, at least two are:

here

and here

Also: If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

If this is so wrong, how come Moore or "someone" hasn't sued him? Therefore it must be correct by your "logic".

Politics is sad nowadays. I'm voting indy.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

This post is just weird.

First, you go on and on insisting that "Documentaries have *always* presented their point of view," and "Some people think the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with."

All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.

Also you say "If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich." Huh? Since you are such an expert that you're not afraid to get up and post in front of thousands of /. readers, perhaps you would care to explain how I would have legal standing in this case. (I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!)

Seriously, please respond. I really want to know.

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?

Which just proves what a fucking joke the Oscars are, and how far to the left Hollyweird is biased. And how they'll ignore their own standards for what a documentary actually is, so they can award a puerile piece of shit like BFC. But all the ignoramuses who hold it in high regard are just proof of what P.T. Barnum said.

The Truth
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ [msn.com]

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
By Dave Kopel
http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits- in-Fahrenheit-911.htm [davidkopel.com]

Moore's appeal lies in his giving wealthy, over-educated, whites an opportunity to laugh at working-class whites.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore's appeal lies in his giving wealthy, over-educated, whites an opportunity to laugh at working-class whites.

Over-educated? I don't care one way or the other about Michael Moore but your apparent disdain for knowledge and wallowing in ignorance is appalling.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[rpdillon]

Umm, yes they have. Its called FarenHYPE911. Its coming out on DVD on 05 Oct. You can go to:
the website
to hear more about it.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[acidream]

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

Trust me, there are several documentaries in the works that tell "the other side of the story" This is a link to one of them. The other I'm not at liberty to talk about, but it will be out soon enough.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Rui del-Negro]

This post is just weird.

Is it? Looks pretty normal to me, but I respect your incomprehension.

All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.

"Half-truths" and "misleading evasions" (pointing out what one considers the bad - and therefore urgent - aspects of an issue and considering that some things are not relevant) are what's called "having a point of view".

As to the "outright lies" that you mention, I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that they exist. Nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 consists of video clips from news networks and interviews (with senators, the mother of a dead soldier, etc.). Unless you're saying the interviews were staged (ex., the woman's son did not die in Iraq) or that the video was doctored (ex., Bush did not sit there reading a children's book while his country was being attacked), I don't see how any of it can be "outright lies".

I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!

Given my "expertise"? What expertise? Is that supposed to mean something or just sound clever? Either way, I think it fails.

I have no idea what the details of the american legal system are (want to discuss the EU's import legislation?), but I think you do have legislation that covers slander / libel / defamation (I've read news coverage of similar cases). If any of the facts presented in a documentary can be shown to be false (not "incomplete" - false), then anyone objectively affected by that falsehood has the right to defend his or her good name and interests, and demand indemnization and / or a public apology.

In fact, I believe this extends to works of fiction, and that's why most movies include a disclaimer saying that "any similarities with real people or events are pure coincidence" - to avoid being sued by anyone who feels personally insulted or exploited.

In other words, if Moore says "there is clear evidence that everyone that eats at McDonald's is a fat slob", then anyone that does eat at McDonald's (or any of the owners, or employees, etc.) and feels offended by that (false) statement, can sue him.

So anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies). And, AFAIK, no-one has.

Thinking that there is anything in the movie that wasn't checked 50 times would be giving Moore, Lion's Gate and Miramax a certificate of incompetence.

RMN
~~~

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

1. "I respect your incomprehension."

Thanks. The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.

2. In your part about lies vs. point of view, you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911." You also blur the distinction between opinion and fact, which is, not coincidentally, the very thing Moore is criticized for. In fact, that is the main complaint: That Moore is a master at taking half-truths and carefully worded assertions, and putting them together in a way that leaves viewers with misleading insinuations as to the *actual* facts. In other words, that he deliberately gives false impressions without actually lying.

So in terms of outright lies, there's not very much to point to. But that's not to say there's *nothing* to point to -- there certainly is. For example, the letter to the editor in the newspaper, doctored to look like a news article. Or the placque in Bowling for Columbine that doesn't say what he said it did. Or the way he edited Heston's speeches to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.

I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience. Go read The Truth About Columbine, and 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me Moore deserves any loyalty from the fans whose intelligence he so obviously despises.

3. The key word in your lengthy discourse about "standing" is "AFAIK." Look, not to be too blunt about this, but the F in that phrase is, well, not very F.

I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend, and through it you might have learned that not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason. Most pertinently, I can't sue Moore just because he lies in his documentaries. I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.

So to bring it back around full circle, you claimed that the fact that no one is suing Moore is evidence that what he says must be true. I'm pointing out that that assertation is simply wrong.

(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[mattACK]

I thought that the movie was very well made. It didn't really change my mind about anything, but I enjoyed it and respect Moore for his talents.

I love that it has brought about a debate; I hate that it hasn't brought about a healthy debate. Have you actually considered any of his points? I did. Some are silly, some are wrong, and some deserve more attention. After all, a great many Americans supported the Vietnam war too. Where are they now?

Remember that patriotism isn't agreement. Remember that EVERYONE with power would just a soon eat you as treat you fairly. Make up your own mind.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical right-wing attitude - people who are too intelligent or informed are a risk, because they might not fall for their lies. I think this says it all, really. It's the coalition of the dumb.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)

But the same thing could be true for Kerry (swift boat veterans for untruth), and certainly is true in the case of McCain in 2000 and Max Cleland in 2002. The Americas slander/lible laws have benefited Bush & the Republicans at least as much, probably far more, as they have Democrats.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

I've never understood these criticisms of Moore. I mean Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Matt Drudge, and virtually every other right wing pundit is guilty of exactly the same things-- and often far worse (Moore spins the truth to support his agenda, but everything is at least loosely based on fact. The aforementioned pundits have all been known to just make shit up to support their agenda). Why is it OK for them to use "lies & Half Truths", but not OK for Moore?

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Today I asked 15 preschoolers what 1+1 is they ALL said 3. So it *MUST* be fact. Or at the very least it will be my point of view.

Get real...

Oh and people HAVE made documentaries stating the EXACT oposite. Go watch them. If you are soooooooo open minded.....

Moore is NOTHING more than an opportunist. He has admited as much. His 'facts' are usually wishy washed when presented by facts. He usually evades the answers when presented with real facts. Then keeps on going with whatever he thinks is 'real'. He is a true believer in the 'i hate bush' crowd. But unfortunatly it is the crowd that is not quiiiiiiiite sure why they hate him. The funniest person that I saw punk Moore out was Ralph Nader. Go read his site if you want what Moore *REALLY* is like. Moore was a super nader trooper at one time. Yet suddenly he isn't. Makes you think about that. Nader people are near zelots...

I for one was hopeing for a REAL opponent to GWB. Unfortunatly all we have is one where his ONLY moto seems to be 'not bush'. He also picked a running mate who has DONE ZIP for me, my friends, and the state of north carolina. Edwards is real piece of work. Look him up.

Also if you REALLY do not like the way Bush is doing things. Your going about it the wrong way. Voting him out is garbage. You will end up in a year or so with a similar admin and they will be patting themselves just as much on the back. You want to make a REAL change. Call/Write/E-mail/talk to your congressman AND your senators. You will have a stronger say in what is going on than you think. Get your friends to do the same. Get your family to do the same. Have them tell friends and other family to do the same. It really is NOT that hard. They are there to work for you. Dont worry if you voted for them or not. They dont know! Also if a good chunk of congress tells the president he is doing the wrong things he DOES listen.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

I have a simple answer for you: It's not.

I guess I could elaborate on that a little. First, though, a point about the three pundits you mention: Two of the three are not "right wing." Conservatives don't consider O'Reilly a conservative, and neither does he. He is more of an independent guy with some idiosyncratic views. (This is not to defend him. I've never seen his show, and I've heard he can be a real jerk). Drudge is not a right-winger either. I understand his politics are somewhere around the moderate-republican area. You do know he's gay, right? He's only "right wing" in the sense that he's "not liberal." At least that is my feel for it.

More substantively, if you want to criticize Rush for his opinions, that's fine. And if it can be shown that Rush is as fast and loose with facts as Moore is, then by all means, I think he would deserve every bit of criticism he got. Of course, I've never listened to his show anyway.

I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so.

I've always been of the opinion that you should be harshest in demanding a high level of honesty from the people on your side. Some honest liberals have said, essentially: "Michael Moore is a liar, and we don't need his 'help' to show what a terrible president Bush is." I may not agree with their opinion of Bush, but I respect their integrity.

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

You do know he's gay, right?

So? I know of several Far right wing gays. True, most gays are liberal, but it is absurd to give Drudge a free pass just because of his sexuality. I judge his biases based on what he has demonstrated in the past. True, he's written critically of the right from time to time as well, but that certainly doesn't make him a leftist.

As for Rush Limbaugh's level of honesty, there have been entire books written on the subject. "Logic & Mr. Limbaugh", "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", and several others as well. He is well known for taking facts out of context, spinning things, etc. One classic example is the Paul Wellstone Funeral debacle. What was universally reported by attendees as a loving, non-political event, was spun by Rush, and then picked up by the rest of the national media as a highly politicized, shameful event. Had he (and the rest of the media) bothered to watch the -televised event-, rather then just the 30 second clip that the pundits were criticizing, they would have known this. There are hundreds of other examples, but I'm not going to cite them all.

I do believe that the Left should have higher standards then the right, and we historically, we usually have. Unfortunately, the failure in 2000 to use the same techniques that the right has been using since at least 1992, cost Gore the election. Many of us on the left are fed up with the right pulling this buillshit over & over again, and never getting called on it. Moore is finally taking a page from the republican playbook & using it to great success. Personally, he's one of my heroes.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

"but that certainly doesn't make him a leftist"

This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican. Not that it matters -- you can consider him a martian nazi for all I care.

Similarly, you're welcome to lay in to Rush all you like. I don't watch his show, and feel no compulsion to defend him at all.

The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.

That doesn't make you unique: Repubs do this all the time too. But to make either party out as some kind of angels is laughable. Look at the democratic political machines that controlled big-city politics in this country for so long. I've got news for you -- they didn't exactly have reputations as paragons of virtue.

Or look at the rarely discussed but probably most important political issue in America today -- Gerrymandering. Both sides gleefully do it, then scream in outrage when the other side does it.

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican.

You're right here, you did say that Drudge isn't a liberal. Though it certainly reads that way, I didn't intend to misrepresent what you said. However I stand by my basic point that you shouldn't have even mentioned his sexual preference. It has absolutely nothing to do with his political preference.

The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.

But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.

I agree with you that Moore is less honest then I would like. The only reason that I applaud him is because he's doing what the republicans have been doing for years. If the republicans are going to play dirty, then the democrats need to also.

I hope to live to see the day when politics is elevated to a civil debate on the issues, not the game of dirty tricks and one-upsmanship that it is today. Unfortunately, I think that's a long way off. Until then, I want my side to be just as dirty as the other side, since I want them to win.

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.

Huh? This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.

As for politics, the fact is that it's ALWAYS been a dirty game. I don't like it -- in fact, I hate it -- but that's the nature of the game. In fact, I do have a minor dig at the liberals to make here. As I said before, so much is at stake that both sides will do whatever it takes. But here's something to think about: The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.

But again, that doesn't mean the democrats are any more or less dirty than the republicans. As far as I'm concerned, we should just chuck elections altogether and choose our elected officials by random lots.

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.

I don't buy it. You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing? Bullshit.

To be fair, you did say earlier "I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so." But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue. Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining.

The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.

More right wing nonsense, sorry. The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Magius_AR]

A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view

And that is why they are not facts. Real people and real events are facts. But when you inject ANY sort of "point-of-view" or opinion by unilaterally splicing details together and misrepresenting the facts to further your own end, you leave the realm of facts and enter propaganda/fiction/bullshit/lies. If Moore's "facts" were truly as strong and obvious as he claims they are, they should stand alone without the need for the blatent misrepresentation he uses that makes him no better than the smear artists on either side (ie Limbaugh)

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[Alaska Jack]

1. OK, first, just relax. I'm not your enemy.

2. "You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing?"

We're not talking about *anyone*. In this case, we're talking about *me*. The question was, why am I criticizing Moore without criticizing everyone who intentionally misleads. Well, I am, in the sense that I'm criticizing those tactics, and by extension, anyone who uses them. But I criticized Moore specifically because *he is the topic of this thread*. I'm simply staying on topic. I'm not saying other people shouldn't criticize Rush, etc. Feel free. It's just a little off-topic in a thread about Michael Moore. His transgressions don't excuse Rush's, and vice versa.

2. "But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue."

Let me get this straight. You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.

3. "Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining."

I agree that if Rush is as fast and loose with the facts as Moore, it would be absurd for him to complain about it, and he should be criticized for his hypocrisy. On the other hand, Rush IS criticized all the time. Ever hear of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?" A little book that spent some time on the best-seller lists? Got lots of media coverage? It's absurd to suggest that he has gotten a free ride. The criticism may not have affected his popularity (or it may have, I have no idea), but that's not the same thing as not getting a free ride. People can and do criticize him all the time, I suspect with some justification.

5. "The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?

Here you make a number of errors.

a) I'm not certain your statistic about government employees under Clinton is correct.

b) The government budget, and number of government agencies, has grown every year, and continues to grow. There may be very specific, limited counterexamples, but the overall trend is unmistakeable.

c) Clinton appeared balanced the budget because of increased receipts caused by an explosively growing GDP. It had nothing to do with making government smaller. Also, it has often been pointed out that he only balanced the "budget" if you don't count deferred medicare and social security costs, and of course, there's no reason those shouldn't be counted. Businesses, for example, are required by law to account for such future debts.

d) Reagan and Bush did indeed set record deficits. I have no argument with you there. The *current* Republican party is not a party of small government, and I'm not claiming it is, so get your dander back down. I merely pointed out that the trend *began* under Roosevelt, and exploded under Johnson. If you're a liberal, you have nothing to apologize for here: Liberals believe
a big government is *good*. I'm simply pointing out one side effect -- that government is *more important and powerful* than it used to be, and thus the electoral stakes are higher.

- Alaska Jack

Re:The answer is extremely simple

[ibbey]

Ok, I'm going to drop this after following up on a one minor point...

You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.

That's not quite what I'm saying. Certainly the right gets criticized, in fact I'm the one who originally mentioned the various books on criticizing Rush. But, while discussing F911, I haven't seen them called on it, even though they are criticizing moore for this very behaviour. The news media all want to follow your edict of remaining "on topic". But THIS IS THE TOPIC. Certainly we're discussing Moore specifically, and if the topic had stayed specifically on the airing of F911 on TV, then it would be off topic to bring up the right. But as soon as people start criticizing the movie for it's dishonesty, it's 100% on topic to point out that the right are guilty of the same tactics.

Re:It's possible to be truthful without being hone

[norkakn]

um.. uh, sorry to break this too ya, but in the olden days, journalists were just open about being one sided. The whole thing about being accurate and impartial is a newfangled thing.

Re:bite me asshat.

[jayp00001]

No Kerry did not come back begging for an end to the war. Kerry came back testifying how horrible it was for him and his shipmates to have had to become war criminals, knowing full well that they weren't. He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today. Kerry actions are about as noble as having the guy next to you in a foxhole, before you are supposed to get out to take over an enemy position, saying "by all means my good man, you first"

I remember Nixon's old slogan

[k4_pacific]

Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw,
Vote for Nixon in '72.

I wonder....

[bryan1945]

After reading many of the comments so far, it makes me wonder what the response from the /. community (or as more accurately seems, factions) if Moore had done a comparable film with another subject. Say, an anti-Pres. Clinton piece? Or an anti-Linux/Linus piece? Or an anti-European Union piece.

It would be interesting to compatre peoples' reactions with F9/11 to these other hypothetical movies, and see if they would really keep their views (Moore is a lying hack, Moore is just telling the truth) if he suddenly attacked a position they espoused (say Clinton for those who like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those who like the EU) or disliked (say Clinton for those who didn't like Fahrenheit, or the EU for those in the US).

Would be an interesting study to have everyone watch 3 or 4 F9/11-like movies on different topics, then read the responses and see if we could categorize people into groups:
Likes Moore no matter what
Dislikes Moore no matter what
Anti-Bush no matter what
Pro-Bush no matter what
Anti-Clinton no matter what
etc.
until "Views actually swing depending on material" and "Actually influenced by the film(s)".

I think it would be an intersting exam of ideaology vs. critical thinking, especially for those who views have suddenly been attacked.

Re:bite me asshat.

[William R. Dickson]

I've actually been keeping the terrorists away by keeping this banana stuck in my ear...

Re:Hell yeah

[gcaseye6677]

Yea, that's the trick. Then what do we do when they move the whole company overseas?

"truth" or "propaganda"

[LoFat ByLine]

... and the traditional news sources (CNN, New York Times, et al) give us the unbiased "truth?" .. if you believe that, you might want to go back and reread Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.

Chomsky clearly demonstrated that the standard criticism of Moore ("his facts are mostly right but he uses them to lead his audience to erroneous conclusions") applies equally to every mainstream news source. Moore's work is valuable not because it's "true" in some absolute sense, but because it presents a credible alternative to the biases of the mainstream media.

Back to business:

[DrCode]

Emacs is better than Vi.
KDE rules!
Revive Dr. Who! Retire StarTrek.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[atarola]

Kerry's military records: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html Cheers, atarola

Re:Hell yeah

[strictfoo]

Read these two paragrahps very carefully:

Paragraph 1: Repeatedly posting the same bs link doesn't make it any more factual.

Paragraph 2: Pudding tastes good! Eat pudding.

The current economy is entirely W's work. And it WILL get WAY worse if he knows he has another 4 years and no chance of re-election after that.

Get your head out of your ass. You actually seem to think that Bush wants to tank the economy. You know what happens then? All his rich friends would lose tons of money as the stock market dies and inflation sky rockets. You're just one of those idiots that actually thinks Bush is evil.

Even the stupidest Bush detractors know that the economy is improving (albeit somewhat slowly at times).

Contemplation of last-minute emotions

[sugarmotor]

1. "Thoroughly contemplation" is what is needed :)

2. And no, it is not a "controvercial" movie.

3. And, no, no one has "to wonder" whether "on the eve of an election [it] helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions". Invoking last-minute emotions seem to be the norm nowadays. Just doesn't get exposed -- only in spectacular cases such as this one.

Stephan

Very generous

[n9uxu8]

I love reading Moore's stuff...especially the following line

"let's let someone else have the Oscar"

Darn big of him... Regardless, here's my fear:

1) The documentary is shown on TV the night before the election.
2) Bush loses for whatever reason (regardless of F911, I suspect the American people are ready to vote him off the island)
3) Mike gets in front of a camera, claims responsibility for Bush losing, his ego grows even more, and he gets to act like his word is as unto God because his will controlled the election.

Personally, I say let's let Limbaugh and Moore duke it out and ignore them both...

Dave

Re:bite me asshat.

[rhakka]

Are you trying to show a possible trend with a single data point?

Well gee, I thought we'd have INFINITE ATTACKS PER MINUTE after 9/11, so YEAH, we're doing GREAT!!!!!

Or maybe I thought that since the last terrorist large scale action on our soil (oklahoma city 1995) occurred six years earlier, that we could expect another attack within six years! We're over halfway now, so far so good huh!

Or maybe I thought that sine the last FOREIGN large scale attack on our soil (pearl harbor, 1941) that we'd see another one within SIXTY years.

What are you, an idiot? We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here? Tell you what; when we get Iraq calmed down, let me know, and I'll agree we've done anything to calm down terrorism. Until then, all we know is that we haven't been attacked again yet. We are in no way secure from such an attack, nor will we ever be. Pretending we are is just wishful thinking.

Re:Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against B

[stromthurman]

And maybe, just maybe, you're hijacking a thread targetted against this very behavior. Or maybe, just maybe, you're looking to incite a flame war. While I don't feel everyone on slashdot is uninformed with regard to politics, I do feel that slashdot is not the place for it. Posts under the topic of politics do little more than fuel flame wars of "this is why candidate U is better than candidate V." If I wanted rhetoric and appeals to emotion, I would have persued Liberal Arts. Give me sweet technology and news that appeals specifically to geeks, not more of the same shit I have to suffer through on every other news portal.

As a U.S. Citizen...

[javaxman]

I find U.S. politics to be *extremely* disturbing. There are folks who don't support a single thing on the Bush platform, but will vote for him because he's the Republican candidate. They don't agree with the Republican platform on abortion, criminal justice, military spending, the environment, education, the Iraq war, and won't benefit from tax cuts ( since they make less than $250k a year ), and they agree even less with the Bush administration itself ( gay marriage, draft-dodgers bashing Vietnam war heros, etc ), but they'll still vote GW.

I may never understand why... but then, lots of people bought Windows XP, there seem to be some decisions people make that are just hard to understand...

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[montalban]

There are folks who don't support a single thing on the Bush platform, but will vote for him because he's the Republican candidate.

Sadly, as a canadian who just went through the last election I witnessed this first hand. The last couple of years many of us were tired of the failures and scandals of the liberal (read lieberal !) goverment. When election time rolled around this year I sincerely thought there would be some change, a minority goverment, maybe a change in power. Alas, many of friends and family told me they would vote liberal again, then i wonder where they get the nerve to complain about the gov in power? safer with the devil they know i guess...

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[WNight]

Look at BC, they voted the NDP in to get rid of the old guys, then kicked out the NDP and got the Liberals. Fat lot of good any of that did.

The basic problem is that our first-past-the-post electoral system, it produces flip-flop results because it emphasizes the emotion on voting day. It doesn't take much of a scandal to boost one party 10% in the polls but that 10% can end up making a much larger difference with in seats.

Approval voting would go a long way towards fixing this country.

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[johnnyb]

????

I understand your general feeling, but most people who don't like Bush but will vote for him anyway are all in a single camp - those who believe that the war on terror is the most important issue of the day.

As to tax cuts, I, making $45,000 / year (and only $5,500 taxable income) got a few hundred from his last tax cut. His tax cuts are across-the-board.

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[4of12]

His tax cuts are across-the-board.

Across the board, yes. But not evenly.

Here you can see how the board looks.

The facts show two things (one liked by the right, one liked by the left):

1. Rich people pay more taxes. And still do.
2. The lion's share of the tax breaks went to the rich.

If you really want lower taxes, then cease being a person and start becoming a corporation.

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[johnnyb]

"If you really want lower taxes, then cease being a person and start becoming a corporation."

There's no such thing as a corporation paying taxes. Eventually it has to come from *gasp* people. For example, "my employer's share" of my income tax is really just a tax on me that I can't deduct.

As for the lion's share of the tax breaks going to the rich, that's because the lion's share of the taxes go to the rich. Personally, I believe in a flat tax with only tax breaks for the very poor. That's still a system that's biased against the rich, but it's fairly biased.

Of course, we ALL pay way too much in taxes. If we got taxes down to 5-10% of what we earn, that would be great.

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[SamNmaX]

Sadly, as a canadian who just went through the last election I witnessed this first hand. The last couple of years many of us were tired of the failures and scandals of the liberal (read lieberal !) goverment. When election time rolled around this year I sincerely thought there would be some change, a minority goverment, maybe a change in power. Alas, many of friends and family told me they would vote liberal again, then i wonder where they get the nerve to complain about the gov in power? safer with the devil they know i guess...

As another post mentioned, there is the problem with the first past the post system. I personally wanted to vote for the NDP, but the NDP candidate had zero chance of winning.

Another problem has been the collapse of the Progressive Conservative party and the rise of the Reform/Canadian Alliance/Canadian Conservative party. The old PC party provided a good balance to the Liberals, providing an alternative that most people would be happy with thus preventing the Liberals from becoming too corrupt or else they'd be replaced.

The new conservative party unfortunately seems to be trying to emulate the american republican party, most concerning it's positions on social issues where it seems to suggest we ignore the charter of rights.

When people had to balance how much they dislike the Liberals vs how much they are against the serious problems the Conservative party could cause, most appeared to vote for the Liberals.

Keep in mind that in Canada, unlike the United States, our consitutation/charter is much weaker, and we have fewer separation of powers. If a party has a majority in the House of Commons, they can do almost anything they want (the Senate rarely stops anything, and either way is undemocratic).

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[javaxman]

So, uh, was the repeal of the estate tax "across-the-board" ?!?

Care to refute analysis provided by a previous post which indicates you have the facts completely wrong? According to that chart, the top 1% of earners got a 5% tax reduction, and the *most* any other income group saw was a 1.4% reduction!

I'm sorry, I want to be really fair about this, but in any analysis, even percentage-paid-based, the majority of this administration's tax cuts ( especially if you include the estate tax ) are heavily weighted towards the very, very wealthy.

Ever get the feeling you've been lied to? I don't suppose you'd like to read "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them" for an amusing analysis of GW's twisted logic on this topic, which you've apparently decided to take as truth? Every Bush supporter and Fox News watcher should read it...

I do believe the war on terror is the single most important issue of the day- and I believe invading Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, and that GW is the last guy we want in office while trying to hunt down a Bin Laden! WHY would you think this guy is good at getting rid of terrorists?!? So far, he's done little more than provide a fertile breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq... and used Bill Clinton's army to drive Al-Queda in Afganistan into hiding, something *any* administration would have done...

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[johnnyb]

"Care to refute analysis provided by a previous post which indicates you have the facts completely wrong? According to that chart, the top 1% of earners got a 5% tax reduction, and the *most* any other income group saw was a 1.4% reduction!"

I don't have the facts wrong. I agree with those facts. The people who paid higher percentages in taxes got a higher percentage tax cut. That sounds fair to me.

"I'm sorry, I want to be really fair about this, but in any analysis, even percentage-paid-based, the majority of this administration's tax cuts ( especially if you include the estate tax ) are heavily weighted towards the very, very wealthy."

Might that be because the _taxes themselves_ are heavily weighted toward the very, very wealthy? Perhaps it would help if you knew where I stand - I believe in a flat tax, with tax exemptions only for the very, very poor.

"WHY would you think this guy is good at getting rid of terrorists?!?"

Have we been attacked again on our soil? Did you think that the 9/11 attacks were meant to be a one-time-only attack? Maybe the reason we haven't been attacked again is because GWB is serious, while Kerry wants to treat this as a police effort.

Let's look at what happened during the Clinton years -

Do you remember the OKC bombing? Are you aware that we had intelligence reports stating that middle-easterners were going to attack the heartland using two lily-whites (i.e. - white people as front men)? Bill Clinton ignored the middle east threat, took down the watch for John Doe #2 despite numerous eyewitness reports that he existed, because he didn't want to get involved in the middle east. (For more info on this read the books "The Third Terrorist" or visit jaynadavis.com.

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[javaxman]

Ok, I thought *I* was a conspiracy theory buff, but you've got the OKC bombing tied into middle eastern terrorists?!? Give me a break.

If you'd open your eyes, or even read Franken's book, you'd know that Clinton did a *lot* to combat Al-Queda and middle eastern terrorists- the notion that he did nothing is just another Bush administration lie. You remember that van bomb that went of in the basement of the WTC?? Where are the guys responsible? Oh, that's right, in jail, caught by the administration that "did nothing".

Using the lack of successful attacks on US soil as evidence of a "successful" war on terror is about as brilliant as ignoring the estate tax when talking about tax cuts. Or as honest as saying a tax cut biased towards the top 1% income bracket is "across-the-board".

Let's get one thing straight: you and I agree on the notion of a flat tax with an exemption for the very poor. But that's not something the Bush administration would go for, because funding their defense projects under such a scheme would mean leaving the flat tax at too high a rate. Also, your grip on the concept of "across-the-board" seems pretty loose, at best... at worst, you're repeating a lie, at best, you're playing fast-and-loose with a term.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just asking you if you aren't maybe being just a little bit intellectually dishonest when you say "across-the-board"...

Re:As a U.S. Citizen...

[johnnyb]

'Where are the guys responsible? Oh, that's right, in jail, caught by the administration that "did nothing".'

Kind of. One of them was in Iraq, and the other was caught by the government in the Phillipines when he accidentally set his building on fire.

"Also, your grip on the concept of "across-the-board" seems pretty loose, at best... at worst, you're repeating a lie, at best, you're playing fast-and-loose with a term."

No, that would be "equally across the board". "Across the board" simply means that everyone getting taxes pays less taxes. If the rich got a lower percentage tax cut, would you still say that "across the board" is wrong? Doubt it.

As to OKC, it's really not that far-fetched. The local investigation done by state rep Charles Key turned up VASTLY different information that what was fed from the federal government. Read the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis or "The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror".

The thing is that the government knew about the plot against OKC, and even advised several individuals in that building and the building next door to not show up for work that day. In fact, in the central ATF office in that building NO ATF AGENTS were in the building that morning. Shortly after the blast, congressman Istook talked to a reporter and said something about it being a terrible tragedy, especially since we knew about it before it happened.

You should really be more skeptical of the news. They are not very reliable, and usually prefer to not rock the boat too much, no matter who is in office.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Slime-dogg]

How the hell is this garbage insightful? There are many reasons to vote for Bush, just as there are many reasons to vote for Kerry.

Attack of the abusive moderators!

Re:bite me asshat.

[brufleth]

Every single one of the men serving under Kerry felt he deserved the medals he won. Oh and don't forget that he ACTUALLY SERVED instead of throwing his name around and sitting that whole war out.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

where x equals claims about weapons of mass destruction.

This argument is really tired. Everyone, including the U.N., agrees that Iraq had WMD in the early 90's. There were 10,000 liters of anthrax, among other things. If Saddam had a clue, he'd have produced convincing evidence that those materials had been destroyed, and most likely he would still be watching his son select schoolgirls for extracurricular activities.

Instead, he played "chicken" with the U.S., which turned out to be a bad move for him. I feel that Iraq will be much better off in the long run, even given the stronger than anticipated resistance to the new government. I also think the U.S. policy is correct in advocating freedom and democracy in the Middle East as the long-term solution to terrorism there.

I see I've wandered off-track a bit. To get back to my original point, the fact that we haven't found WMDs shouldn't matter now. Apparently most Americans feel the same way. In fact, the WMDs may have been dumped somewhere in the desert, or transported to a neighboring country. We may never know.

Airing the Movie

[jacoby]

Wouldn't that be a gross violation of McCain-Feingold?

Don't vote for somebody that supports the war

[JohnnyX]

If you oppose the Iraq war, don't vote for someone who supported and continues to support it.

We know Bush supports it.

We also know that Kerry supports it. In the Washington Post article, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War, Kerry makes it abundantly clear that he is not an anti-war candidate.

"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...keeping it real...

Re:Don't vote for somebody that supports the war

[Anonymous Coward]

David Cobb, the Green Party candidate, is also anti-war. As are many third parties such as the Constitution and Reform parties. If you oppose the Iraq war, there are still many options open to you. Just not the Democrats or Republicans.

OT: Pat Buchanan is not a good judge...

[Big Sean O]

Pat Buchanan backed Joe McCarthy and Barry Goldwater, so his idea of right and left is a bit right of center.

Pat Buchannan thought the US should've made a deal with Hitler: Stay out of Western Europe and attack Russia all you want. Or at least that's what it implies here...

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbuchanan1.html

So, since I've invoked Godwin's law, I'll STFU.

On the other hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Following the same "logic", the "swift boat veterans for the truth" will obviously make everyone vote for Kerry.

Re:Hell yeah

[PenguiN42]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

If you're going to quote this statistic, you should also mention the *trend* of the unemployment rate over each administration. If you leave that out, you're simply being disingenuous.

Screw the political process- this will hurt Dems!

[Xeger]

After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine. Liberal as I am, I enjoy tuning into Fox. I like reading the RNC's website. I have fun watching the masters of hypocrisy and intolerance. They say some mighty funny, outrageous things! I wouldn't want these crackpots in charge of my country, my legal system or even the corporations in which I own stock -- but that doesn't stop me from laughing at 'em. For every three logical things they say, they just have to throw in a zinger -- a racist slur, a completely inappropriate personal attack, a tremendous fallacy, a made-up statistic, or what have you. And I find that funny as all hell!

To all of the Bill O'Reillys of the world, for the Rush Limbaughs, the Ed Gillespies and the Zell Millers, I would like to say: nyeah nyeah nyeah, we have our own pundits now!

(I apologize that all of those links are to biased sources; I tried to find more impartial sources for my quotes, but "unbiased" news sources tend to shy away from reporting on the more outrageous things our politicians and public figures say, because they would quickly gain a reputation for being biased for having done so.)

Yes, now we progressives have our own crackpot figures who make completely unfounded statements with fallacies you could drive a truck through. They twist words, edit footage and tinker until the truth looks juuuuuuust right. Like their regressive counterparts, they're darned good at it. I honestly enjoy them as entertainment, I do.

Aside from giving me great insight into Bush's and Cheney's motivations (money) and Bush's personality (insecure, attention-seeking jock who aims to please his parent figures), Fahrenheit 9/11 was funny, tragic, moving, a reminder of all we lost that day and all we've lost since: collective innocence, blissful ignorance of the effects of our actions abroad, good men in uniform, personal freedoms. Looking through the bull puckey about Saudi air travel privileges, tuning out the anti-war propaganda, I sat in the theater and saw a decent movie.

But this movie did not sway my political position any more than watching The O'Reilly Factor would. This is because Michael Moore, like all the rest of the pundits, makes entertainment. He tries to deliver a political message, but the message is almost always choked by his own hyperbole and willingness to sacrifice the truth in order to inspire outrage in his viewers.

If the intent of releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 ahead of time is to sway the minds of voters, I am afraid the stunt will backfire horribly. Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality. If these people are forced to approach Fahrenheit 9/11 as a run-on political advertisement, they will rebel. They will scoff at the inaccuracies and ignore the redeeming social and political message of the movie. And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . . .

Just a thought.

For Great Different?

[ghost_crab]

"... one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Riiiigght, since it's so different from all the rational, fact-based and totally truthful informercials paid for by each of the wholly respectful campaigning parties...

Do you mean to infer that Senor Moore should be barred from showing his "emotion-influencing" film because he isn't a political candidate himself? And how is this any different from the plethora of other instances wherein Hollywood has poked its bulbous nose into election issues?

All the hullaballoo over this film is merely the result of carefully crafted propaganda. The man is entitled to his opinion. The People are entitled to watch it or ignore it, at their choosing.

I, for one, think he's full of himself. But he has the right to display his film to whomever wishes to see it, without interference from our reigning king or the apparent challenger to the throne [whether or no the two "front runners" will in the end be any different from one another in practical application of the office remains to be seen].

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, links...

Osama: Hey Saddam let me use Iraq to train.
Saddam: Sod Off, Asshole.

Yep, links.

MST3K Style Trade Off

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest Moore set a time and date he would like his movie to play. Then freely give it away to any station to air it, with the condition that those stations can MST3K the movie as they see fit, to yet even more belabor any point they deem necessary.

This way Moore's movie gets played (unedited) but additional commentary (second audio) can be provided.

Slightly ontopic, slightly troll, slightly funny

[88NoSoup4U88]

Made me chuckle ; mod accordingly ;)

http://mushroom.nosox.org/b3ta/choosebush.gif

Point of order

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush was informed about the first tower before entering the classroom. Those painful minutes elapsed after Andy Card told him the second tower had been hit. I would probably have been confused too, but I would have left that room. Why? I'm the freaking president.

Re:Hell yeah

[pfafrich]

Presidents don't make jobs.

Time to read up on macro economics. How presidents make or destroy jobs:

• Change corperate tax rates. If a buisness has to pay higer taxes they need to cut costs somewhere else, often by fireing workers.
• Implement policies which affect interest rates. High interest rates mean companies pay more on loans, less for the workers.
• Implement policies which affect international exchange rates. Seen how the pound-doler rate has gone sky high this year, from about 1.5 to 1.8. That means it costs more to import, exports are cheeper. The doller is very week at the moment indicating little faith in US econonmy by international finance.
• Want better employees, put more money into education!
• Want heathier employees, put money into health!
• Sort out your budget deficit! The US is a bad place to invest in right now. You have gone way over budget.
• Fair tax rates. Bush's policies have given much bigger tax breaks to the well off than the working population. Means the average man on the street has less in his pocket, so less to spend, hence depresses the economy, depressed economy means less jobs!
• Bomb the hell out of a country, rig the system so that US companies get the prime rebuilding contract = more jobs.

Thats just for starters. Its a very complicated with many interrelations. For instance the UK economy has done very well in the last few years due to good economic policies like counter-cyclic investment. The one thing you can say is that probably every policy will somehow affect the number of unemployed.

Disclaimer, I'm from the UK so I don't know which instruments like setting the base interest rate are available. Practically all I know about the sorry state of your economy I've learnt from playing bushgame www.bushgame.com which I'd recomend to all.

Re:bite me asshat.

[lee7guy]

How do you make this conclusion? There's overwhelming ongoing data regarding Al Quada's operations in Chechnya. Many of the 9/11 terrorists were originally recruited to go to Chechnya. There are financial ties, operational ties, recruiting ties, etc. It's rather shocking that anyone would make a comment otherwise - it's like claiming Chirac isn't French.

Any references? I don't disagree with you, I am just curious as I haven't seen anything to that effect in any major international media.

love america but

[kwanbis]

don't americans see what bush is doing? he is an adict drunk playing little soldiers, so he can keep oil all for himself ... USA is loosing respect with each action he takes ... i'm rally sad at this ... can't belive he could probably win ... :(

Re:love america but

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm rally sad at this

Good, because that's why our country has elections, to make you and the rest of the F***ing world 'rally sad'. Piss off and go 'help' some other country.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

answer the question I asked you troll. Stop avoiding it.

Guerilla Politics

[Mulletproof]

I'm a conservative. I think Michael Moore is a liar and freakin retard. BUT, I'll give him the go ahead to try and air his movie on TV... As long as the Swift Boat Veterans are allowed the same consideration and the bitching stops about who they are funded by. I mean, who here doesn't think Moore's movies and books aren't backed by similar political interests? I won't even get into the legality of such a connection, let alone airing it within 60 days before an election, but sure, it makes great fiction considering how many his credibility has been shot to shit in outright lies.

So let's air this crap, just drop any and all pretenses that it's nothing more than guerilla political advertisement and let everybody in on the game.

Re:Guerilla Politics

[JohnnyX]

I agree. We ought to add an amendment to the Constitution that lets people say whatever they want, whenever they want.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...just a thought...

Re:Guerilla Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a conservative. I think Michael Moore is a liar and freakin retard. BUT, I'll give him the go ahead to try and air his movie on TV... As long as the Swift Boat Veterans are allowed the same consideration and the bitching stops about who they are funded by. So what you're really saying is someone who was state side during vietnam somehow is more of a hero than someone who actually went to vietnam. I like neither candidates, but I'm not about to confuse lies and bullshit with hard facts.

I find both candidates contradict themselves abundantly. Bush says he is for strong defense, well then why the hell didn't he go to vietnam. He had every chance to go, but chose not to. Sure kerry came back and bitched up a storm about how bad things were. I think any sane person would bitch. But somehow speaking one's mind makes them anti-american?

Re:Guerilla Politics

[geekoid]

" in outright lies."

such as?

Re:Guerilla Politics

[Crazy Eight]

As far as money is concerned, the difference between Moore and the SBV is that Moore isn't being funded by the DNC or (AFAIK) an independent PAC like moveon.org. The SBV was formed specifically to discredit Kerry's bid for the Presidency much like moveon.org is all about getting Bush out of the White House. What's more is that they seem to have some overlapping staff between thier campaign and Bush's. Moore's movie was produced just like any other movie made including that Disney documentary about America or that made for cable docudrama that features a 9/11 president saying, "Al Quaeda?" upon being told of the attacks on the WTC. Let us not pretend that your tongue in cheek concession to an open airing of F911 is an act of generosity. I mean really now. Who the fuck do you think you are?

I won't even get into the legality of such a connection, let alone airing it within 60 days before an election...

What connection are you talking about and what makes you think it's illegal to broadcast a movie near an election?

So let's air this crap, just drop any and all pretenses that it's nothing more than guerilla political advertisement and let everybody in on the game.

Stop complaining and go make your own documentary about how John Kerry never actually killed any Vietnamese or how the SBV have been prevented from airing political advertisements. You claim to be a conservative. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and suck it up instead of shooting from the peanut gallery like a loser? No one promised you that Limbaugh would get off the pills long enough to make a movie lauding Bush's success in Iraq (I'm so glad that's out of the way) so what makes you think Moore's effort at a TV broadcast is any different?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering the two million plus people that died because North Vietnam won... yes, I think it was wrong. Not to mention those that live under oppression. But most anti-Vietnam war types tend not to stress the outcome of not winning the war.

MOD PARENT DOWN!

[Hackie_Chan]

J/K

Sorry, this joke was too good to be left out :-)

Re: Fox News

[common middle name]

Give me a break. Ever since Fox News became popular liberals have acted as if all other sources of news media have ceased to exist.

New York Times
Washington Post
NPR
CNN
ABC
CBS
NBC
BBC World News
etc.
etc.

No one is forcing the American public to watch Fox News. If you don't like Fox don't watch it. There are plenty of other well respected news outlets, some fairly liberally biased.

And did you go to Iraq before posting on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does one thing have to do with the other? Except for parts of the movie where Moore appears, everything comes from news sources.

If Moore had gone to Iraq, you and other clowns like you would be going on and on about how everything had been "staged", or how he'd interviewed 300 soldiers and then selected the only 3 that supported his point of view.

Guess what, most of the movie is made from segments filmed by professional ("fair and balanced") reporters, that were simply never aired in the USA, or aired once and then "censored" by the networks themselves (in some cases with nasty repercussions for the reporters, for showing the "wrong" kind of truth). In fact, virtually everything in Moore's movie had already been seen over and over again outside the USA (where there's no censorship).

And most of the shady relationships between Bush and the bin Ladins had already been documented in Exposed: The Carlyle Group, which, again, was never shown on any major USA channel...

Censorship, torture, faked elections, and the USA wants to give the rest of the world lessons in democracy...? Have some sense of shame and ridicule.

Let People Decide On Their Own

[Izago909]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

I don't recall any plans to stop airing Fox News or stop circulation of the NYT before the election. I'm sure, as always, most people have their mind set and won't even consider any other opinion. The movie has already got so much national recognition that people won't be fooled into watching it; with less than 30 seconds of viewing anyone should be able to figure out which film this is. Besides, if there was any doubt in a persons mind to the extent that a movie carried more weight than the words of the President, perhaps that person shouldn't be voting for Bush anyway. Have we devolved to the state where we can not trust the intelligence of the average voter, so appointed officials should decide what to forbid them to see?

Re:bite me asshat.

[CGP314]

How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11... The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

"There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm".

"That's specious reasoning,"

"Thanks, honey,"

"According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away"

"Hmmm. How does it work?"

"It doesn't."

"How so?"

"It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

"Lisa, I want to buy your rock."


-Colin

Re:bite me asshat.

[Theaetetus]

Kerry came back testifying how horrible it was for him and his shipmates to have had to become war criminals, knowing full well that they weren't.

Did criminal actions take place during the war? Yes. Were those criminal actions performed by US Servicemen? Yes. Therefore, yes, they were war criminals. But Kerry wasn't coming back to say "Bob Jones - he's a criminal. Fred Murphy - he's a criminal too. Lock my fellow veterans up". He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'." Kinda like the one in Iraq now - false premises (WMDs), and criminal policies (Abu Gharib).

He did throw his medals, or ribbons, or whatever at the whitehouse in protest, yet still manages to conjure them up today.

If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something? Maybe he's wearing the medals now, and he threw his ribbons (don't see him wearing his ribbons, do you?). Or maybe, as you say, he threw his 'whatever', and it's still lying on the Whitehouse lawn.

-T

A modest proposal

[The Conductor]

A simpler suggestion to the Slashdot masses...don't bother with any of it, the film, the critique, the counter-critique, the counter-counter-critique, the whole lot of it. Your time is better spent finding better sources of political analysis than a Hollywood-style movie.

Watching Winslet & DeCaprio cavorting around is entertaining and all (and the fact that both characters die by the end of the film is an extra bonus), and attention to historical detail makes a film seem more immediate and "puts you in the story," but if you want to know why Titanic sank, you should look elsewhere. Even if every detail is scrupulously correct, that doesn't make it useful. Why treat contemporary politics differently?

Re:A modest proposal

[stephanruby]

Your time is better spent finding better sources of political analysis than a Hollywood-style movie.

Obviously, but unfortunately Hollywood-style movies and 10-second soundbites on the networks are what is going to decide this election in the end.

Re:A modest proposal

[ajs]

Watching Winslet & DeCaprio cavorting around is entertaining and all (and the fact that both characters die by the end of the film is an extra bonus)

Does Rose actually die? I remember the diamond scene and then I recall seeing her photographs from the life that Jack encouraged her to go live... but did she die?

Man, I'm going to feel silly if I've forgotten that ;-)

Re:A modest proposal

[Triv]

Does Rose actually die? I remember the diamond scene and then I recall seeing her photographs from the life that Jack encouraged her to go live... but did she die?

Man, I'm going to feel silly if I've forgotten that ;-)

Ummm, see, if I were you, I'd feel silly for having seen that godawful movie in the first place, but that's just me.

Triv

Re:A modest proposal

[16K Ram Pack]

I've met a few people who've seen Fahrenheit 9/11 (I'm in the UK) and I don't think one of them was a conservative.

Every person I can think of who has seen it was anti-Bush before they saw it and nearly all of them left-wing.

I doubt any of them bothered to check any of the references in the film - it was about someone they despised and could feel warm and cosy that here was *proof* of it.

Re:A modest proposal

[cmacb]

Please mod parent up to +6

I just hope the people who are too lazy to do their own research will also be too lazy to vote.

I worry more about an electorate that gets it's information from the entertainment industry than just about anything else.

Re:A modest proposal

[macrealist]

Your title threw me.

A modest proposal.

We were forced to read this "essay" in school, and will never, ever, ever forget it. Might be a good proposal today to reduce healthcare costs and cut taxes.

Re:A modest proposal

[ajs]

Did you see it, or are you just calling it godawful because you don't like love stories (which Titanic is... sort of).

One of the things that I loved about that film was that it was about 6 films. It was the story of Rose and Jack's fling on the surface (a smart hook for the teenage girls). It's about the reason that the Titanic existed... that sense that art alone was too limited to contain the imagination of the day (a feeling I think Cameron shares). It was also about why these people were there. Each of them has their own reasons, and while we only get a handful of their stories we get to experience that sense that no two people are on the boat for the same reasons. Then it's about what happened to the Titanic. Rose makes it clear in the beginning that we all know what happened, but not what happened TO THEM. It wasn't really about the BOAT sinking it was about the passengers and crew dealing with the boat sinking and the ways in which they faced, first life, and then death.

The littany of ways that people face death was breath-taking, and for that 20-minute sequence alone, I felt it deserved the Oscar. People remember the 3-piece band that kept playing as the ship went down, but I remember the preacher giving a sermon as the boat broke in two. People screamed and cried and ran and froze; they drowned and boiled and were electrocuted. What he managed to do was get across to the viewer (at least the ones paying attention) that this was not a simple sinking... the boat was too large for that... this was a natural disaster striking a small city.

If you thought the movie was a throw-away you missed out on a truly amazing experience, I'm sorry.

Re:A modest proposal

[The Conductor]

I think the end of the movie has some dialogue to the effect that Rose is going to see Jack again, which I took as her dying as an old lady, as Jack predicted. But it has been years so I could be wrong on that. My comment about their deaths being a bonus is a jab; I found the lead parts to be unrealistically over-done (can't say if it was the script, direction, or the actors, but by the end, I wanted Jack to freeze). But the historical backdrop was nicely done and made the movie entertaining despite shortcomings in the lead parts...which complemented my main point there.

Re:A modest proposal

[NeedleSurfer]

Except Titanic isn't a documentary it's a fiction. Giving credits to the infos in a documentary that indeed makes his point is a good way to get infos on political issues, believing every wars american fought did indeed happened like in the various (one would say countless) holywood war movies in quite moronic, even then, the second happens more often the the first. To compare a documentary to Titanic by giving them the same factual value is, best case scenario, dupe.

Godwin's Law

[Hackie_Chan]

comparing him to Hitler

Get your facts straight.

If there's been somebody that's been throwing around Nazi Germany references it's the right wing, such as Bill O'Reilly who call Michael Moore and Al Franken "Goebbels" of propaganda and Michael Savage for example.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[maxpublic]

That someone publishes something "with a spin" is not wrong, it is inevitable.

Nice apologia. It doesn't excuse Michael Moore from factual presentation of his evidence regardless of what you might like to believe. His 'documentary' is no better than some of the crap that's come out of the White House over the last four years.

You can try to justify Moore's deliberate distortion of the facts all you like, but those of us who don't worship him and have more than a few neurons to rub together find his approach distasteful and arrogant. We'd think the same thing about the methods no matter who was using them.

Oh, and we're called 'moderates'. We the folks who comprise the vast majority of the American public, yet are conveniently marginalized and forgotten about whenever an election is held. Moderates tend to despise extremists of all kinds, whether left or right, and Moore is a deceptive extremist outstripping even Rush Limbaugh for vile practices.

Max

Many Questions Raised

[tom's a-cold]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda

Look, if the Republican party starts claiming that the sun revolves around the earth, I'll see a posting on Slashdot that "many questions have been raised about the Copernican model."

No analysis of events is free of bias. News organizations that pretend to be fair are just being hypocritical. "Fairness" in that context generally means "in careful alignment with majority prejudices." The main reason that Moore gets more flak than others is because he's picking a fight with those in power.

This highlights a conservative bias I've often noticed: it's OK to say that you have rights. But to actually exercise them means that you're a troublemaker and fair game for character assassination or worse.

You're wrong, though.

[gfxguy]

Kerry's message is "I served four months in Vietnam 35 years ago, and whatever Bush has done, I could have done better because Europeans like me."

Bush's message is "I've fought the war on terror and turned the economy around because I don't care what Europeans think."

most believe what they want to, some believe...

[holy_smoke]

what they are told [being the truth or not], some don't care at all. Michael is hoping to (a) get more voters to the polls, and (b) polarize the fence stradlers to vote democrat. He has the right to participate in free speech, and we have the right to believe, ignore, and/or refute his claims.

If it gets more people fired up about voting then great we need more folks to care in that fashion, but I hope people would recognize the pure propaganda elements in the film (I know, whishful thinking).

Unfortunately those who would be influenced to vote based on the film probably aren't the ones that would spend the time in learning all the facts to make an informed choice.

Your comment is one-sided propaganda!

[crashnbur]

It's like you've studied Michael Moore's techniques and applied it to Slashdot commenting! You have offered not one shred of substantiative support to your claim that "there's almost nothing in it which is false or a lie". And inasmuch as the truth behind the claims in the film and your comment are hidden from the public eye, most claims made by people like you and me, who are so distant from the primary sources of the relevant information, are subjective, unfounded, and worth very little outside their utility as propaganda.

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[slaker]

So, obviously I've been marked as a troll for my serious factual error:
George didn't get up off his ass until seven minutes after he was informed that a *second* airplane filled with americans had crashed into a de-facto national landmark, having been informed of the *first* accident immediately prior to beginning of the school day.

There. That's better.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

I don't understand your point. How does repeating stories of atrocities being committed by American soldiers relate to Americans being prisoners of war?

Is it that you believe that those atrocities didn't happen?

Is it that you believe that despite American soldiers committing atrocities, all Americans should deny those events occurred until American POW's come home?

Are you just saying nasty things about Kerry because you don't like him?

Please, explain to me, in a logical and easy to understand way, what exactly you believe is bad about that quote from Kerry. Also, if you could, explain to me exactly what you meant when you said Kerry was "full of shit". To what statements were you referring, and is there any evidence that his statements were lies?

Thanks for making my point

[iceperson]

some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with
That's exactly what Moore does in his "documentaries".

Who cares about motivation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

If the end result is the best one who cares what motivated people to change their minds? John Kerry is just another sleezy politician in a long list of sleezy politicians, but George Bush is an organized criminal and a risk to national security. If Mafiaboy is put voted out of office then the ends justify the means.

Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[khasim]

Semantic check:

"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."

Statistically - you are far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist.

Statistically - you are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.

(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)

So, there IS a terrorist threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself leads the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.

Now, is there a terrorist threat to the USofA? No.

Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.

On the other hand, we can slip into a fundamentalist theocracy (see Bush and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Osama did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Alaska Jack]

Statistically - Americans in 1941 were far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.

Statistically - The were more likely to be killed by someone in their own family than by a Japanese soldier.

(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)

So, there WAS a Japanese threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself led the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.

Now, was there a Japanese threat to the USofA? No.

Nothing any Japanese soldier could do would EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.

On the other hand, we can slip into a authoritarian socialist (see Roosevelt and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Hirohito did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics only reflect past experience. As conditions change, so do the statistics. In addition to the probability, you also must consider risk. If the stapler on my desk had a 1% chance of blowing up and destroying a one square mile area, I would use tape instead. Yes, probably nothing would happen but, the consequences would be severe if it did.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Minna Kirai]

Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.

There is no such thing as a "Bhuddist emperor". It seems you might have just mispelled "Buddhist", but that's not right either. Japan has 2 religions: Shinto and Buddhism. The Emperor's authority (as well as the nation's aggressive pride) comes from Shinto.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Alaska Jack]

You know what? You're absolutely right. Not only did I mispell Buddhist, I actually meant Shinto. Good call. Doesn't change my point one iota, of course, but your corrections are appreciated.

- Alaska Jack

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[LaMuk]

Well I know when you say that there have been no terroist attacks in the U.S., you are not considering the hundreds of Sikhs and Muslims that have been attacked ( a few have been killed) since 9/11 in the U.S. Also, their building of worship of been destroyed. These violent assaults are accompinied by accusations that the victims are responsible for the 9/11 attack. The victims include women and old men.

So how do define terrorist and terrorism? How frightened do these cummunities have to be for the attacks to be terrorist attacks.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[crizh]

Statistically - In 1941 far Far FAR more Americans were killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.

However the likelihood of being killed by a Japanese soldier was extremely high. You are ignoring a statistical anomaly where the likelihood of A is extremely low if B is true and extremely high if B is false. In this instance B would be 'America has not lost the battle for the Pacific.'

This sort of shoddy thinking invalidates your argument. Simply performing such a word substitution does not create equivalent statements if the substituted words are not equivalent.

Clearly 'terrorist' is not equivalent to 'soldier.' A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war. People who believe they can defeat their enemy by force of arms attack military targets not civilians.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Alaska Jack]

OK, your other post seemed pretty reasonable. On this one you make some egregious mistakes, though.

Let's start with the easy stuff.

"A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."

Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict? More pertinently, are you saying that the members of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc have "no hope" of winning their respective conflicts? (Keep in mind that one does not have to "win" on a battlefield to "win" in an overall conflict.) I suspect that would come as news to them. In fact, I suspect quite strongly that the members in question do indeed have a great deal of hope of "winning" (e.g., bringing about their desired changes).

OK, now on to the broader stuff.

You speak of statistical anomalies, and the invalidity of simply performing word substitutions. In most cases, you are quite correct. But not in this case. In this case, the word substition was a quite pointed way to illuminate the flaws in reasoning in the parent post.

Restated, here's what the parent post said:

A1) You are more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist, and

A2) You are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.

B) We don't get too worked up about either of those problems, so

C) We shouldn't get so worked up by terrorism.

Surely, a guy like you who understands logic can parse this and see that there are ALL KINDS of problems with this formulation. A premeditated terrorist attack carried out with the deliberate intent of killing as many innocent civilians as possible is NOTHING AT ALL like our highway fatality rate. They are completely different situations. The two situations do not call for the same response. Also, it's a false dilemma: why can't we address both at once? Also, we *do* address highway safety, in many many ways. Also, if more people die of heart disease than die from murders, should we say, "Well, I guess murder's no big deal, so let's not fight crime?" Also ... also ... well, you're a smart guy, you don't need me to beat this dead horse for you.

Now, my WWII analogy is actually quite apt. We really were attacked, by an enemy who really really would like to defeat us. Simply saying "We're not at war" doesn't make it so. You might believe it, and your friends might believe it, but Osama Bin Laden certainly does not believe it.

To put it one final way: I don't know where you live, but let's assume it's in America, and call it Town X. Now, imagine the situation in 1942. The heart of WWII. Bloody war raging across the pacific, in Europe, everywhere. Fear and slaughter reign across the globe. Now, when the residents of Town X looked out their windows in April 1942, what did they see? Bombs dropping? Explosions? People being machine gunned? Jews being sent to the gas chambers?

No, of course not. They saw trees, and sunlight, and green grass, and butterflies. The same thing you and I see. There were some happy days raising the kids and chatting with the neighbors; and some sad, with highway fatalities and domestic violence. Does all that mean they weren't really at war?

- Alaska Jack

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Minna Kirai]

1. "A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."

Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict?

Like it or not, that's the definition used in practice. Not everyone who utilizes terror gets labelled a terrorist. (The USA has thousands of times more WMD than anyone on their enemies lists)

Every nation that wins a war through traditional military force is using terror- first you beat the enemy army, and then the enemy population is terrorized by what you could do to them. The Allies cemented their WWII victory through terror-bombings of noncombatant cities, for example. But because they were the ones left in power, no one calls them terrorists.

The word "terrorist" only really gets applied to people who deploy terror furtively, without the "conventional" strength of a force large enough to eschew stealth.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[crizh]

Perhaps I should first explain what I mean by war. A war is a legal use of military force used against legitimate targets to compel another nation state to acquiesce to your demands. A terrorist action is the illegal use of military force against civilian targets to terrorise them into forcing their government to acquiesce to your demands. Any group with the ability to win a war does not engage in terrorist actions. Any gains made in war would be stripped from one by the international community at your war crimes trial.

Another poster has already pointed out that all wars involve a certain number of terrorist activities and this is lamentable. However such actions are not legal and no longer constitute any part of accepted military practice.

The purpose of your use of word substitution was quite plain to me. I was trying to point out that you were using an innappropriate substitution.

Statements A1 and A2 are true. When the word terrorist is substituted with the phrase Japanese soldier they become untrue. For your point to be made they need to remain true after the substitution. You were trying to point out that the conclusion drawn was eroneous. I agree, it was, as you rightly say, we should attempt to combat terrorism. Unfortunately the alternate propositions you make to prove the invalidity of the conclusion are themselves invalid.

The observed incidence of A occuring is not the same as its statistical likelihood. Flip a coin once and you'll see what I mean.

As to your last argument, a good statistical bet but again wrong. I live in the UK, in Scotland, which the Luftwaffe used as their main bombing route into the industrial sites of the north of England. I can walk twenty minutes from here to the pill-boxes that still stare out from Crammond Island, in 1942 the Second World War was all to real where I grew up.

The real question is, does invading Iraq (and giving exclusive contracts to exploit every economic resource in the country to our cronies) qualify as combating terrorism?

As time goes by it becomes more and more clear that the answer is no.

Re:Not "no" threat, just not much of a threat.

[Alaska Jack]

I love Scotland! Don't get me wrong -- I've never been there. But it sounds fantastic, especially Northern Scotland. Everyone says the weather is terrible, but I grew up in Alaska, so it sounds great to me! It's on my list of places I absolutely must visit.

Having re-read both your posts and mine, I am quite comfortable with my points. No point in dragging this out.

Cheers!

- AJ

Re:F 9/11 is propganda-no its not

[JohnnyCannuk]

I say F9/11 in the Metreon in downtown San Francisco in June. I saw cheers and tears and anger in the crowd. That might sound like propoganda to you, but what I saw on the screen was everything I had seen before.

Not from some astro-turfing, strawman-fighting internet neocon apologist, but from one of Canada's most trusted sources of news and public affairs documentaries - The Fifth Estate.

Try looking here for a series of stories that ran in October of 2003. Almost all of the more contraversial facts that Michael Moore presents are corroborated there, months before F 9/11 was even heard of.

I was not surprised by what I saw in the movie as I had seen and heard it all before - we seem to get a less filtered view of your government's actions up here - on the nightly news.

Moore's only crime was to make a purposely provocative documentary in a style that would make it enjoyable to watch and easy to remember. In that sense, he is guilty as charged. But make no mistake, it presents facts and it IS a documentary. Many of those same facts can be corroborated here if you think Canadian sources are somehow suspect.

F 9/11 has been out for 3 months now. Now, if it were full of lies and inaccuracies as some people say it is, don't you think somebody allegedy slandered in the film would have sued Moore by now? If not, why? Perhaps because truth is a defence in slander and libel and those involved know that they would loose in court and Moore would be vindicated. I'm sure GWB doesn't want that right now.

Michael Moore to the US populace: "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"

Just because you don't want to believe him, doesn't mean he's not right.

Re:Hell yeah

[blueskies]

I would bitch about Desert Storm because we left the Kurds out to dry when the CIA equiped them (with promises of more assistance) and then left them to die to SH and chemical weapons.

However, I don't think we actually owe the Iraqi people anything. At least anything more than we owe the people of Sudan, Rwanda, and the Congo. 500,000 to 800,000 people have died in genocidal wars in Rwanda alone, let alone all three countries. But we are not inclinded to "police" those conflicts because there is no benefit to our country or economy (haliburton, oil, middle east army base, etc). So trying to couch our intervention as any kind of humanitarianism is fairly hypocritical. On our list of priorities humanitarianism and democracy are tied at dead last except when they can be used as a political token (see how we support democracies in south and central america when they don't do what we say).

Re:Bush got his share too...

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't buy the notion that voicing an opinion is equivalent to editing together different clips to create a false impression or displaying altered campaign videos and other material from political targets as if they were unaltered. (This is from Bowling for Columbine. I haven't seen f911 yet, but Michael Moore seems to have developed a penchant for misleading. )

True, all facts are selective, but some selections are more deliberatly flawed or misleading than others and they deserve to be described as such.

My true, informed, objective, information source..

[Sam Nitzberg]

Slashdot !

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems right...

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
--Josef Stalin

Re:Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against B

[revscat]

Then change your prefs so you don't see politics on the front page. It's not like you don't have a choice what you participate in.

59 Deceits

[dh003i]

See Fahrenheit 9/11: 59 Deceits. Documentaries are worthless crap. On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.

David Kopel has been called into question by many, but his article illustrates there are problems with F/911.

Analysis from libertarians -- people who think Bush is a terrible President, and hate war -- has been critical of Moore. Search Lewrockwell.com for Michael Moore and Mises.og for Michael Moore.

Re:59 Deceits

[shish]

Yes, MM is decietful and biased. But does this not apply to other political people too? At least MM openly admits to being biased, rather than pushing his opinions under the shield of politically correct phrasing...

Re:59 Deceits

[legirons]

"See Fahrenheit 9/11: 59 Deceits."

Indeed, and many of us have seen that website. Do you believe that its claims would stand up to the same level of scrutiny that we're applying to the original film? Every single person who references that website refers to it as "59 utter lies exposed", yet you can go through the list and see Dave Kopel admit time after time that the film was truthful and then object to changes of subject, or things he thinks should have been included, or alternative conclusions he thinks should have been reached.

That page represents the sum total of your evidence???

"In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore claims to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy in Iraq--the coalition of Saddam loyalists, al Qaeda operatives, and terrorists controlled by Iran or Syria--who are united in their desire to murder Iraqis, and to destroy any possibility of democracy in Iraq."

So... obvious propoganda is bad?

Re:bite me asshat.

[dup_account]

Let's be more specific... How many terrorist deaths in the US did Iraq fund on 9/11? That would be 0.

How many terrorist related deaths in the US come from Iraq before we invaded them? Again... 0.

How many Assam Bin Ladens (SP) have been captured since 9/11? That would be 0.

Yep... War on Terror is a big success... Just like the war on drugs... the war on poverty... the war on .. oh, you get the point.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Elwood P Dowd]

I swear to God, I don't understand your problem.

What Kerry said, including the quote you've selected, was true. And what's with the ellipsis? Does the full quote not prove your point as well?

In what regard was this statement incorrect or dishonorable? (Or "FULL OF SHIT"?)

Movies the night before election

[Anonymous Coward]

I think movie classics like
' The President's Analyst '
or
' Dr Strangelove '
or
' Bananas '
are more fitting for the election.
I saw Mikey badger the hell out of an old man for standing up for his beliefs in the last movie, Shame!!!
It's ok not to agree in America but that does not give him the right to PROFIT by twisting facts to destroy someone elses well being (Slander?)
Cattle tremble when he is around - just sayin'

Re:Movies the night before election

[hamburguesa]

Ahhhh, now here is a topic! how about THX1138? Michael Moore whines too much, he also thinks very highly of himself and he is not afraid to tell you so. He believes the in the Big Brother concept - that only he can show us the right way. Moore legislation Moore government I think he's a Democrat!

Nice logic

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should go to Moore for evidence that he is right?

Re:bite me asshat.

[EnderWiggnz]

you've never let reality bother you, have you?

John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. To wit, his openning statement was:
---
I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....
---

He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.

He did the right thing.

How you pervert this brave, heroic, selfless act into some treasonous account is beyond me.

We are asked this year to decide between a decorated war hero; who came back and spoke against the war he fought in, and a coward whose father got him a cushy spot in a champagne squadron, who couldnt even bother to show up between lines of coke.

i know exactly who i would want in the foxhole next to me, and it sure as hell isnt a coked up fratboy.

Re:Hell yeah

[div_2n]

This president has most certainly killed off jobs here. I can give you a first hand example. There was a federal job I applied for. The job was planned prior to the Iraq war. Because of the crazy amount of United States taxpayers money that is being poured in to another country, the job was cancelled and I didn't get it because that federal agency's budget was cut.

It is simple economics. When take billions of dollars out of the US economy and pour it into another country, the US will suffer. I am of the opinion that the ill effects of this haven't yet been fully realized.

Is it even possible

[beforewisdom]

I don't mean this as a rant, but CVS wouldn't even aire a moveon.org antibush commerical when they did aire a pro bush commercial.

Linda Rondstadt got booed and then escorted out of a Las Vegas hotel for dedicating a song to Michael Moore.

A folk singer got banned from a Borders Books for making jokes about Bush's legs.

All of these things make me wonder if F-911 on television is even possible.

If F-911 made it on broadcast television it would have to be considered Moore's biggest accomplishment in today's political climate.

Many (not all ) right wing people do not subscribe to the spirit of free speach.

Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction.

[Futurepower(R)]

One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.

I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.

I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since the end of World War II.

Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

This is how it has been going:

Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.

TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!

Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!

Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.

Re:He can suck my ass !

[Anonymous Coward]

This news is not slashdot worthy!!!

I think that settles it, then

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Rep. Goss does have a toll-free number for USA PATRIOT act. It's (877) 858-9040. Moore was technically correct when he stated there wasn't an 800 number, but this tactic couldn't be considered anything but deception.

I think that pretty much discredits the whole movie, makes it clear that Saddam had WMDs and was in league with al Qaeda, makes the 2000 election totally fair and means no-one actually died or was tortured in Iraq, Guantanamo or Afghanistan.

I love it when people focus on completely irrelevant details to try to divert attention from the really important issues.

Let me guess, if someone points out that Hitler ordered the deaths of milions of people, you'll avoid answering, and instead point out that he was nice to his dog...?

P.S. - I wasn't able to find any documents from before the release of F911 that include the toll-free number. I'm not saying it didn't exist, but it sure wasn't widely advertised.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Minna Kirai]

We're doing pretty well because there hasn't been another attack here?

That's not even true. There HAVE BEEN terrorist killings inside the USA after Septmember 2001.

Remember a little incident where people were killed opening anthrax in the mail? That's terrorist killing, folks!

(I could also talk about riflemen killing a dozen people in the national capital...)

Well...

[iceperson]

Taking a letter to the editor and representing it as a headline is more than "getting the date and font of a newspaper wrong". You just saying it that way is misleading. He didn't get them wrong... HE CHANGED THEM!!! There's a huge difference.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Kwantus]

How many terrorism-related convictions have there been in the US since 9/11? (And how many of those haven't been dismissed at DoJ's request?)

What would you suggest...

[WebCowboy]

...as an alternative to democracy? Sure, Cuba and China have very stable governments that remain focused on their agenda and the general direction of the nation because they have no democracy at all, but to what end? As a citizen of these nations you are not considered human beings by govenrment. A "good communist citizen" is a resource--a cog in a wheel of some big machine chugging away to produce a product as close to specifications drawn up by the Glorious Leader as possible (that product ideally is supposed to be an egalitarian society I suppose). As such, from birth to death citizens are told what they can learn, what they can do for a living, that they are allowed to believe, how big or small their families can be and so on.

I am not cattle. I will not be told what websites I can visit, where I am allowed to go to school, where I am to work and how many children I'm allowed to have. I will forego some stability and efficiency of government to have the freedom to live as I see fit and have a say in the nation's governance--even if on occasion we end up electing a "boob" to represent our nation. Up here in the Great White North we've managed to survive despite electing and re-electing complete and total boobs for the past decade. Democracy at least gives us the chance to wake up and throw the boobs out.

No, the problam isn't with the how government is selected on this continent--democracy of some form has proven to be the best of all methods. The problem is with the structure and size of government in both Canada and the US. When a government gets too big, too far reaching and too distant (physically and figuratively speaking) it is prone to become ineffective, unresponsive to citizen's needs and even potentially dangerous. That is why big democratic countries like Canada and the US are set up as federations in the first place--it's just that the federal system needs rebalancing, so that federal government is smaller and more focused on "big picture" things (international affairs/security, monetary policy, etc) and local and regional (state/provincial) governments should be given more powers to steer the agenda of higher levels of government, as they are "closer" to the people.

It's not voting that is the problem, it is the lack of listening on the part of those elected...

Re:What would you suggest...

[nine-times]

It's not voting that is the problem, it is the lack of listening on the part of those elected.

You sure about that? Seems to me, might be voting to elect those who won't listen that's the problem. An honest man can't be elected president. He won't tell the hoi polloi what they want to hear.

... and questions have been avoided

[TPS Report]

There is a link at the bottom of this comment that I think many would be interested in reading. At least it is a more objective source of "fact checking" than Michael Moore and his own website..

I'll agree that some of the movie has less spin than other parts of it. However, I would submit that since he enjoys twisting the truth in his movie, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he won't twist the truth again on his website.

You're not using additional sources to validate his claims. That's not corroborating evidence.

His movie is all about spin, and it's completely about influencing the election. He made back what it took to create the thing opening weekend. After that, he said he was cool with people posting it and sharing a copy on kazaa and bittorrent. Now he wants to air it on national TV the night before the election.

I have no problem with him having an agenda, nor do I expect him NOT to be biased. I'd like him not to be, but I don't expect it. He doesn't like Bush, and he wants him gone. He's using his position as a filmmaker to help with that goal. However, I just wish he'd be MORE up-front about his bias. But if he did that, then he wouldn't have as many sheep..

I don't like being lied to by our current administration. I don't like the whole "we never said there were definately WMD" game. I don't think the President is above a little stinging sarcasm or humor. Just don't pass off your propaganda as "the full truth" when it's really just an interesting movie with lots of creative editing and half truths. Michael Moore knows that the great majority of his viewers will NOT seek out additional information, nor validate his claims. He hopes they will presume that since he is not (currently) being sued out of his pants, what he says must be true.

He is very crafty at perfectly phrasing a response to any question. Read the site linked below, then watch him sometime on one of the many media shows he is currently whoring himself (and his viewpoint on). Watch how exquisitely careful he is to avoid direct and complete answers for many of the questions he is asked. I will give him some credit: He is a master of semantics.

Here's a more objective analysis of Farenheit. [ pdf]

Deficit = TAXES + INTEREST

[Anonymous Coward]

Deficit spending is just taxing the people with interest.

If that's so, then the deficit spenders are the worst taxers.

If that's so, then taxes weren't cut, they were raised.

Vote for regime change here! The idiots who choke on pretzels and are buddy-buddy with Enron execs who stole billions from everybody let 9/11 happen and then start a war in Iraq so the crooks could pale in comparison? Get those idiots out of there.

Obviousman to the rescue!

[Theaetetus]

Or maybe you were talking about the Kerry who voted for invading Iraq before he voted against it?

Now, let's put that quote back in context... Originally, a bill was proposed seeking $87 billion in funding to support the war in Iraq, to be paid for by repealing the Bush tax cut. Kerry voted for it. Bush refused to sign that bill, and instead had a Republican senator propose an identical $87 billion dollar bill for funding to be paid for by increasing the deficit. John Kerry, among others, believe that you don't just run up your credit cards willy-nilly without figuring some way to pay them, and voted against that bill.

Does this mean Kerry doesn't support the troops? Nope - in fact, Bush was the one who sent them off to war improperly funded and supplied (remember all the APCs and Humvees that didn't have armor?). Kerry does support the troops. He also supports not running up trillion dollar deficits while keeping a tax cut that gives middle-class and below families less than $300 each, while upper-class people get hundreds of times that.

-T

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[rkischuk]

Now, let's put that quote back in context... Originally, a bill was proposed seeking $87 billion in funding to support the war in Iraq, to be paid for by repealing the Bush tax cut. Kerry voted for it. Bush refused to sign that bill, and instead had a Republican senator propose an identical $87 billion dollar bill for funding to be paid for by increasing the deficit. John Kerry, among others, believe that you don't just run up your credit cards willy-nilly without figuring some way to pay them, and voted against that bill.

Spin, spin, spin. Your filling in the context on the vote is interesting, and I hadn't heard it before. Counterspin - John Kerry wasn't willing to support the effort in Iraq unless he could increase taxes in the process. Isn't that lovely?

The problem is that whoever introduced the first bill that Kerry voted for decided to advance an agenda (rollback of the Bush tax cuts) while addressing a need (funding the war effort in Iraq). Ideally, on average, the U.S. would balance its budget, with minor variations in each direction. This goal, however doesn't mean that each policy initiative should be directly tied to its source of funding, unless there is a direct relationship (such as increasing Medicare taxes to cover higher Medicare premiums). Iraq and tax cuts are not directly related, and the first bill was an obvious swipe to wipe out one Bush policy initiative to fund another.

At this stage, we were committed to the war, and needed to fund it - I don't think many lawmakers disagreed on that. After the $87 billion passed, lawmakers should have then started a separate discussion on how to even out the budget - whether through cutting other budgets, increasing income, etc. If increasing taxes is a good solution to this problem, it should be passed SEPARATELY.

The exact quote was an unfortunate gaffe, but there is still room for criticism even taken in context.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[rkischuk]

He also supports not running up trillion dollar deficits while keeping a tax cut that gives middle-class and below families less than $300 each, while upper-class people get hundreds of times that.

Wow... you don't even disguise the class warfare, do you? "middle-class" vs. "upper-class"

Liberals seem to enjoy putting taxes in absolute dollar terms rather than in... wait for it... CONTEXT. If I pay $30k a year in taxes, and someone else pays $2k a year in taxes, I can give each person a 10% tax cut - and that might sound fair. I can even give them a 20% tax cut, and me a 10% tax cut, and it sounds like I'm doing them a favor. But in your terms... "Oh my GOSH! You gave yourself $3,000 but only gave them $200 or $400!" It doesn't make sense to give every person a tax cut that's equal in raw dollars when the tax rate is a percentage.

Furthermore, let's examine your example, "hundreds of times that". Even 100 times $300 = $30k you are suggesting that ONE individual or family is receiving as a result of the Bush tax cuts (which cut 5% at the top marginal rate). To receive a $30k cut, that would mean they would still need to be paying $210k in taxes annually, which corresponds to an annual income of AT LEAST $650k.

So your example applies to roughly the top 1%. That's far from just "upper-class", that's a tiny cross-section of our country. If you had your way, every tax increase would put a higher percent increase on "the rich" and every tax cut would give a bigger (or equal) raw dollar amount to the "less fortunate". Of course taken to the limit, this leads to $0 tax or even cash back for the lower class, shifting the full tax burden onto the upper class, but I'm not surprised that income redistribution is the goal of the American left.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[dman123]

"This goal, however doesn't mean that each policy initiative should be directly tied to its source of funding..."

Unfortunately, this IS the way it works. If it wasn't, the policy initiatives would be worthless. They would still argue about the funding after singing kumbaya during the 435-0, 100-0 vote on the fact that it should be funded. Otherwise, what would they do? Spend the money until it runs out near the end of the fiscal year and just say, "Oops!" when the money is all spent? "Sorry we can't continue funding for *anything* the next couple months. Try again later!"

Yes, I know that "resolutions" are passed all the time that are simply a way of guilting others into supporting your general viewpoint (We Support Our Troops comes to mind), but these are also worthless.

Don't get me wrong, I despise the partisan games that are played (you fund my bill, I'll fund yours), but think of the gridlock if there were no compromises at all. It's all grandstanding and a negotiation tactic to make the other side think you are giving up something so significant that you expect something significant in return.

Oh, God. I can't believe I just made an argument for gridlock in Congress.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[AK Marc]

Kerry wasn't willing to support the effort in Iraq unless he could increase taxes in the process. Isn't that lovely?

So, wanting to be able to pay for something is a flaw? The only thing worse than tax and spend is spend and spend.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[BlueStraggler]

John Kerry wasn't willing to support the effort in Iraq unless he could increase taxes in the process. Isn't that lovely?

A lot lovelier than the idea of killing tens of thousands of people for free.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[rkischuk]

Kerry wasn't willing to support the effort in Iraq unless he could increase taxes in the process. Isn't that lovely?

So, wanting to be able to pay for something is a flaw? The only thing worse than tax and spend is spend and spend.

No, the flaw is only being willing to fund something if you can slay someone else's sacred cow that you dislike in the process. Bush wouldn't approve the legislation not because it attempted to both allocate funds and name the source of those funds. He refused it because it was a blatant attempt to get him to trade one policy initiative for another. A great deal of time and debate went into instituting the tax cuts. To reflexively repeal them as the first source of funding the war and without much discussion is a disservice to the original debate.

Cut and spend is a viable option as well.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[Theaetetus]

Liberals seem to enjoy putting taxes in absolute dollar terms rather than in... wait for it... CONTEXT. If I pay $30k a year in taxes, and someone else pays $2k a year in taxes, I can give each person a 10% tax cut - and that might sound fair. I can even give them a 20% tax cut, and me a 10% tax cut, and it sounds like I'm doing them a favor. But in your terms... "Oh my GOSH! You gave yourself $3,000 but only gave them $200 or $400!" It doesn't make sense to give every person a tax cut that's equal in raw dollars when the tax rate is a percentage.

But what neo-conservatives seem to conveniently forget is that the tax rate isn't a flat percentage. With capital gains tax breaks, estate tax roll backs, offshore investment breaks, etc., a rich person with a good accountant will pay significantly less by percentage than a middle-class person who takes the standard deductions.

If you had your way, every tax increase would put a higher percent increase on "the rich" and every tax cut would give a bigger (or equal) raw dollar amount to the "less fortunate".

Don't put words in my mouth - I never said that. I am a strong believer in capitalism and a free market economy. However, I'm also a strong believer in a flat tax with no loopholes - which is not where our current system lies. So before you go throwing labels about (which you accused me of doing with class warfare, although we both know that upper-class and middle-class are non-partisan terms widely used to describe income levels in very general terms), realize that you don't know anything about me other than one Slashdot post.

-T

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[rkischuk]

But what neo-conservatives seem to conveniently forget is that the tax rate isn't a flat percentage. With capital gains tax breaks, estate tax roll backs, offshore investment breaks, etc., a rich person with a good accountant will pay significantly less by percentage than a middle-class person who takes the standard deductions.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not saying I'm a neo-con. If anything, I tend toward libertarian conservatism or traditional conservatism. According to this quiz, I'm a liberal.

How can your assertion regarding tax distribution possibly be true in light of reports such as this? The top 10% of earners earn 40.1% of the money, but pay 66.4% of the income taxes. While the rates aren't in lock-step with the marginal tax rates, they certainly aren't paying "significantly less by percentage".

So before you go throwing labels about (which you accused me of doing with class warfare, although we both know that upper-class and middle-class are non-partisan terms widely used to describe income levels in very general terms)

My issue wasn't with you using these terms, it was with how you used them. You said that "upper class people" received hundreds of times more money back from the Bush tax cuts than "middle class and below". In my given example, this is not true even 100-fold unless you stretch "upper class" to mean the top 1% and "middle class" to be only people at or below that $300 threshhold. You suggest that this comparison is wrong because the wealthy already pay lower taxes through clever accounting, which is true enough, but in these cases, the tax cuts help them even less, since they would have to be paying federal income tax in the first place in order to benefit from a tax cut. You can trot out the sunset of the estate tax, but it's pretty clear that money's already been taxed at least once if not more through the years it was accumulated.

Don't put words in my mouth - I never said that. I am a strong believer in capitalism and a free market economy. However, I'm also a strong believer in a flat tax with no loopholes - which is not where our current system lies.

Your statement implied the tax cuts unfairly benefitted the upper class, and you used raw dollar amounts rather than percentages as your example. If this tax cut was unfair, there's only a few options as to what you believe IS a fair tax cut.

I'm in agreement with you that much of our tax policy is so messy because of the loopholes, favoritism, and demagoguery that surround it. My personal preference is the Fair Tax, since it simplifies the system dramatically and eliminates exceptions. Further, it removes the tax burden from the poor while still providing incentive to save, invest, and otherwise improve your financial situation. It also eliminates the offshore loopholes you describe, since it is not based on accountant-manipulated reported income, but on actual purchases that are much harder to manipulate.

Re:Obviousman to the rescue!

[Theaetetus]

Fair tax is quite interesting, but I think it falsely assumes that there's a linear relationship between the amount of your income and the amount you purchase. If there were, unemployed people wouldn't care, because they wouldn't be paying for food or housing, and Bill Gates would not only be the richest man in the US, but also the largest property owner.

While more income will lead you to purchase more - larger house, better cars, better food, wines, etc - there is a diminishing return on that... At some point, you slow down your purchasing, because you've already purchased everything you want... Few people get more than one house, maybe a vacation home, maybe two or three if they're really rich, but no more.

Look at it this way, too - someone who makes 20k a year (post taxes) is probably spending real close to 20k a year for their basic costs of living - not luxuries, mind you. Someone who makes 200k a year (post taxes), though, is probably spending not much more than 100k, maybe 150... But they're putting a huge chunk into savings (as well they should!). If you eliminate the taxes we currently pay, that would change to 30k and 300k (or so)... and the people making 300k still probably aren't going to spend much more than 150k. There's not a linear relationship there, and that's the Fair Tax wouldn't work.

-T

You can't handle the truth...

[vwjeff]

Nobody wants to talk about the real issues anyway.

Thank you!!! I could not agree with you more. Both sides use facts to support their claim of being correct. Examples:

Bush lied about the existance of WMD's in Iraq.

Saddam had WMD's. We know this to be fact. We gave WMD's to him. He used them. Thousands of people died. Now as a citizen I must ask what happened to the weapons? Mustard Gas and Anthrax don't just get up and walk away. If he destroyed them why didn't he show evidence? No one has stepped forward with proof to suggest they were destroyed.

People who hate Bush will say he lied but the truth is Bush made the decision based on the information he was given.

Another example:

John Kerry lied about his record in Vietnam.

I love this one. First off, how can you say he lied unless you were there. Second, he did not support the Vietnam War before he entered the service but he still went. He risked his life for a cause he didn't support. I find that heroic and something I probally could not do. I don't care what he did after the war.

Those who question John Kerry's war record have nothing better to do. Get over it and stick to the issues.

The Michael Moores of the world on both sides do not tolerate any point of view other than their own. The tunnel vision crowd on both sides are all asshats, plain and simple. If you are still reading this you are not an asshat. You have the intelligence and wisdom to read something even if you don't totally agree with it. Michael Moore would have stopped reading at John Kerry lied about his record. I thank you for being an independent thinker.

I don't believe any network will take the risk of broadcasting this movie in the fear of pissing off 50% of the audience. Sponsors will pull out advertising on the same fear. There is nothing wrong with this fear. In fact I support it. Companies shouldn't be forced to support something that will cause them to lose some business.

Vote for Apathy

[HenryKoren]

As long as the electoral college is in place and we haven't started doing instant runoffs, we're stuck with a two party political system. Like it or not, thats what we have. So you have the choice to vote for the lesser of two evils, cast a meaningless protest vote for a third party candidate, or just choose apathy.

Looks like you've made your decision.

Re:Terrorism Deaths since 9/11

[neBelcnU]

Uh, I'm not pro-current admin, or even pro-War On Terrorism (WOT), but you have a problem: Steven Aftergood reported that the State Department's reporting on deaths due to terrorism (I believe US citizens worldwide) has pretty consistently GONE UP.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/06/0609 04 .html

By this measure alone, we're not at all safer since WOT. I'd argue that by ANY measure, we are less safe than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Certainly worldwide foreign service for the US (State, Defense, whatever) is more perilous than any time since WW2.

From "Three Days of the Condor" (1975):

W: I go back even further: to Ten years after the Great War, as we called it. Before we knew enough to number them.

H: You miss that kind of action, sir?

W: No....that kind of CLARITY.

Should Look at Cable Access

[Mean_Nishka]

First, to the comment about 'emotional responses' and elections - All American elections are decided by emotions.. Period. If people voted for policy, George W and the rest of the Republicans would never win an office. Their policies stink but they don't need good policy to get elected.

Now on the topic at hand - Since Moore recently did not discourage the distribution of the film through online peer-to-peer networks, couldn't he conceivably also look the other way if people happened to air the film on cable access stations across the country? Some of the larger stations in NYC and other metropolitan areas can potentially reach millions of viewers. Even my cable company in rural connecticut has over 60,000 subscribers. The best part is that if people can be encouraged to pursue this route on their own and air the film without his involvement, perhaps it could circumvent some of the restrictions he's finding in getting this thing on television. It would give the grassroots folks the ability to promote the airdate as well.

F-9/11 On TV = Angry Mob

[mpapet]

Let's influence a few suckers whose opinions are changed while they waste their lives watching TV and get them to vote against GW.

There's nothing like an angry mob's lack of thought process to do the voting for the Democrats. Republicans would try the same thing if they had the opportunity.

Please, Don't pretend party X wouldn't stoop so low. American politics is bloodsport. Bare-knuckle, no-holds barred, no trick too dirty.

I for one highly value people like him. I just wish they all worked exclusively for causes I believed in!

michaelpapet.com

Re:bite me asshat.

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

the anthrax killer never found

Wasn't it determined that the anthrax originated in our own (US) military biolabs? Isn't it a strange coincidence how the first person killed in the anthrax attacks was a nosy reporter who had just published an embarassing photo of Bush's daughter?

In other news, OJ continues his search for, "the real killers"..

40 minutes

[iceperson]

That's how long Kerry said he sat stunned on 911.

Re:40 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry wasnt running the country at the time. He wasn't the one needed to make the decisions.

Re:40 minutes

[iceperson]

I see... different rules for your guy. Guess that the FACT that he missed 76% of the Intelligence Committee Hearings doesn't matter either.
link

Re:40 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he was just a member on the Senate Intelligence Committee...

Just a question... Shouldn't they have been considered key members in the gathering and dissemination of terrorist info prior to 9/11?

Re:40 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

What could Kerry have done? Sponser a bill to scramble jets in response to the attacks? He can't legislate his way into military decisions.

Re:40 minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have put on his red boots and cape.

It's Off-Topic But...

[Trolling4Dollars]

...if you don't mind stating what your political leanings are, could you explain WHY you align yourself with your chosen stripes? Personally, I'm pretty far to the left even though I hate namby-pamby liberals who are afraid to hurt people's feelings. People pleasers never please anyone. My main reasons for still leaning to the left are that I believe that every human being on the planet should be guaranteed a baseline quality of life that never dips into poverty. The only way that I believe this can be achieved is by making people who are a little more well off support this. Not just "the rich" but at every level. We should all be responsible for each other's well being. It's the right thing to do. We should also work against the natural tendency that everyone has to be greedy. as far as I can tell, the left is much more on my side of thinking than the right. Now... what about you? What do you stand for?

Parent is correct

[RubberChainsaw]

This is absolutely correct. The newspaper's suit was a public request for apology, not an actual suit. The suit was for exactly 1 dollar.

Illinois new coverage
Patriots for Bush.com blurb

However, Michael Moore did not wish to publicly apologize for the date mistake at the time. His production company later did admit the mistake in a letter to the newspaper.

The Pantagraph own coverage.

I was not able to find out what became of the suit, though.

Re:Parent is correct

[Alaska Jack]

Hmmm, I don't know if the tone of your reply really captures what happened.

For one thing, it wasn't a "mistake." That word implies it was some kind of accident or oversight. To the contrary, the doctoring done in to the newspaper in the movie was clearly quite deliberate.

Also, Moore has already had plenty of time to apologize for this. He hasn't done so, and for good reason -- all it would do is generate another round of media coverage about how parts of F911 were deliberately deceptive.

You'll note from the Pantagraphs coverage the part where Moore refuses to answer a very simple question: Why was the newpaper doctored? Well, think about it: Why would Moore refuse to answer that question?

- Alaska Jack

Re:bite me asshat.

[The Conductor]

Maybe I can help out here...
I think it is fair to say that the Swifties' (Viet-Vets' generally) real beef with Kerry goes to a perception of intent. Right or wrong, it is perceived in that group that Kerry went to Vietnam with a chip on his shoulder, glory-hounded while he was there, and made political hay (at his peers' expense) in war protests afterward. Group loyalty is highly valued among military types, as would be expected since group cohesion is often a matter of life & death in combat. The perceived betrayal sticks in their craw; to tout his Vietnam experience as campaign propoganda is just too much for them to take.

This is why Bush, who appears to have been, at best, aloof at the time, is more favored among vets. To be a 20-something party dude is forgivable 30 years hence. But betrayal will never be forgotten.

Make the World a better place

[kcdoodle]

Here are my question/answers:
1. Is the world safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
2. Is the US safer now than it was 4 years ago? NO
3. Is the world economy better now than it was 4 years ago? NO
4. Am I happy as I was with the US, world and my life than I was 4 years ago? NO.

I didn't vote for the guy. I voted for the guy that got the most votes and lost.

I live the greatest adventure anyone could wish for. - Tosk the Hunted

Re:Make the World a better place

[rpdillon]

This argument hinges on the (incorrect) assumption that any benefits garnered by policies made *now* would be evident *now*, and that is often not the case. Sometimes is takes years, even decades after a policy is put in place for the real benefits to be recogized.

I'm not saying I like the current administration (or Kerry, for that matter), but I think your argument is a bit naive.

Re:Hell yeah

[blueskies]

I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed.

For example, if you are in the top 2% of wealth I can understand supporting the current administration, because you will benefit. But I would not expect such a person to really believe that the majority of the population would benefit.

Likewise, if you are a conservative christian, I would expect you to support the current administration, even if it has drifted away from it's republican roots (increased gov't spending, wtf?), because they have done a great job demonizing the left in regards to stem cell research, abortion, and marriage amendments. I also believe these platforms have been pushed hard enough that these same people would fail to criticaly think about the pres' plans for fighting terror, for seeking an exit strategy out of Iraq, or even considering the Spin leading up to the war. Because they would sooner have their conservative agenda pushed then find out their "side" lied and bumbled the war on terror.

And the fox news statement (redundantly repeated by statement 4) is stated because intelligent people are easily lead by such a carefully coordinated propagada machine. I call these people ignorant, not unintelligent.

I find it extremely hard to believe that people who don't fit into any of those categories can vote for Bush with a clear conscious. It's been a mean 4 years of the majority running roughshod over the minority, of spin and a media that failed to question the president or to provoke critical thinking. I don't mind differences of opinions--i mind the silencing of the oppostition by such statements as "why do you hate america?" and "you must be for the terrorists."

Farenheit 9/11 In Cuba

[iamghetto]

I'm not sure if people are aware of this or not, but at the end of July, after only a week in theatres, Farenheit 9/11 played on prime time TV in Cuba .

See cached yahoo news here.
See some other cuban news source here.

I thought that was ...

[khasim]

I thought the Republicans attacked him as a "flip flop" because they didn't have any REAL material to attack him on.

Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?

It seems like the Republicans ARE saying that.

If they had any REAL material to attack him on, I'm sure they'd be using that instead.

Re:I thought that was ...

[TamMan2000]

Do you think that someone who NEVER changes his mind, despite new facts is better than someone who DOES change his mind when presented with new information?

I agree with you, I just like to point out the hypocracy of supporting Bush while attacking Kerry over flip flopping.

Timeline of the day...

[Theaetetus]

When Mr. Bush was in the class room, there was no evidence that what happened to the first tower was anything other than a terrible accident.

Nope...

"Two accounts explicitly state Bush was told while in the motorcade. "The President was on Highway 301, just north of Main Street ... [when] he received the news that a plane had crashed in New York City." [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01] (See adjacent map for the location where he is told.) Another account states, "Bush was driving to the school in a motorcade when the phone rang. An airline accident appeared to have happened. He pressed on with his visit." [Observer, 9/16/01]"

Also: "[School principal] Tose-Rigell was then summoned to a room to talk with Bush: "He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we're going to go ahead and go on, we're going on to do the reading thing anyway." [AP, 8/19/02 (D)]"

Then: "At 9:03, Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. News of this traveled extremely rapidly. In fact, some of Bush's Secret Service agents watched the second crash live on television in an adjacent room. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, in the same room as Bush but not near him, immediately received the news on his pager. [CBS, 9/11/02]"

And later: "Bush later recalled his own reaction: "I am very aware of the cameras. I'm trying to absorb that knowledge. I have nobody to talk to. I'm sitting in the midst of a classroom with little kids, listening to a children's story and I realize I'm the Commander in Chief and the country has just come under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 11/1/02] Asked again what he thought after he heard the news, Bush said, "We're at war and somebody has dared attack us and we're going to do something about it. I realized I was in a unique setting to receive a message that somebody attacked us ... [I]t became evident that we were, you know, that the world had changed." [CBS, 9/11/02]"

So, yes, when Bush was in the classroom, he knew about the first plane, and received word that the second plane had it, and, in his own words, he knew that we were "at war and somebody has dared attack us"... And he still sat there.

-T

WHY CAN'T WE FILTER THIS SUBJECT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't want to see these posts, or the responses. It's just flame city. So can we STOP posting POLITICS until the FILTER WORKS?

Not easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not easy though. :)

No, it's not. Not after being a cynical elitist asshole for 20 years. Incidentally, did you know there's an "AA" for cynics? It's not their official charter, but Optimists International is a rather great support group for recovering cynics. Yes, it is a pain getting up to be at a 7 AM Saturday morning meeting, but it really has helped me reinforce being a lot more positive, and as I mentioned, that is often the first step to getting other messes cleaned up in your life.

When I see fat, angry people (Michael Moore), I just wish I could get him to get over yelling at everyone else for his self-loathing and get him on the right track. Oh well, we all have our battles to fight (with ourselves)...

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but very accurately stated.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Corbets]

We all know god damned well that it did happen

Oh, do we? Thanks for sharing that. I don't, I wasn't there. Hell, I wasn't even born. All I have to go on is the word of people that were there, most of whom disagree with Kerry's stated "facts".

My personal favorite Kerryism was when Nixon ordered him to Cambodia over Christmas on a secret mission.... almost a month before Nixon actually took office. How'd that work?

Facts are facts, unless they're not.

Who?

[iceperson]

At least one thing is good about this election, after this election he will never have to shake the hand of the average man again for the rest of his life.
You talking about Moore, or Kerry?

Re:bite me asshat.

[stephanruby]

Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic.

They already have. 44 Chechyans have already disappeared for every 1000.

Re:Terrorism Deaths since 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm..Let's remember that the current administration and press are using the term terrorist/ism to describe just about everything now. Many of the deaths they are talking about are war casualties. During a war there can be no terrorism only casualties. Even civilians killed in Iraq are casualties of war not victims of terrorism.

Politics section server test off to a good a start

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned yesterday, this whole politics section would be a good server test, and todays subject seems to be off to a good start.

Yes, troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a troll because Kopel is a troll. He has more half-truths (and plain WRONG 'facts') than any Moore film.

Re:bite me asshat.

[div_2n]

If you check out bin Laden and al Qaeda's modus operandi, you will find that anyone that kills Muslims (even if they are other Muslims) or aids those that do (think Saudi Arabia) are on their hitlist. Remember that Saddam tortured and killed many of his own citizens.

Probably the only thing that kept Saddam in the neutral list for al Qaeda was that he has been a constant thorn in the side of the US. In other words the enemy of their enemy was their friend. Just like the US was to bin Laden when Russia was trying to take over Afghanistan. Remember we trained him. As soon as that struggle was over, he turned around and put the US in his sights.

I do not doubt that he and al Qaeda may have sought help from Iraq. It doesn't appear they got any. Even if they had, if ever the US completely withdraws from the Middle East, you can bet Saddam and Iraq will be next on their list or not far down it. Wait, they are already there bombing it and killing Iraqis. I guess merging US influence there tipped the scales a bit and has placed greater anger on Iraq.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

And what makes you think that you, America, have ANY right to impose YOUR will on a foreign sovereign country? Because you don't like their laws? I don't like the PATRIOT act, or the DMCA. Because you don't like their current government? Hell, I don't like America's! Because you're the "good guys"? Hah! Because you don't kill innocent people? Err, wait, try again. Because they were responsible for the terrorist attacks on your country? NO, you idiots! Because they pose an imminent threat to America? No by a *long shot*, both figuratively and literally. Because you have your great Christian God on your side? Oh PLEASE.

The fact of the matter is, America (and Britain for that matter, thanks to Tony not giving a shit about what his people actually wanted) invaded under false pretences and then used the "humanitarian" excuse when they realised what a fuckup they'd made. Oops. But they're better off now, honest! I mean, look at Afghanistan. Err, no wait...

The rest of the world doesn't want America to be the world's policeman; the rest of the world wants America to fuck off and leave them alone.

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[Zed2K]

""... so those OBGYN's can practice their love on their patients...""

And Kerry in the same day getting a "gift" of a shotgun that he voted for having banned.

If you're going to rip on one side, at least to have the decency to rip on both sides.

Oh, you know they'll still work it in.

[asoap]

But... do they cover Kerry? Fox's man covering Bush in 2000 had family (his wife) in the Bush campaign. How could he be objective?

In 2000 a CNN anchor started to work for Gore and they removed him from all Gore stories because of the appearance of impropriety.

They'll just work it in, in other ways...

"This just in, a 1 ton gorilla has escaped from the zoo, causing mass hesteria. The zoo custodian was the only witness and has released this statement: 'It was all George Dubyah's fault!!! He was drunk, n' snorting Coke, just like in his o'lllll college days. He kept on yelling at da ape and rubbing his nipples, n' saying 'I'm gonna get you ape. I'm gonna make hot'n wild ape love. You want that don't you, don't you! You're a good ape, and dosh garn good ape. I'm gonna make you want me, yeah and Cheney too! He's bringing the apple sauce.. You love apple sauce don't you? Of course you do, you're a good ape.'

It didn't take long for the animal to fear for his life. The animal bid his time, until he saw an opening to make his daring escape."

-Derek

Re:Regardless of your feelings about Moore's editi

[Zed2K]

hindsight indeed. At the time the only thing that was known was that 2 planes had hit the towers. They didn't know right away that it was hijackings or an attack. And how do you know that he didn't tell the message giver an order to tell someone else?

The point is that Moore is twisting reality to serve his purpose by not telling the ENTIRE story.

fark reply

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hit it! Even with his pointy knees!

And this they call informative?

[TheConfusedOne]

The "Headline" that Moore presented was never a headline from the paper.

In fact, it was a printing of the title of a letter to the letter and not any content created by the editorial board of the paper.

So, you have Moore changing the date and materially misrepresenting the source of the headline in order to promote a position that has in fact been thoroughly discredited by the major newspapers.

The fact is that aside from a very few scenarios Bush won all the recounts performed by the various newspapers and groups. (The irony being that one of the scenarios he lost was the one that the Bush campaign put forward while he won all of the recount scenarios that Gore was pushing for.)

You go ahead and believe what you want but don't expect everyone else to swallow the Kool-Aid when the facts just aren't on your side.

Re:And this they call informative?

[Rei]

Actually, your premise - that this was something that was discredited by the newspapers - is completely wrong. Please read my reply to a similar poster a few posts up. The University of Chicago, when they finished the recount, came up with the fact that in the scenario that the state was going to order - all voted being counted - Gore would have won. Bush only would have won in either A) no recount, or B) the recount Gore was going to order initially.

What recount scenario are you claiming that Bush put forward?

Re:And this they call informative?

[LordIvan]

... The fact is that aside from a very few scenarios Bush won all the recounts performed by the various newspapers and groups...

Uh... The fact that apparantly the newspapers and media count your votes in the US for you quite frankly disturbs me...

Re:And this they call informative?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Uh... The fact that apparantly the newspapers and media count your votes in the US for you quite frankly disturbs me...

They only did it to generate more controvercy. Our media isn't interested in whats best for us - They seel nothing but drama and fear and controvercy to drive up advertising rates. That's why they welcome disasters, Wars, and political controvercy - it fattens their bank accounts.

Its sad. Very sad.

[OT] Pref Settings

[stromthurman]

You raised a valid point, and I've attempted to heed your advice, but with no luck. I've set the exclude list to include Politics, Republicans, Democrats, and United States, none of which have prevented this particularly topic (and all of the topics in Politics, if "Collapse Sections" is checked) from being displayed. The FAQ seems rather sparse on topics concerning the preferences, so if you can offer any further advice, I'd appreciate it.

Re:[OT] Pref Settings

[revscat]

Eeeeenteresting. I just tried the same thing, and it didn't work for me, either. Mea culpa. Seems that the prefs don't work like they are supposed to.

Re:[OT] Pref Settings

[stromthurman]

Was afraid of that :/

Well, at any rate, thanks for the advice, hopefully it'll prevent such issues in the future ;)

Let's Get Ready to Ruuummmmbbbbblle!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am ready to....Get...It...On!!

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

That makes some sense; thanks.

It makes me wonder, though. Those of use who were too young to go to Vietnam hear the stories of the horrors (similar to those described by Kerry, and of others) and of how they didn't want to be there. It seems like to me, from my perspective, that the statements attributed to Kerry weren't a betrayal, but rather were an act of saying what others could not, to people who would listen to him but not to others.

If it was so bad, and they didn't want to be there, then why is it a betrayal to say how bad it is? This is, of course, an "outside, looking in" sort of question. Still doesn't answer my main question: if Americans were committing atrocities, and Kerry repeats the tales of atrocities - how is he the asshole? Isn't it the soldiers doing the nasties who are the assholes? Or the leaders ordering the nasties? This is the connection that grandparent poster failed to make for me.

I'm guessing, assuming that the stories Kerry related were true, that GWB is easier to forgive because he was doing what the vets wanted to do, and Kerry pointed out exactly how they were doing what they knew they shouldn't be doing. Displaced anger, and guilt. Just guesses, though.

Not that it matters. Either way, we're electing a politician. Thanks for the rational response.

Did you see the Republican National Convention?

[galacticdruid]

>> influencing the vote with last-minute emotions...

Ya, bush and his cronies sure weren't doing that, hahahhahahhahaha. Did you guys catch that dumbass who wanted to duel with John Kerry and was yelling at the TV reporter? What an idiot.

Re:bite me asshat.

[1gor]

Not understanding role of ideology (religion) in the modern world is not going to help you.

In fact, islamic radicals took over civil government in Chechna during brief period of their full autonomy between 1996 and 1999, when Russian troops were withdrawn. The islamists introduced sharia laws and tried to start religious uprising in neighbouring muslim Dagestan. Which prompted Moscow to attach Chechnia for the second time.

It looks like islamists are using nationalist argument to win support of the West. Their actual goal to establish a mulsim state throughout the Caucasus.

As a Republican..

[Anonymous Coward]

..I welcome this. The theater release was responsible for an upward spike in Bush's poll numbers, and I imagine this will do much the same thing.

Thanks Mikey.

Their Greed will be their undoing

[Cryofan]

Money and Greed and the only reason that f911 ever got into theaters at all.

Greed will be their undoing

Sure Show F-9/11 But....

[little_5_points_geek]

How about 20 hours un-interrupted replays of NY NY on 9-11-01 along with replays of Bush on top of a fire truck talking to the construction workers...

I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael more is a self-aggrandizing buffoon. You'd think that with so much in common with Bush, they'd be buddies.

Its all about balance

[Brian_Warner]

In my opinion, yes, Fahrenheit 9/11 is biased, but no more than mainstream media is, in the opposite direction. Nothing Mr. Moore says is strictly untrue, but it is portrayed in such a way to make the Bush Administration look bad. I don't think that he ever claimed to not be biased, and perhaps its not such a bad thing that people will see the other side of the coin of mass media. After all, he doesn't claim to be impartial, the news does, and is often hopelessly unblalanced. I say show it and let people make up their own minds!

Re:Hell yeah

[protohiro1]

You are not the person bearing the brunt of this. People who are already working in very low paying jobs are the people who suffers as underemployment bumps everyone down. Unemployment may not be as high as it has been, but underemployment is epidemic. There are a large number of americans trying to support families on minimum wage.

For the rest of us, real wages are down as productivity increases and corporations continue to tighten their belts. With a tight job market people cannot seek new employment to increase their salaries and benefits, putting further downward pressure on salaries.

citation

My concerns with them(Re:So then, vote libertarian

[Cro Magnon]

The main problem with the Libertarians is they have a "hands-off" attitude towards business. Unfortunately, an uncontrollable giant corporation(s) can screw you almost as bad as Big Government.

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[Theaetetus]

The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes." By definition, these people are independent, and like to think about their decisions before making them. They like to check their facts, and they are not easily swayed by appeals to sentimentality

Disagree with you here... While some of the independents are thinking about their vote, many of them are also just indifferent: "Who are you going to vote for?" "Oh, I don't know." And there's a swing voter.

-T

Do it!

[dep01]

Do it! Do it! Do it, do it, do it!!! Friday at 8pm on ABC, CBS, and FOX... Back-to-back F9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. Maybe it will give our country the kick in the ass it so despirately needs. But heck yeah. I said from the start they need to air F9/11 on networks. I don't think we're likely to see it, though, since his films to sortof "attack" networks. He might be able to get it onto Bravo or something...

Wrong

[paranode]

Kerry might have voted for the war when he was fooled by the Bush&Co that Saddam has anything to do with terrorism. And he probably changed his mind when realising that this is blatant lie.

Nope, Kerry said back in '98 that he thought Iraq needed a regime change and that ground troops would be necessary to take Saddam out of power. This was, of course, after he was opposed to the original Gulf War.

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

And he's the bad guy? I don't get it.

I can see that. There must be a lot of things you don't get. I am not a Bush supporter, but the stuff Moore picks out and focuses on are just bizarre.

Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement? Moore's portrayal of that event is weird. Is he implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and the children were an "alibi"? Is he implying that Bush should have instantly restored order instead of reading to children? Is he implying that simply reading to children is an unpresidential activity?

Moore has taken a bunch of BFD-class molehills and tried to construct a mountain out of them. Bu that mountain is very crumbly and doesn't give you much of a view when you get to the top.

Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.

No one, and I mean no one, is claiming that Moore is wrong using "fat and vain" as evidence. That's beyond stupid.

Re:Wrong

[javaxman]

Reading a children's book is a good example. What the fsck did you want the president to do? Throw the book up in the air and scream like a madman? Instantly launch a bunch of counterstrikes at a then unknown target? Hold a press conference within five minutes to present a weepy announcement?

Actually, holding *some* sort of a press conference would have been reasonable, but really, I'm puzzled by the idea that he might not have decided to just stand up, appologize to the class, say that he has important business to tend to, and leave. What did he do instead? What would *you* have done? Just sat there?

Moore didn't portray the event so much as he showed actual footage of it taking place. Actually, he spared the audience much of the ( extremely uncomfortable ) seven minutes.

That Moore showed it was just predictable. That you'd think Bush's reaction to news that the WTC was blown up is to sit for seven minutes is a BFD-class molehill is what's bizarre. I suppose detaining US citizens without access to a lawyer is a BFD-class molehill as well... as is shuttling the Bin Laden family out of the US while other commercial traffic is grounded... no, you're not a Bush supporter at all ;-)

I'm encouraging everyong to read this book. These are some pretty damn big molehills.

Re:Wrong

[Brandybuck]

What would *you* have done? Just sat there?

Not being president, I really don't know. What I do know is that hindsight is a hell of a lot clearer than foresight. But let me tell you what I did. I heard about the first tower and said "holy shit!" Then I went took a shower, brushed my teeth, and went off to work. It wasn't until I got to work that I heard about the strikes.

But even though I was not the president, I can imagine some common rationales for his actions without having to dredge the deep end of the paranoia pool. Bush was reading to children with the press in attendence. He probably had only the barest of information. So do you A) immediately hold a press conference with your only comments being "no comment" (simply because you don't have sufficient information); or B) tell your aide to get more information while you continue reading to children, because you don't want to start a panic in full view of the televising press? After all, it was only seven minutes.

no, you're not a Bush supporter at all

I am not a Bush supporter, but I will not apologize for my failure to fit into your preconceptions. I am getting extemely weary of this black/white polarity people like you are insisting for this nation. It's a bigger problem then Bush or Kerry or Moore. Heck, it might even be bigger than Iraq for the damage it can ultimately do.

How dare you insinuate which of two discrete political positions I must hold merely because I'm not a Moore fan! Get your mind out of that tiny little container and see the world for what it is! It doesn't matter if Moore is right or wrong, what really matters is that this is rapidly becoming a nation that cannot think outside of the pidgeonhole.

Re:Wrong

[Neward Rylet]

Hold a press conference? That would have reasonable? While I might not have finished the children's book I think that holding a press conference would have been absurd. Conspiricies aside, all he probably herd at the time was "Mr. President, an airplane hit the twin towers and the pentigon" and later, "Mr. President, a second airplane hit the other tower". Finishing a book and calmly leaving an elemetary school is not unreasonable. Leaders have a repsonsibilty of holding an air of calmness even when all hell breaks loose. Anyway the president had Ari Fleicher to have press conferences, and I don't imagine he knew much less about the attacks at that hour than the president.

Re:Wrong

[Spoticus]

...What did he do instead? What would *you* have done? Just sat there?...

Thats what I tend to ask people:

On the morning of September 11, 2001; the moment you heard that planes had been flown into the World Trade Center in NYC, did you stop what you were doing?

If so, you did more than the President of the United States did.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

What would *you* have done? Just sat there?

This issue is one of the greater litmus tests of leadership potential. I've discussed it with peers and have found a striking parallel between the response one provides and their position in the business world's pecking order. Nearly every business executive I've spoken with (I'm not talking lower to mid level management), regardless of party affiliation, indicates he/she would probably do no differently than the President did. In fact, when I've asked my Democrat peers as to why they believe this has been made out to be such an argument by the left, they chuckle and explain that it's because it's an effective (though not honest) ploy that works with many people.

Ask a convenience store clerk, however, how he'd react and you're more likely to get the Michael Moore perspective. Why is this?

Leaders innately select their environment and respective engagements within that environment (I'll preface that I'm making an argument here that some would disagree with, but considerable research and first hand experience reinforces that leadership is very much innate). This is a fancy way of saying "leaders act, not react."

Furthermore, leaders have to deal with a lot more information than the rest of you folks do. We're presented with volumes of information and have to immediately establish a process of qualifying information before we act (and never, ever react. The world doesn't need leaders running around like chickens sans heads - which is why Sen. Kerry does not qualify for the Oval Office - he's legislative branch and has *zero* executive experience).

Consider that the President of the United States has countless briefings on nearly everything, all the time. Terrorist threats in Mozambique. Bombings worldwide. Aircraft crashes. An effective leader knows when he/she has insufficient information, knows how to instruct a subordinate to obtain more, and continues to carry out his/her plan.

You do not want a president who does not understand that. As a small business owner, I'm not happy about Bush being pro large business, but I clearly understand Kerry simply lacks the skills to be a manager at McDonalds (indeed, he would have difficulty qualifying to get into Hamburger Univ). We all know what happens when incompetent managers run the companies we work for - do you want an incompetent, reactionary, life-long fraud as our nation's boss? Quit worrying about Bush. He's got issues with his party's special interests (they all do) but competent as a leader.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are implying what by this???

So if someone doesn't react the way you would to a situation, what does that mean? Me thinks your tin-foil hat has rotted your brain.

So much garbage has been spewed by this filthy EVIL Michael Moore that anyone who believes anything he says without independent proof is a first class idiot!

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"EVIL"? Please...

Re:Wrong

[javaxman]

Sorry, man. I didn't mean to toss you into the Bush camp because you're not a Moore fan.

I put you there because you've defended ( make nothing of ) at least 3 actions of GW that, really, are kind of a big deal. I notice you didn't say "boo" about my remark regarding detaining US citizens without trial, for example.

Beyond that, do you know what was the president told? He was told that the WTC *and* the Pentagon had been attacked. It was pretty clear. Plenty of information. If it wasn't time for action, if it was something that could have waited until he was finished with the class, he wouldn't have been interrupted. You don't interrupt the president of the US for anything but something really serious. He should have known to get up and go. It's *wacky* that you would downplay that *unless* you're making excuses for the guy.

If you want to look to the source of the division in this country, you need to look no further than Bush himself. At this point, if you aren't totally pissed off at GW by the stuff he's done, you're either not paying attention, or you in a very real way *are* supporting his administration's actions. You don't need to support Moore, or Kerry, or anyone, but unless you support Bush, don't defend him- it's time to stand up for *something*, and it is time to pick a side. You're either for Bush, or you're against him. Pick one. It's sad that you have to, but that's reality.

Don't defend Bush's actions and whine about it when someone mistakes you for a Bush supporter. You're defending the man- that's support by definition.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then you're pretty stupid, fellow, because unemployment is an insurance policy you paid the premiums for, not welfare. When your house burns down will you refuse the check and start in a tin shack until you can afford better?

Re:F 9/11 is propganda-no its not

[kwandar]

Moderators - Mod this comment up! I can confirm what this writer says - most of what was in F 9/11 was broadcast on Canadian TV months prior. It wasn't a bit surprising to us - the surprise has been that Americans generally knew so little about it.

And yet...

[TheConfusedOne]

...there's all of Kerry's speeches about Saddam's WMD's and how he needed to be stopped because of them.

Clinton thought he still had WMD's, France thought he still had WMD's, hell Saddam's own GENERALS thought they had WMD's (at least the other units did).

If you want to talk about disappearances and the UN then you can ask them about the $10 billion that disappeared while the UN was "managing" the Oil-for-Food program.

A question for you: Had we not invaded Iraq what would you have done instead? Remember that there had been no inspections since 1998 and that they had only resumed because the US had parked 100,000+ troops on Iraq's borders. Also remember that Al Qaeda was busy using the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia as a rallying cry at the time. Do you think the extra 100,000 troops would have made things any better?

Really now give us a scenario that solved the 12 year standoff that the UN was having with Iraq.

Re:And yet...

[scotch]

There were inspectors in Iraq in 2002 that had to be evacuated. Saddam was making no agressive moves. The 12 year standoff crippled Saddam's agressive ability. The UN isn't faultless. Clinton was misinformed. France was misinformed. It's all crap and they all suck. Bush doesn't suck any less for it. The USA has more WMD than any other country out there. What does that justify?

What would I have done instead. Spent some of the wasted 130 Billion Iraq war dollars on better intelligence and covert operations if required. But that's irrelavent. I'm not the president. The man who is president has no trouble fining apologists like yourself, so I'm sure nothing will change.

Re:And yet...

[leinhos]

It's easy to apply 20-20 hind-sight to all this. The UN issues a "search warrant" after Iraq's invasion into Kuwait was repelled, Iraq only selectively honors the search warrant, and the UN does what?

Meanwhile, the US experiences its biggest domestic attack from a foreign organization, and decides to knock on Iraq's door itself (being a bit touchy now), but Iraq refuses.

Iraq was a real threat not because they actually had the capability, but because we *didn't* know for sure. The stakes were huge, and I'm sure the fact that Iraq still refused to negotiate after the US massed troops at its border didn't make the decision-making process any easier.

If Saddam really believed that we would invade, do you think he would have made the decisions he did?

I guess the best thing to do is to put Saddam back into power, leave Iraq immediately, and say "we're sorry."

Re:And yet...

[scotch]

The best thing to do is make sure it never happens again. None of the rhetoric spewed by the current administration or their hopeful replacements makes me believe they learned anything about precaution, restraint, or reasoned justification. There is no responsibility in DC.

Get Real...

[coronaride]

Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances will we overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy.

It's this kind of thinking that really pisses me off - remnants of Manifest Destiny. Why the hell do we, as residents of the United States of America, think that we are invincible? This is what happens when you don't pay attention in your history classes, boys and girls! Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power. The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'.

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism? What is defined as terrorism is actually capable of bringing about positive change.

As residents of humanity, we need to recognize that all Nations created (in past or in the future) are corrupt and either have failed or are doomed to fail. Now, perhaps I'm just a doomsayer, but my feelings are that the unrest of many combined with the apathy and ignorance of many more are telling evidence of a major paradigm shift in American culture. I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to some change. Especially if it means taking the two-party system to the scrap pile.

Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA". Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow..

Anyhow, my two cents..

Re:Get Real...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Let's take a look at the Persians, the Greeks, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and, hell, even the USSR. These were mighty, mighty nations with incredible power, control, and influence and they all fell out of power.

I use this example all the time, if history truly repeats itself, well were next. Look at the Chinese, they are desperately trying to become a world power. They certainly have the manpower to do it.

However I believe that it isn't nations that is going to be the world powers rather that perceived power will be shifted to corporations, and this is something that really has been in progress for quite a while.

Re:Get Real...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I suppose we have to define what makes the USofA the USofA? Is it simply the federal system? If so, then in all likelyhood even if the entire Eastern seaboard was vaporized in an instant with the entire federal government on hand, the remaining states will quarrel for a year or so over where the new government should be, and in 2 years or so, there'll probably be elections for a whole new slate of senators, representatives, and a president. During that time, courts will still uphold the law (perhaps even to the federal circuit court level).

Re:Get Real...

[CRCulver]

I use this example all the time, if history truly repeats itself, well were next. Look at the Chinese, they are desperately trying to become a world power.

No they aren't. For over 150 years Westerners have been predicting that the sleeping dragon that is China will awake and vie with the world's superpowers. That has never happened. China just isn't interested in world domination. They are happy with a UN Security Council seat and their own little sphere of influence in Asia which, if anything, has actually grown smaller since the end of the Cold War. They are enjoying the money flowing in from Western investment, but none of this has pushed them to rise up and want a big say in world politics.

Re:Get Real...

[iriles]

Yeah, wouldn't you consider the American Revolution against the British an act of Terrorism?

No, the American Revolution was a civil war. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. The point being that terrorist acts in them selves don't have much lasting impact but the reaction to them can have much further reaching implications.

Re:Get Real...

[tmortn]

Pretty loose deffinition of civil war. In truth it was more successfull rebellion than anything. America was not a fully integrated component of English government.. which was part of the problem. Of course given transportation of the day they COULDN'T but thats another issue entirely.

Also, calling the Boston Tea Party an act of terrorisim is pretty out there. Dumping the tea into the harbor was more symbolic than anything. And hardly in the same class as a hijacking or suicide bomber.

BBC

[Dak_Peoples]

I suggest to checkout BBC 3's documentary Greg Palast: Bush Family Fortunes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/164552 7.stm Fahrenight 9/11 is based on this documentary. Pisser is, IT WAS PUBLISHED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Just another view point that is outside coming from "The Box" Dont hate the truth.

All right, everyone back to work

[heismann]

All right, everyone back to work

Re:Hell yeah

[Cro Magnon]

My "support" of Bush is lukewarm at best, but I'll answer your questions:

- Are Fundamental Christians
Nope

- Think they are Upper class
High middle class. Which is ignored by the Dems.

- Watch Fox News
I like it better than CNN!

- Believe the media
BWAHAHA!

As I said above, I'm not too thrilled with Bush, but I see absolutely NO reason to vote Kerry! Sorry, but "Bush sux" isn't a good enough reason!

Re:bite me asshat.

[AuMatar]

Nope, its exactly where I thought they'd be.

Looking at the past hundred years or so, the average number of people who died to terrorist attacks is low double digits. The number who died to foreign terrorists inside US borders is signle digits. In fact, most years its a nice round 0.

Put simply- the terrorist threat doesn't exist. Its a myth. Of the top terrorist attacks in the US, exactly 1 was due to outside terrorists. More people die yearly in traffic accidents than died in that attack. Terrorism is not a credible threat to the United States.

It's very clear

[Lysol]

The fact is if you support W then you:

1. Agree in free markets and religion rule over human rights, separation of church and state; your ideals put you above the law; secrecy over openness; Reagan's blind idiology over reality; and worst of all, the ends justify the means, the the U.S. has a moral responsibility (read: religious, i.e. Christian responsibility) to change the world (see the Project for the New American Century <shudders>).

2. And/Or, you don't delve too much into the issues, which usually debunks point 1.

The RNC espoused how free Iraqi's are now vs. under Hussein. Hmm, 20k+ CIVILIAN casualties in one year doesn't appear any freer to me. Civilians still afraid to leave there homes doesn't seem any freer to me. And the fact that the Iraqi Olympic soccer team is sympathetic to the insurgents says something, especially since some of those guys in the past would be tortured under that worthless Qusay!
It also espoused how great our economy is, how well our schools are doing, how much safer we are (even tho we continue to have bogus Orange alerts and are constantly reminded of threats everywhere at every step) - all things that are easily refuted time and time again by the CBO, the press or some non-partisan group. Jesus, I can say I'll live if I jump off a skyscraper all I want. The the reality, however, and matter of factly, is I won't.

And since when did record deficits become an good thing???!! We came from a record surplus to a record deficit?! Don't tell me it's all about 9/11 cuz we've had worse wars and lost about the same in the Pearl Harbor attack. And remember, at least 1/3 of those lost in the towers were foreign workers.

As for taxes IT IS A FACT (FACT) that anyone making under $200k isn't going to see any significant relief. If you look into tax law (by all means, plase do!), you'd learn how stacked the Bush tax cut is to the wealthy. But then again, what did u expect?
The death tax? A joke. Only applies to estates $1m and over. Hmm, my mom's not gonna leave me a $1m+ estate, but she says that sounds like an unnecessary tax. Yah, if you're rich maybe. But if you're an average Joe, then you just got suckered by some political marketing, which the Republicans excel at.

Grants to faith based (i.e. religious) groups violates the separation of church and state pretty blatantly. Religion is fine, JUST KEEP IT OUT OF GOVT!

Assault on the environment. Yah, that's a pretty easy one.

'Frivilous Trial lawyers'. Hmmm, yah, why don't you read up on Scalia's son Eugene to #3 spot at the labor dept. And guess what he did in Texas - represented big biz in workmans comp claims. Hmm and now he's there to help the labor dept. Yah, it's obvious where this goes. Bush is the master, unfortunately, of acting on opposite of what he says. His trial lawyer stance is basically aimed at wiping out ALL claims, frivilous or not, against big biz.

God told him so. This is so whacked out that it's not even funny. Didn't God also tell Osama to do the things he's done? And also, didn't God tell Boykin that we will win against all enemies? Hmmm, an awful lot of God tellin everyone they're gonna win and usually, um, only one guy wins. Right? So who's gonna win then? I mean, God said all three of those guys are gonna win. A win, win, win situation?

Tom DeLay, Hastert, Frist, Santorum, Lott, Gingrich, Hannity, Coulter, Norquist, Limbaugh etc. These guys are your leaders and idealists ?! Their records speak for themselves and frankly, these guys should ALL be behind bars or at least reduced to actually doing a honest days work. A very hateful bunch.

Cheney. Halliburton. Bush Sr. Carlyle Group. Profiteering on death. Gee, what a great bunch of 'visionaries' and couragous human beings. Changing the world, no doubt. But for the better? Hardly.

Religious fundamentalism. The right wing's insistence on dragging rel

Re:It's very clear

[Onnimikki]

The fact is if you support W then you:

1. Agree in free markets...



Not a chance. Bush and his cronies unlawfully want one-sided markets for special interest business groups. That's why building homes in the US is so much more expensive -- the duties on Canadian softwood make it uneconomical for Home Depot to purchase. Why? Because American lumber companies can't compete with legally harvested Canadian wood. Bush only wants a free market when it's convenient.

And Why Is This A Problem???

[Black-Man]

Obviously you don't understand the issue in Chechnya. They are terrorists. They are not interested in "freedom" for Chechnya. They use it as a mask... to destroy western civilization. And even if Russia would give them independence, they would not stop. A domino effect would probably start, destroying the Russian republic.

If you think the Russians are going to stand around like the rest of the world, you are sadly mistaken my friend. You better start weeping now for your terrorist friends in Chechnya.

Re:And Why Is This A Problem???

[stephanruby]

This is reminiscent of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden's first massacre was at a school too except he had our full support at the time because he was "fighing" commies.

Re:And Why Is This A Problem???

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: I forgot the "t" in "fighting"

Health Care Costs Cause Unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former business owner, you'll probably appreciate how many economists believe that growing health care costs are leading more employers to stop hiring. Bush has done absolutely nothing to make health care more affordable. And with the prescription drug benefit giveaway (Medicare can't ask for bulk pricing under the new law), it's even worse. Ask yourself if Kerry's health care plan would lower the costs of hiring new workers. (Kerry's plan: the gov't covers catastrophic needs, private insurers cover the rest, more cheaply.)

Just observations....

[Anonymous Coward]

al-Qaeda -- IKEA, Say them fast... its almost spooky! I believe the war on terror to be taking place by stealth through the distribution of crap, cheap Swedish flat packed furniture.

fundamentalist - I am sure it includes the word "mental" for a reason. Straight jackets for all.

Re:The economy started backwards AFTER Bush moved

[Cro Magnon]

Bzzt! Wrong! The economy was starting to tank during Clinton's last days.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't that he disagreed with the war, or even spoke to that effect. It was HOW he did it, and WHAT he said.

In times of war, it's generally wise to use a little diplomacy if you are going to be critical. To anything but a liberal idealist, that seems to be common sense.

Effects of Media Consolidation - Not a Chance =(

[mgbastard]

As much as I would like this to happen; It won't. We know ABC and FOX are out. Perhaps CBS is a shot, but they are VERY family friendly with their mix of shows... they wouldn't want a religious right boycott. And all the cable networks are consolidated now, so there's no independent voice there either. "AOL" Time Warner's new crop of old media executives will keep it off their networks. Bravo and USA are owned by NBC. I would guess NBC is the closest shot at getting it aired. I discount ABC because Disney is the parent company, and FOX, well shit Rupert Murdoch isn't going to have any of that film on his stations.

Isn't media consolidation great? Thanks FCC.

All that being said, we'd be far better off in educating America if Bush's Brain was aired on television. That is a much more enlightening film. No offense Michael, I love your work, but Karl Rove is more dangerous than the Bush family ties to bin Laden.

Disclaimer: I have given to Kerry Edwards 2004, I have even have a sign in my yard (TEXAS) Not only that, I voted twice for Ross Perot. I remain an independent.

Al-Quaeda and Chechnya

[drank]

I normally stay well clear of politics on Slashdot, but you wrote a reasonable post, deserving a reasonable response. I'd suggest reading this backgrounder on the ways in which Al-Quaeda has become involved in Chechnya since the first Chechen war in the early '90s. I've learned a lot by reading Dan Darling's stuff. He's definitely a solid researcher on Al-Quaeda and affiliates.

The short version might be: Al-Quaeda looks for conflicts between Muslim and non-muslim states, and sees to inflame them and entangle them with Al-Quaeda's larger goals. Chechnya is one example where they have done so successfully.

We certainly are in agreement, though, that Russia's actions in Chechnya over the last decade have been astoundingly brutal. It's worth stating in Russia's defense that when they tried to pull out, Chechnya came to resemble Afghanistan as more of a "terrorism-sponsored state" than the other way around. But nevertheless, they've leveled Grozny twice in a decade - the response to last week's massacre is going to be exceedingly ugly.

Your point?

[Rui del-Negro]

How is Moore (or any other documentarist) preventing anyone else from expressing their point of view...?

I don't think even you know what you mean.

Your "point" is that, because someone disagrees with you, or exposes facts that you find uncomfortable, then he needs to be silenced and labelled "a liar".

Again, if you think that there are any lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, you won't have any trouble finding people to pay for your lawyers (people who would definitely like to see Moore silenced, precisely because they know the facts he exposes are true). But of course, it's easier to just post unfounded accusations on Slashdot behind a false name, isn't it?

RMN
~~~

Re:Your point?

[iceperson]

I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film.
read up

Re:Your point?

[ibbey]

I guess you don't remember Moore's "war room" remark referring to the lawyers he has assembled to attack those that point out falacies in his film.

From the article you link to (the first paragraph!)
"Any attempts to libel me will be met by force,'" Fahrenheit 9/11 director Michael Moore told the New York Times on Sunday (June 20, 2004). "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

The key words here are "knowingly telling a lie with malice". The right constantly spins Moore as a liar, but they are being very disingenuous with these characterizations. Moore is very careful & precise with his wording. Yes, he spins the truth. Yes he chooses facts to support his arguments. That is absolutely not illegal. If it was, Bush would be in the cell next to Moore. So would every other politician & pundit in the country. Slander and libel, on the other hand are defined as "knowingly telling a lie with malice", and in the US, this is illegal. Moore has just as much right to sue someone for libel as you do.

He's not saying that you cant criticize him, he's only saying that he will defend himself from outright liiies, as the law allows. Stick to the truth in your critiques and you'll be fine.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Zhe Mappel]

The War on Terror needs to be fought, maybe differently than it has been, but in terms of the US, things are going pretty well.

Tell it to the thousands and thousands of family members of US soldiers slain, or mutilated, or crippled, or driven insane or to suicide in Iraq.

Whether or not we agree on the aims of the supposed "war on terror," there is a calculus of suffering that demands better from human beings than you have managed in your callowness. These soldiers give up their lives, arms, legs, eyes and balls, while you sit behind a keyboard and aver that it's all "going pretty well." Try to see beyond the frontiers of your own hide.

Re:Hell yeah

[raider_red]

Sure we noticed. The point is that if Kerry was doing the job his constituants elected him to do, it would have passed.

More to the topic...

[Stultsinator]

Of course Moore wants to air his movie while people are still making up their minds about candidates. He's not an institution, he's a man with an opinion and he wants to convince people. I have yet to meet anyone active in politics, or even a layman, who operates in any different way. Moreover, because his medium is the big screen, he has the opportunity to present information at a deeper level than a five-minute news segment.

Even if his facts are wrong or misrepresented, F911 serves as a convenient catalog of all of the controversy surrounding President Bush. As a result, all shades of the political spectrum are using it as a laundry list to dig even deeper to refute or validate. In the process they are becoming educated voters.

All Americans should absolutely see this movie before the election. Even if you are a staunch Republican it is beneficial to your party to understand the opposition. And there is no need to worry about lining Moore's pockets: This is one movie that is legal to download.

Not exactly right

[TheConfusedOne]

Kerry and some other Dem's were trying to push a version of the bill requiring that the appropriation be paid for out of the tax cuts. That version failed procedural motions and thus wasn't an actual option. (Though it is what Kerry claimed to vote "for".)

When it came time to vote for the actual emergency appropriation Kerry voted against it. That's pretty clean cut.

The irony is that he's now stumping on the campaing trail about how he wouldn't deny soldiers the body armor and equipment they'd need to fight the war when in fact he already did.

Re:Not exactly right

[Mr_Huber]

The irony is in attacking your opponent for failing to vote funds for armor and equipment they should have had before we *chose* to invade.

get some balls

[SethJohnson]

if you're going to talk shit, don't post AC.

This election is NOT just about terrorism

[twigles]

Bush has done a lot things that should piss most people off.

Pulling us out of the Kyoto Accord.
Pulling us out of the ban on land mines.
Trying to hold prayer circles in the oval office.
Pushing an Amendment against same-sex marriage (an Amendment essentially means the US could never change it's mind without incredible upheaval).
Holding people indefinitely without charges.
Opening commercial logging in Alaskan old-growth forests.
Breaking the bank with skin-peeling deficits.
Pissing on science for political agendas.

The list goes on and on, but the point is that the Bush regime is trying to focus attention on the war in Iraq and on terrorism as a whole because those are issues that are nebulous. Unless you are *really* rich or hardcore religious, most of Bush's actions at home are going to annoy you or piss you off, depending on your sensitivity to the issue.

The basic problem is that Bush is *too radical*. All politicians are in various pockets, but this guy is insane, not to mention an idiot of the highest magnitude. He can barely finish a sentence!

First amendment much?

[stinky wizzleteats]

...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

I hate Moore and everything he stands for, but it seems to me that the right of free speech precludes us from even asking this question. It is free speech, no matter what you think of its social value.

Re:First amendment much?

[rpdillon]

Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*. We can ask the question, we just can't codify the answer into law.

The original poster asked whether it "helps or hurts the political process" which is a question grounded in philosophy/sociology, rather than law. This doesn't really tie in with free speech much.

Re:First amendment much?

[stinky wizzleteats]

You are correct, but the implied suggestion is that if it hurts the political process, we should do something about it. In the context not only of "campaign finance reform", but also of this very campaign, the idea of doing something about it is not very far from the public consciousness.

My take on Fahrenheit 9/11

[cloffin]

Everyone is so emotional about this movie. Yes it is biased, but no it is not untruthful. Everything in it was meticulously documented and researched. The main claims are: 1) Bush was appointed by the US Supreme Court (The news paper analysis under Florida's Sunshine Law confirmed this. A full recount of Florida was ordered by the Florida supreme court and blocked by the most partisan member of the US Supreme Court. 2) The Bush administration hated Clinton so much that they avoided even Republican administration members like Richard Clarke who wanted to attack in Afghanistan. Bush wanted to topple Saddam who was a secular leader. 3) Bush and basically everyone in the administration has financial and family ties to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spreads Wahabbiism to destabilize other oil regions like Afghanistan and Chechnya, leading to terrorism. 4) Bush responded cowardly on 9/11 5) Wars aren't fought by the rich and powerful like Bush 6) War is hell This movie is a not as thoughtful as "The Fog of War," which makes the same points, but that is what makes it threatening. It puts an emotional and visual image of how bad this administration is. Much like the Abu Ghraib images that are being suppressed now. Watch this movie before criticizing it. It is actually very conservative unlike "Bowling for Columbine."

Vote for Bush!!!!

[twigles]

The world has it coming. Assholes.

Nearly all Canadians think...

[glrotate]

Nearly all Canadians think Bush is an moron and bad for the USA/world and we don't understand why our American neighbo[u]rs don't see this too.

We see that you don't like him, but we really don't care, in fact it it leads us to be more supportive of W. The "whole world" thought that that Reagan was a great satan and that his escalation of the Cold War would lead to WW3. As per usual they were exactly wrong.

The rest of the world has a poor track record for being ahead of the curve on realpolitik. Evidence suggests this is one more example.

They only thing we want out of Canada is your timber. Your can keep your politics.

Re:Nearly all Canadians think...

[Anonymous Coward]

It bugs me that people in my Country (Canada) assume that all their fellow citizens are anti-Bush. Far from the truth. (More Canadians protested Kerry's convention than the mere 140 at Bush's convention, but that's not my proof - only a non-sequitar statement)

And I find it ironic that Canadians contantly brag about their healthcare and other social programs while condemning America's military spending. It is America's defence that has allowed Canada to neglect their own troops (40 year old helicopters and jeeps), slash defence spending and pursue universal medicare, post-secondary education subsities and other socially-expensive programs -- all the while basking in America's Protective shadow. We condemn publicly, but are subconciously releived to have such a strong neighbour to depend on.

Once Iraq is done, come to Canada. It's not 1812 anymore, but our rifles still are. Lots of softwood lumber, cattle that are nearly-madcow free, and oils sands with more oil than the middle east!

Re:Nearly all Canadians think...

[boudie]

I stopped subconsciously relieving myself when I was 6 years old.

Re:Nearly all Canadians think...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The "whole world" thought that that Reagan was a great satan and that his escalation of the Cold War would lead to WW3. As per usual they were exactly wrong."

Well, no, actually you are the one who is wrong. You are rewriting history. The whole world was right back then, and as proof Reagan changed to their way of thinking once Gorbachev came on the scene. Over the objection of the same neo-cons that are now running the White House, Reagan saw in Gorbachev a man with whom he could reason, and so he stopped the Evil Empire rhetoric. They began to talk, which is what the whole world wanted, and things improved. The whole world was right all along, and to Reagan's credit, he saw that and changed.

More Moore, not less

[evilpenguin]

To me, what we need is more Michael Moores, not fewer. Passionate people comitted to advocacy are what we need. Impassioned, biased as hell, clamoring for attention, screaming for justice. The problem is we have focus-group tested messages, campaigns designed to offend the fewest, messages targeted to motivate specific hot button issues and worse, specific fears, and we have journalists who would rather report simple polls than question policies.

In fact, as much as I despise the Republican party, it is not their fault they get away with this stuff (and the Democrats are no better, they're just not as good at it). The press is to blame. They bring in a right-wing shill and a left-wing shill that hit their talking points and they say "There you go. We're fair. We give boths sides." Both sides are a howling vacuum.

Michael Moore produced a singularly one sided narrative. Good! Let the other side do the same. I miss the days when cities had multiple newspapers and they were clearly partisan. They'd fight over every scrap of data. They'd dispute every assertion. They'd catch the other side's every lie. Sure, they'd gloss over their side's lies, but that's why you had the other sides papers.

We're awash in an ocean of carefully tepid news. Ask your local thermodynamicist how much work you can accomplish when the temperature is everywhere the same. I'd like to see some white hot blood in the debate. I'd like to hear a human voice instead of a scientifically measured non-message.

FOX is on 24 hours a day. Let Michael Moore have his 2 hours. If, like me, you basically agree with him, get mad and vote, and go to your next precinct caucus. Write letters. If Moore makes your gorge rise to the top of your throat, go out and make your movie (like the michaelmoorehatesamerica.com guy). You may not be as good at it as Moore. It might take you as long as it took him to get the stage like he has, but if you are pissed enough AND funny enough, you can do what he did. "Roger and Me" got made because he was mad and ironic and smart. And bitterly opinionated.

Do likewise!

Re:More Moore, not less

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The other side DID produce its own singularly one sided narrative ... it was the presidency of the last 4 years where all forms of lies and manipulations were televised as absolute fact and accepted as such by the average dumbass american. .... while Dubya worked towards his goal of a destabilzied oil market with much higher prices ... to fill his pockets and those of his saudi oil friends with your hard earned money.

Sadly you damn sheep in the USA bought it hook line and sinker.

Canada thought about the implications of invading Iraq without just cause (unlike France who just wanted to protect some financial resources in Iraq).

Canada was so damn right and showed true leadership by not being a sucker to Dubya's "yer either with us or against us" freedom fries bullshit, or succumbing to the anger of thousands of americans who let their opinion of 'their former ally' be known loud and clear.

When will the average ignorant american wake up and act with the same responsibility Canada showed?

I can hear it now: "ohhhh but saddam was 'a gathering threat'!"

ya right, Sure he was ... meanwhile, Khadaffi, the evil dictator of Libya funded multiple terrorist attacks around the world and is being held up as a hero by that doublespeaking bastard Bush.

Of course Libya doesnt have the oil that Iraq has, so there's no need to hold anything against him.

Re:More Moore, not less

[The_Steel_General]

Yes Yes Yes!

Glad to hear I'm not the only person thinking that "objectivity" is a well-meaning smothering of real discourse.

If everyone is objective -- or even mostly objective -- why do I need two newspapers? What can I learn from CBS that I can't get from ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN?

The answer, of course, is everything. Objectivity implies a single point of view. If there is an objective truth, how could there be more than one version? Ask anyone who received the most votes in Florida in 2000, though, and the limits of objective truth become quickly evident. But we can't see those limits if we aren't willing to move past them sometimes.

Objectivity is the impossible dream anyway, since the very act of choosing the news -- of deciding What Is Important -- implies bias towards a particular point of view -- the point of view that believes a story is important. And every action that leads to its publication -- this supporting fact included, that important omission mentioned -- reveals what the journalist/publisher/editor sees as important. It's a Godelian knot that can't be unraveled -- let's slice it open.

So, YES to anyone who is willing to revel in their political views, who has no shame in propagandizing, who believes that there IS an objective truth and that it is being shown to you because it is TRUE, not because it's objective.

TSG

Re:More Moore, not less

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

sure, my post was overated. ya right.

of course we all know that really it just hurts to know how wrong you all were when Canada did the right thing.

Re:More Moore, not less

[evilpenguin]

I don't know who modded you overrated, because I think there is some merit in what you say. I think the present administration was going to attack Iraq no matter what and 9/11 was a mere pretext.

If "badness" or "dangerousness" were the requirement for unilateral invasion, we'd have to invade a few other countries as well.

Bush asserts in speeches that "America is safer." But ask youself this: If China decided to invade Taiwan tomorrow, what could the US do about it? (Not that I expect this; I don't think China is that irresponsibly ruled right now.) Not much right away. Too much of our military is too heavily engaged elsewhere. Our capacity to respond in defense of our nation and our interests is severely reduced. We would have to reintroduce conscription and spend a massive amount of money on arms.

However, Libya's ruler has renounced terrorism publicly. He has not been seen to be funding, sponsoring, or harboring terrorist organizations. He has been seen to be arresting individuals known to be terrorists. In the carrot-and-stick world of diplomacy, rewarding him is the right thing to do. But you are right. He is as brutal and fascist a dictator as Saddam Hussein was.

I think, however, you are being too harsh on the "average American." Remember, Bush was not elected by the American people. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court because the election was too close to call. Even though Gore clearly won the popular vote; Presidents are not elected by popular vote. They are elected by the "winner-takes-all" electoral college. As bizzare as that often seems to the rest of the world, that system usually leads to a clear winner and has made our executive transitions of power the most stable in the Western World. It just sort of messed us up this time.

As for why the election was so close, again, here, as in my post that started this thread, I blame the press. The "average American" you denegrate is bombarded by messages tailored to manipulate the most while offending the least. Meanwhile the press reports on polls and the effects of campaign tactics on the polls instead of teaching about issues of government and pointing out lies. Instead, as I said, they bring in "experts" who are essentially advocates for one side and they parrot a set of talking points prepared for them by that side.

Government and politics are messy and complicated. But the press know that messy and complicated is both hard work and less popular than the beauty contest, so they take the lazy way out and report the beauty contest.

The most "through the looking glass" element of this is that the best deconstruction of the political manipulation machine is to be found on Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central. That's bizzare. CNN should be deconstructing the talking points.

I don't think the distribution of intelligence and wisdom is any different in the United States than anywhere else. But brains think on information, and the political machines and the media companies are in a bizzare embrace that prevents useful information from reaching our brains. I think it is just plain wrong to look at what America does and conclude that the American people are "dumbasses." You are guilty of the same kind of smug arrogance that people constantly accuse the US of exercising. The politicians have learned how to play "the news cycle" like a musical instrument, and the press has forgotten their responsibility "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." They are allowing themselves to be played because they are access junkies. They don't want to risk their access. Well, damn access. Did you know that the press "is not allowed" to show the caskets bearing home the American dead from Iraq? As I read the First Amendement, the government can't do that. Well, government isn't doing it, really. They're just letting the press know that they won't talk to them if they show the caskets. The first time a new organization caved to such pressure, real poli

Re:More Moore, not less

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

I appreciate that I got through to someone who is obviously a thoughtful american who understands the issues. But there is more going wrong in your country than you appear to see.

I do generalize americans too much. I have rarely met an american that was truly a horrible person ... but the actions of the american people, through the governments they have created generate great pains in me.

The Bush government has done so many things to destroy international relations through breaking treaties and ignoring trade agreements; to destroy the freedom of your own people; to take away from the needy while giving more to those who have no needs; to create more dangerous enemies around the world .... that it just seems ludicris to most canadians.

Look at South Africa. There are other ways to reform unjust societies. Canada and the commonwealth carried diplomacy and sanctions to the desired end result. While Bush couldn't jump fast enough to declare that diplomacy wasn't working with Iraq, pretending that the world couldn't see him sabotage any attempts to truly have it work.

Anyways,

how do you know Khadaffi isn't funding terrorism anymore? just because he has said so? Well guess what!

Hussein over and over again said that he had no WMD's, and that there were no ties between him and al-qaeda ... and those words have since been proven true ... yet he was the great evil that had to be destroyed.

The most sickening thing is that Hussein took WMD technology given to him covertly by YOUR COUNTRY during the Regan years, and used it on his own people instead of on the Iranians as the USA had wanted. ... basically terrorism planned and run by YOUR country that backfired. ... yet you think Bush was right to slaughter Iraq while holding up Khadaffi as a hero?

Re:More Moore, not less

[evilpenguin]

OK, I'm going to repond one more time, but I must tell you that you continue to make unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs and attitudes because I happen to be an American. It is insulting. I *never* supported our invasion of Iraq. I have opposed it from the first day. I never said I support the present administration. I never have, and I never will. But I do believe in the rule of law. Despite the mess and the questionable circumstances under which Bush acheived the White House, he is the President. I have my next opportunity to say something about that November 2nd, and believe me, I will.

Diplomacy is not a matter of black and white morality, however. In fact, Bush's efforts to paint it that way are his biggest problem (especially since he is unlaterally deciding on the palette!). Khadaffi is moving in the right direction and constructive engagement is the way to keep that going.

There's no doubt that American foreign policy can be a bit twisted. Compare our treatment of Cuba and China if you want to see some head-spinning hypocrisy. The biggest mistake we have made, IMHO, was, during the cold war, to support anyone who was anti-communist, no matter how fascist and brutal they were to their own people. We have propped up many a tin-pot dictator for our own political or economic ends. But take a look at your own history as a member of the British Commonwealth before you get holier-than-thou on these issues. Sure, as a people you have developed a more refined and enlightened foreign policy, but go back just 70 years to the age of Empire and you'll see your own government acting in ways every bit as ethnocentric and arrogant as the US today.

Bush fooled many in our own Congress as well. The assumption of many (myself included) was that the bill seeking authorization for military action in Iraq was part of the persuasion necessary to get the weapons inpectors in there. It made sense. I "misunderestimated" the cowboy tendencies of this administration. But you are *wrong*, dead wrong to paint the whole of the American people with the Bush administration brush.

And bashing like you do doesn't persuade, it gets people's backs up. I think Bush had an opportunity following the vicious attacks on the United States on 9/11 to gather the sympathy and goodwill of the nations of the world into a chance to bring human rights and just government to the more despotic regions of the world. Instead, he wasted it, squandered it in trying to finish "daddy's war."

I also think he had a chance to leave a lasting legacy in what might have become known as "the Bush Doctrine" when he announced that United States would not distinguish between terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. Our action in Afghanistan was, I think, justified under this and was a legitimate exercise of a nation's right of self-defense. But he squandered this too by making irresponsible (and, it turns out, false) associations between Al Queda and Hussein's government. By not allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their work and by (falsely) accusing Iraq of having WMDs (and believe me, the one "good" reason to rush to war seems to me to be if the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs), they blew it again.

They (the Bush Administration) say "America is safer," but I don't think we are. Our allies mistrust us, and our enemies are being driven together because of our actions. Do you see why your broad-brush characterization of Americans offends me? You accuse us of arrogance about the rest of the world and then you turn an equally benighted and offensive eye on me.

So, for the record, I think the toppling of the Taliban regime was a legitimate act of self-defense. I think everything else the Bush adminstration has done has been irresponsible, short-sighted, and self-serving. And, as in all previous posts I have madein this discussion, I blame the press more than the adminsitration for not daring to say the Emporer is buck-naked.

Re:More Moore, not less

[evilpenguin]

Sorry, I just have to ask: Did you mean Gordian Knot, or were you implying that Godel somehow relates to the Gordian Knot? I'm not nit-picking, I'm honestly wondering if you know something about Godel that I'd like to know, or if you were just mistyping "Gordian?"

From the wikipedia: The Gordian Knot

*Raises hand*

[Bill_Royle]

Yes - I do have a question.

WTF does this have to do with technology?

Oh wait... it uses ELECTRICITY! I get it now, forgive me for the interruption...

Other Documentaries on this and other subjects.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just thought I would throw out a few others I have seen lately that go along and add to Moore's movie, but with less of the flare and more of the facts. Not that anything was wrong with F911 I think Moore makes documentaries more interesting if anything. But just take them for what they are. Here are some others:

The Corporation
http://www.thecorporation.tv/
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, the film is a timely, critical inquiry that invites CEOs, whistle-blowers, brokers, gurus, spies, players, pawns and pundits on a graphic and engaging quest to reveal the 4corporation's inner workings, curious history, controversial impacts and possible futures. Featuring illuminating interviews with Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Howard Zinn and many others, THE CORPORATION charts the spectacular rise of an institution aimed at achieving specific economic goals as it also recounts victories against this apparently invincible force.

OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

UnCovered : The War on Iraq
http://www.truthuncovered.com/
Chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001.

UnPrcedented : The 2000 Presidential Election
http://www.unprecedented.org/
All about Florida and the truth behind the voting results and how everything happened.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The war on our Civil Liberties
http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/o rder.htm
(all trailers for the Un series and for Outfoxed can be seen at this above link for those interested)

Disappointing

[CloakedMirror]

Well, I gotta say that my disappointment with /. and sites like it continues to grow on a daily basis. Yeah, politics can be an important part of our lives. However, the rants and raves about Moore, Kerry, Bush, etc. don't seem to have alot to do with technology; and to see news about technology is why I come here!

If I want to see/hear/watch junk like this I can go to CNN/MSNBC/etc. and see all the pontificating that I can stand. Please! Get rid of the "Politics for Nerds" section. Does my vote matter?

Re:Disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the rants and raves about Moore, Kerry, Bush, etc. don't seem to have alot to do with technology; and to see news about technology is why I come here!

Then get the fuck out of the politics section, you whiney bitch of a dumbass. Go fiddle with your prefs and you wont see them again. However, there are lots who *do* want to see it, as evidenced by the 1300+ comments in this story alone.

The networks wouldn't air it.

[SpaceTaxi]

I would expect that given the film's reported bias, the major networks wouldn't touch F9/11 so close to November 2. Remeber, they didn't air any Arnold movies months before the California gubernatorial election.

Also, who would advertize? I guess it would be entirely political commercials. Perhaps a series of Bush ads reputing the prior segment of the movie. Who wants to sit through that?

I don't know if Moore really expects to get it aired, but you have to give him credit for his PR skills. Nothing like a piece of manufactured controvercy to drive DVD sales.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.

Traitor! America is at war with Terra! America has always been at war with Terra!

The real problem with Florida

[Rob Y.]

Bush may have 'won' Florida, but my beef is this. By any standard, he only won because of the butterfly ballot screw-up. And even then, lost the popular vote and only won by the slimmest Electoral College margin.

Probably the exit polls the networks relied on more accurately reflected the voters' intentions than the actual count did. But them's the rules.

All fair enough.

But the guy ran as a moderate 'uniter, not a divider'. Now you'd think a moderate uniter, especially one that got in through a fluke, might try to actually govern from the middle. Well, we know that didn't happen. GWB's been all talk, spin and constantly recallibrated salesmanship. All covering for actions that have been about as partisan as possible. So some people are mad. Go figure

Article from Elite TV..

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Sep/EEN413f2540cf b32.html

Fahrenheit 9/11: 'The Less That See It, The Better For Bush'

Michael Moore has pulled his controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 out contention for a 'sure bet' Oscar nomination for Best Documentary in a bid to get the film shown to a wider audience on broadcast TV, and influence the outcome of this years heated Presidential Election.

According to a recent Gallup survey, more than half of all American adults have either seen or expect to see Moore's wildly popular movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, a critical look at the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq. The poll, conducted July 8-11, found that 8% of Americans said they have already seen the movie, 18% expected to see it at a theater, and 30% expected to watch it on DVD or home video.

The poll also found that generally Americans had a more unfavorable than favorable impression of the movie, 'but those who have seen it are overwhelmingly favorable. Democrats and Republicans have sharply different views, as do younger and older people.'

In an informal poll conducted by Moore's pollster friend -- who formerly worked for the Republicans -- he found that the 80% of the Fahrenheit 9/11 audiences in three different cities were essentially likely Kerry voters, but 'the movie has galvanized them in a way you rarely see Democrats galvanized.'

Though Moore says that '20 million people' have already seen his film, he is worried that the right people are not seeing it.

'The less (people) that see it, the better for Bush,' Moore's pollster firend told him. So, Moore now wants the people who aren't as prone to voting for Kerry in the audience.

Moore has already assured an October release of Fahrenheit 9/11 on DVD and home video, but he now wants to do more to get the movie out to the American public before the November 2 election.

He has his eyes on broadcast TV, where a wider American audience is ripe for the viewing. To do this, Moore will have to sacrifice his bid for a Best Documentary nod, since under Academy rules, documentaries are ineligible for Oscar consideration if aired on television or the Internet within nine months of their theatrical release.

'If there is even the remotest of chances that I can get this film seen by a few million more Americans before election day,' Moore said, 'then that is more important to me than winning another documentary Oscar. I have already won a Best Documentary statue. Having a second one would be nice, but not as nice as getting this country back in the hands of the majority.'

Informative? Mods on CRACK

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore won no recounts-indisputable fact.
Bush was always ahead in Florida
prove me wrong you can't.
Gore wins Florida is a lie.

Re:Informative? Mods on CRACK

[Anonymous Coward]

While technically correct that Gore lost Florida by any legal procedural recounts.
Academics and reporters found that a FAIR recount awarding invalid and illegible votes to Gore and disqualifying military votes for Bush would have put Gore rightfully in office if not for the illegal and immoral perversions of the US Constitution.
Gore won the popular VOTE!

Maybe you should teach the Academy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should teach the Academy (and all other film-related institutes, festivals, publications, etc.) the "real" definition of "documentary"; apparently they don't know it. Virtually all winners and nominees in the documentary category are "opinion pieces". That's what a documentary is. Maybe you just never saw a documentary in your life, apart from Fahrenheit 9/11 (assuming you did see that one)...?

Documentarists aren't reporters; the simple act of deciding what the documentary will be about is an exercise of opinion.

BTW, shouldn't your initials be "AC"...?

RMN
~~~

Re:Maybe you should teach the Academy

[Keebler71]

perhaps YOU (and the academy) should look up the definition of documentary. From dictionary.com:

documentary ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Re:Maybe you should teach the Academy

[SilkBD]

Definition of Documentary

Re:bite me asshat.

[jayp00001]

He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'."

Here is the excerpt from what Kerry said on Meet the Press April 18, 1971.

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

He didn't say that he was told, or he saw, he said he did it.

If you don't know what he threw - medals, ribbons, or whatever - how can you complain when he shows something?

The only reason that we don't know what he threw is becasue he has stated at one point or another that he has thrown all of the above!

Re:bite me asshat.

[stratjakt]

We know 'god damned well' because big-budget Hollywood films like "Full Metal Jacket", "Platoon" and "Apocolypse Now" tell us what happened!

I mean, I know a couple vets. They disagree with the popular media images of Vietnam, and claim said image was more heavily shaped by the protests than the actual goings-on over there.

But they aren't movie stars, or politicians with agendas, so why the hell would anyone listen to them and their "first hand" experiences.

Speaking of commercials...

[ShelfWare]

... that is why it won't air on TV. Can you imagine trying to line up any advertisers? Either they will be begging for spots, or running away from it because they don't want their product affiliated with political propaganda.

The best station for this to air would be PBS.

Moore tells 100% truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is a traitor and should be dealt with as one.

questions have been raised

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore is known for his manufacturing of "truth" to suite his own political agendas.

It was also recently discovered that several voters (over 1200) in Florida were double registered in Florida and New York and had voted twice during the 2000 elections (a federal felony), of which 62% of the illegal votes in Florida were democrates. So factoring this discovery, it appears that the race in Florida was not as tight as it first appeared.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Bora Horza Gobuchol]

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).

Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:

- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.

- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.

And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.

Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.

The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria ... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.

The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?

One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.

Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.

Nobody?

[TreadOnUS]

Where are your facts? As far as I can tell you are making nothing nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. If you have some data or facts to back up your claims then why not post them? Your post is not even as clever as Moore's 'documentary.' He twisted his claims into liberal entertainment that people paid to view. You failed there unless you were going for humor.

His movie (I can't degrade the term documentary) is so full of holes, distortions and lies that even if there were some truth buried in it, it's probably there by accident.

Even lefty Christopher Hitchens calls him a liar http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/.

And his distortions are not tiny nor are they unimportant. http://www.treadonus.com/Other.html.

What about Faux News?

[fiannaFailMan]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation

Yet it's okay to have a steady stream of propaganda from Fox News and a gazzilion redneck-infested talk radio stations 24 hours a day all year round? Let Moore have his 2 hours of fame.

Re:What about Faux News?

[Retired Replicant]

But the liberals have all of Hollywood, 95% of the newspapers, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Air America, etc. It's amazing how one cable news channel and a few radio talk-shows get blown into some big conservative conspiracy by liberals who can't stand the idea of average Americans having any news alternatives.

Re:What about Faux News?

[fiannaFailMan]

Ah. The elusive 'liberal media' again. I wish I could tune into it on mainstream TV or radio...

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single one of the men serving under Kerry felt he deserved the medals he won. Oh and don't forget that he ACTUALLY SERVED instead of throwing his name around and sitting that whole war out/

im not sure what's better. Serving our country in the national guard..or protesting the war....

Terror? What terror?

[Colazar]

Maybe I'm wierd, but 9/11 didn't make me any more nervous at all. There are crazies in this world. They have been killing people, and they will continue to kill people. All at a ridiculously low rate.

I mean, when I grew up, everyone figured that sooner or later we were all going to die in a nuclear war. And now I'm supposed to get all worried that someone might blow up a building that I'm in? Puh-leeze.

To my mind, the War on Terror is akin to a bunch of Ticktockmen running around yelling "Repent Harlequin!" And to about as much effect.

John McCain explained

[SethJohnson]

As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on Bush's behalf at the RNC.

Within John McCain, you are witnessing an amazing amount of swallowing of pride to fulfill an agenda. John McCain has a plan. Right now he's the least divisive politician in the GOP. If they had him running instead of W, they'd have a compelling ticket that would be hard for Kerry / Edwards to beat. But the GOP can't switch horses and maintain face. So they have to stick with Bush / Cheney.

McCain is playing his party-faithful role because of three possible outcomes working in his favor:

1. Bush loses in 2004. McCain will be the go-to man in 2008 for the GOP. His party-faithful performance at the RNC would have won back the neo-cons. It would also help restore the conservatives who voted Kerry (or didn't vote) in 2004 because they were upset over Bush / Cheney running the country into a $400 billion deficit.

2. Bush wins in 2004. Can't run again in 2008. Cheney is too frail to run. McCain again becomes the go-to guy for reasons posted in point #1.

3. Last minute desperation for Bush ticket. Cheney withdraws from race complaining of heart issues lingering from his quadruple heart bypass. McCain put on ticket as replacement. They win, then McCain runs in 2008.

In any event, I would bet that after the 2004 election is over, McCain will not be buddies with Bush. All that dirty stuff the Bush campaign did in 2000 with the push polling telling voters McCain fathered an illegitimate black child is unforgivable.

P2P/Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore has already covered his production/distribution costs and made his profits handsomely. If he really wants a good coverage, he might want to put it on the Net or P2P for free downloads as well as TV distribution. Or he could spend 1M of his profits to press DVDs for free rents at Blockbuster or Holywood Videos.

Republicans Rely on Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep reading about Kerry flip-flopping on his votes for war in Iraq and it's starting to become quite upsetting. Many Americans simply don't know how Congress operates, how bills get written, riders attached, etc. and the Republicans are taking advantage of this. Just because a bill appears to be for a good cause doesn't mean it's so.

IMHO, many of the Republicans' arguments depend on the listener being ignorant. If you're educated, then you know the arguments they're pitching are just crazy. You hear about great things like the No Child Left Behind Act and striking a blow against terrorism by eliminating Saddam. However, the reality is that the Act isn't doing much, if anything, to help kids and Saddam had nothing to do with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.

Re:bite me asshat.

[BoneFlower]

"Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. "

My personal opinion, what I would have reported to my CO if I was still an Intelligence Analyst(which I was for several years in the Marines), would have been that said shell was most likely battlefield debris left over from the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War I. There probably are quite a few chemical and biological weapons that Iraq simply lost during the Iran-Iraq war that are still waiting for someone to randomly run across. Interesting to note, the reports shortly after it said that it was set up to optimize explosive damage, and even if it was a brand new munition, the gas would have done very little damage because of how it was set up. That shows whoever set it up thought it was an HE round.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Moore and Mr. Manson (maryln). Both the same thing to me. Just out to make a buck. They dont care who how or what. Its just easier to rile up liberals and ignorants.

Try 27 Minutes

[grendelkhan]

But when he harps on the 7 minutes it took Bush to leave from his book-reading session I realized how shameful Moore truly is.

After you add on the additional 20 minutes he took for a photo op after the seven minutes of "My Pet Goat", how do you feel about the CINC now?

Re:bite me asshat.

[bcboy]

Oh, and nevermind the basic fact that KERRY WAS THE ONE FULL OF SHIT.

For the historically challenged, some first-hand testimony of veterans. BTW, I've been to some grass roots Kerry events, and they are filled with Vietnam vets who say, all around, "I've been waiting 30 years to vote for this man," because he spoke to their experiences, which no one else was willing to do.

SCOTT CAMILE: "My name is Scott Camile. I was a Sgt. attached to Charley 1/1. I was a forward observer in Vietnam. I went in right after high school and I'm a student now ... The cutting off of heads -- on Operation Stone -- there was a Lt. Colonel there and two people had their heads cut off and put on stakes and stuck in the middle of the field. And we were notified that there was press covering the operation and that we couldn't do that anymore. Before we went out on the operation we were told not to waste our heat tablets on food but to save them for the villages because we were going to destroy all the villages and we didn't give the people any time to get out of the villages. We just went in and burned them and if people were in the villages yelling and screaming, we didn't help them. We just burned the houses as we went.

"MODERATOR: Why did you use the heat tabs? Did you just light off the villages with matches or just throw the heat tabs in so it would keep burning?

"CAMILE: We'd throw the heat tabs in because it was quicker and they'd keep burning. They couldn't put the heat tabs out. We'd throw them on top of the houses. People cut off ears and when they'd come back in off of an operation you'd make deals before you'd go out and like for every ear you cut off someone would buy you two beers, so people cut off ears. The torturing of prisoners was done with beatings and I saw one case where there were two prisoners. One prisoner was staked out on the ground and he was cut open while he was alive and part of his insides were cut out and they told the other prisoner if he didn't tell them what they wanted to know they would kill him. And I don't know what he said because he spoke in Vietnamese but then they killed him after that anyway."

JAMES DUFFY: "I served as a machine gunner, on a CH-47, Chinook helicopter with Company A, 228th Aviation Battalion, 1st Air Cav. Division, from February '67 to April '68.

"I iced a contingent of Vietnamese peasants chopping wood and I decided, well, if the Vietnamese can fire a round into my ship, then I can fire as many rounds into the Vietnamese as I want to.

"So I swung my machine gun onto this group of peasants and opened fire. Fortunately, the gun jammed after one or two rounds, which was pretty lucky, because this group of peasants turned out to be a work party hired by the government to clear the area and there was GIs guarding them about 50 meters away. But my mind was so psyched out into killing gooks that I never even paid attention to look around and see where I was. I just saw gooks and I wanted to kill them. I was pretty scared after that happened because that sort of violated the unwritten code that you can do anything you want to as long as you don't get caught. That's, I guess that's, what happened with the My Lai incident. Those guys just were following the same pattern that we've been doing there for 10 years, but they had the misfortune of getting caught at it.

"I looked out across the field and I spotted a Vietnamese woman peasant running away from the ship. I fired a burst of about six or seven rounds into her back before we fired, before we hit the ground. When I was being questioned as to what happened about two weeks later by a captain in my company, I told him what we did and what I did. We both had a good laugh about it. That was pretty much company policy. Also in Hue, during the Tet offensive in '68, I observed American fighters and bombers (Phantoms) dropping bombs and napalm into very crowded streets full of civilians. I don't know how many people were wiped out in that pla

Again, what is your point?

[Rui del-Negro]

Again, you don't seem to have a point. You just shoot in random directions hoping to divert attention from the fact that your previous arguments don't stand up no matter how much Viagra you give them.

The article you linked to (with a really unbiased title, BTW, nice to see you support informative journalism) simply states the obvious: that if anyone accuses Moore of lying and does not provide any proof of those accusations, Moore will sue them. If they are able to come up with proof, then Moore will, of course, lose. In fact, that much is pretty obvious even without Microsoft's on-line magazine editor writing empty, hysterical articles about it.

So what is your point?

RMN
~~~

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[mildness]

Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

Mod parent up!

[mrbrown1602]

This guy is obviously being moded down by whacked out liberals who don't want people to know that Michael Moore is the biggest deceiver of them all.

Re:Mod parent up!

[jcr]

Michael Moore is the biggest deceiver of them all.

No, not by a long shot. Moore is much too easily debunked to be the biggest deciever. He's basically the lefties' answer to Rush Limbaugh: he gives them what they want to hear to feed their sense of righteous indignation.

-jcr

What exactly did you expect?

[bigmammoth]

Michael Moore, What exactly did you expect? I think why Michael Moore is where he is, is his willingness to engage in the same kind of language as those he criticizes. When you engage in the same language of what you're criticizing you become what you criticize. So naturally he is hypocrite and the language of taking sides on issues with preconceived agenda is going to be problematic. Moore looks for ways to construct information in support his position rather then an analysis of that information. You won't see Chomsky calling bush a liar.

This is how our current mainstream political climate functions one of attack on character with use of a language of contradiction. Moore is engaging in that language of contradictions. All his ideas are not without merit infact I find many of them briliant, but he is engaged in a language of attacks, name-calling and taking sides. This approach diminishes his capacity for contradiction-free intellectually convincing arguments, but simultaneously allows him to be become a successful information distributor making millions of dollars reaching a large audience spawning websites that criticism/attack him etc. just like his parallels on the "right".

Christopher Hitchens pice can be compared to Al Franken book where he rips apart Ann Cultures work via an array of contradictory "facts". But I wonder how productive it is to buy into this Michael Moore bashing, I did not finish Al Frankens book because of its endless attacks of character statments rather then systemic analysis, which was entertaining but not intellectually convincing. When people ask question like why does Michael Moore hate America they are not really dealing with any ideas he might have presented, rather are engaged in endless mindless attack gibberish. In that way their criticism adopts Moores language and often fails to impress. Not that Hitchens piece was not well written, its just that it points out what should be obvious. Moore is presenting a biased one-sided perspective and from the opposite side of that perspective it is going to seem like he is sadistically lying like crazy, from a perspective with some shared values, it is going to look like he is using selective information and engaged in the language of those he is criticizing.

I don't understand why people expect to get contradiction free political commentary from someone that is admittedly bias and is perusing has a stated agenda. At least he does not say he is objective like some entities seem to be capable of claiming.

Oreilly vs Moore can help illustrates this:)

Re:bite me asshat.

[rd_syringe]

The Times, Newsday, and more all show Bush with an 11 point lead. Don't know what else to tell you except that you're clearly ignoring a statistical figure simply because you don't like its implications.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is very insightful in my opinion. Seeing problems as Christianity vs Islam, left vs right or Republican vs Democrats has never brought people closer together. And unless you are willing to eliminate one of the two parties, you will never have a solution till both agrea.

As for the Chechnian rebels. Being Islamic did not make them pickup arms. Being oppressed and having little to no future did however. People with little hope can^H^H^Hwill do horible things.

So if we don't want any more tragedies, will must bring people hope, hope for a beter future.

Read some history, follow the violence and find the gold. `It's all economics...`

Wouter

Bush / US = Nero / Rome

[h00manist]

Nuff said.

Re:Bush / US = Nero / Rome

[hamburguesa]

Kerry/US = Sisyphus/Hill are ya daft?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

to stress the outcome of not winning the war.

Of course they don't, since we didn't. Unless you count drawing a line in the sand then going home without completing your objectives "victory".

P.S.

[rd_syringe]

W is for Wrong.

What is the F in John Kerry for? "Flip-flop"? Come on, what are these guys doing, running for president of the 8th grade? I hate election years.

Had you read my post

[orasio]

You would have realized that I didn't say I liked MM, I was just shocked because he was compared with Bush, and I think it is unfair.
Journalism, even bad journalism, is not comparable to warmongering, even if the first could be used for the latter.

Of course, I think that, because I'm on the outside of the US, and only suffer the consequences of your colonial^W foreign affairs management.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Alaska Jack]

Either that, or the complete absence of significant Japanese strikes in the US since 12/07 indicated -- not that we were fighting "Japanese imperialism" and winning -- but that *there was no Japanese threat to the United States of America.*

"World War II" was a con used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about.

*America was not at war. There was nobody to fight.*

- Alaska Jack

PS I've read all of Orwell's major works and most of his minor. And what I can say is this: people like you *don't understand Orwell.* Orwell didn't believe there was no such thing as war, or that some wars weren't justified, or that every war was just an attempt to "justify military spending and restrict rights." Those are naive simplifications. He would have thought your formulation -- in the context of a country that had *actually been attacked* -- was absurd.

You're right

[cyberformer]

But this begs a question: Which station would actually air F-911? Is there any network that would dare to put it on at all, let alone during an election campaign? And which corporate advertisers would want to underwrite it?

I can just about see C-SPAN or PBS broadcasting it, but probably not for about twenty years. Moore's request for it to be shown on TV is just a way of generating publicity for the DVD release. (Moore is a good movie maker, but the thing he really excels at is PR. Even McCain's speech at the Republican convention helped to promote his movie!)

Re:You're right

[revscat]

I can just about see C-SPAN or PBS broadcasting it, but probably not for about twenty years. Moore's request for it to be shown on TV is just a way of generating publicity for the DVD release. (Moore is a good movie maker, but the thing he really excels at is PR. Even McCain's speech at the Republican convention helped to promote his movie!)

Of course, because it is absurd to think that someone actually believes in the cause they are championing. I mean, it's all about money. "If I, being complicated and cynical, can imagine profit as being the primary motivator, why, that simply MUST be it!"

I have come to reject such cynicism because it has been my experience that people are frequently driven by nobler motives than mere profit. Ascribing such motives is cheap and easy, and does a disservice to the larger issues in question.

you should see OutFoxed

[SethJohnson]

What's wrong with FoxNews?

I have no idea who you are referring to when you say the other networks have reporters working for the Kerry campaign. In OutFoxed, they show footage of Fox News political reporter, Carl Cameron, interviewing Bush during the 2004 campaign. Before the interview, he preps Bush by telling him what questions he's going to ask him. Then he kisses his ass with all this stuff about how his wife is working on Bush's campaign, etc. No ethical news operation would allow such a drastic conflict of interest to exist. Please back up your assertion about the other networks' reporters working for the Kerry campaign.

Re:you should see OutFoxed

[johnnyb]

James Carville and Paul Begala - they are both on the air with CNN.

In a more circuitous link, Greta van Sustern's husband campaigns for Kerry, and is one of his top fundraisers (in case you think that Fox only has Republican ties).

As for the clip, I don't feel like downloading it, but assuming it's horrendously damaging, that's only one reporter. Are you sure it's epidemic? Do you watch enough Fox coverage to come to that conclusion?

Personally, I don't like Fox because they seem to like to fawn over all of the legal incidents of the day - Koby Brian, Michael Jackson, the murder trials, the kidnappings - I really don't think that qualifies as news. But I really see them being pretty fair to both sides. I'm sure on occasion someone is unfair, but if you think that's unusual you've never read the New York Times or watched other news channels.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rd_syringe]

Tell Congress of the atrocities and war crimes he witnessed. Don't play "Oh it never happened, We'd never do that" game with you. We all know god damned well that it did happen.

Oh, we do? So all those soldiers were running around raping and pillaging and cutting off heads like Ghengis Khan? Even when he ADMITS HE NEVER SAW IT AND WAS ONLY REPORTING WHAT HE "HEARD?"

Bush has flubbed on things himself, so don't assume I'm biased here. But Kerry is such a weasal, IMO.

MOD PARENT UP

[grendelkhan]

As the target audience for the President's Christian message, I find him to be incredible superficial in his faith. That he uses it to try and garner support from me, and I get emails talking about what a man of faith he is from friends of mine that swallow it sickens me. George Bush is no more a Christian than Osama Bin Laden is. If the President was truly a Christian, he'd take more of the writings of Paul the Apostle to heart and actually do what they say. Because he goes to church and says the right things, I'm supposed to support him blindly?

My ass.

Curious..

[promethean_spark]

I remember during the CA recall election Arnolds movies were not played on network television because of equal airtime laws or somesuch. Since Bush is the "star" of F911, would not a similar airtime violation occur if it were broadcast before the election? Surely the Bush campaign could throw enough such suits at Moore to delay broadcast past the election.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[avandesande]

are high gas prices 'healthy for america'? like it or not oil fuels our economy, and until an alternative that makes economic sense it will remain that way

So you're saying that Kerry lied too?

[TreadOnUS]

Seems he believed it, said it and repeated it. http://www.treadonus.com/Political%20Perspective.h tml

Re:So you're saying that Kerry lied too?

[EnderWiggnz]

you're linking to your own site, and all of those quotes are completely unsourced?

whatever.

Re:So you're saying that Kerry lied too?

[TreadOnUS]

I link to my own site because it's useful for me to not repost this information for every discussion I have on the topic.

Yes it is sourced. I would hope that the speaker and the date would be useful in doing the same research that I did before I posted it. I quit providing links to the sources because it was a maintenance nightmare keeping up with changed or dropped links. All of these are easily Googled and are cited in referencable publications. Here's a link that does a better job at it. Many of them are in the Congressional Record. http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694

Yeah Gore won the recount IF

[the_skywise]

The rules were changed to allow invalid ballots. The very thing that the Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court ALLOWED and two Federal Courts ruled against (you can't change the rules for ballot counting AFTER the fact). Gore NEVER WON the recount on "valid" ballots, even after several recounts of the paper ballots. Even the the much ballyhooed newspaper investigation came to the same conclusion.

Re:Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against B

[anaesthetica]

If Bush is a bad President, it ought to be fairly trivial to refute the claims of any postings supporting him. Rather, what grandparent was noting, is that the moderators will simply use moderation to dispense with comments that don't support their view. That is displaying bias, rather than displaying a factual basis for the claim that Bush is a bad president. These "intelligent" "critical thinkers" ought to be able to defend their assertion that President Bush is terrible for the country without resorting simply to moderation (keeping pro-Bush posts out of sight rather than having to deal with the substance of their arguments). If their views are as "substantial" as you assert, they should display the substance of their views through hitting the Reply button, not the Moderate button.

Crap

[N8F8]

ignore his military's and CIA's and other nation's intelligence reports

Well, I read many of the same reports Bush did and I came to the same conclusions. Even Clinton knew somthing had to be done.

Re:bite me asshat.

[cartervt2k]

Like it or not, the men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan enlisted in the armed forces knowing that along with their job comes the possibly of laying down their lives. I doubt the people of Cantor Fitzgerald or anyone else working in the WTC or Pentagon had that same detail mentioned in any of their job descriptions.

This is tiring

[iceperson]

The point is that Moore had no intention of suing anyone. His statement was merely a threat to silence those who disagree with them.

You completely missed the point

[rd_syringe]

Whoah! That's some pretty damning evidence. Michael Moore took something printed in a newspaper and flashed it on the screen as if it had appeared elsewhere in a newspaper? Now I'm suspicious.

No, he took something that was some random person's letter to the editor and retyped it so it looked like a HARD NEWS ARTICLE ON THE FRONT PAGE. It was headlined "Gore Won The 2000 Election."

If you are honestly telling me that it's not dishonest to take someone's letter to the editor and make it look like a front page news article and cite it as evidence, you are more biased than you're willing to admit. It's almost hilarious how absurd it is to cite someone's opinion letter as a hard news article.

Guess what, the guy who actually wrote the original letter is a professor, who even expressed distaste with Moore's tactic of misleading viewers with his letter.

Re:bite me asshat.

[bcboy]

How many first-hand sworn testimonies of vets do you want? You can have about any number. See a few earlier in this thread.

Re:bite me asshat.

[jayp00001]

So when Kerry states (in the link you provide)..."the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out" he was using the "royal" we? Are you saying that Kerry was simply relaying what he was told with no knowledge of whether it was true? If he did know that this was going on, then he himself, as an officer, is responsible.

I know who I want in a foxhole with me, and it certainly isn't the guy that brought a camera along to film his "exploits". Pity he forgot to film all the atrocities.

Please show it on TV

[Anonymous Coward]

so the RNC can buy commercials informing Democrats that their voting day is Wednesday.
Then Bush can have a unanimous affirmation instead of just a landslide victory.

Re:Please show it on TV

[hamburguesa]

only if it can be narrated by an Astronaut and two smart-ass robots

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember Y2K and all the bad stuff that would happen if we didn't fix the date issues?

Well, those things didn't happen because we (programmers)*fixed* the problems. You could argue that those problems would have never happenned because they were made up ("there is not Y2K threat..."). But, I say you're full of shit!
HAND

Dave Kopel is a shill for a big money Republican..

[Naum]

...sugar daddy.

Dave Kopel Debunked

Dave Kopel, research director at The Independence Institute, has a very different take. No surprise since the institute is a "market-oriented" organization funded in part by the rightwing Castle Rock Foundation, a creation of the Coors brewing dynasty based in Golden, Colorado.

Re:bite me asshat.

[iannn]

Um, Just to be completely clear, Chechnya has been fighting for Independence from Russia for about a decade. There are many militant and milita groups, official and not, operating in Chechnya. Some are more extreme than others, but even the most moderate want independence.

Russia doesn't want Chechnya to become independent for two main reasons.
1. If Chechnya seperates, other republics will try to follow.
2. Russia has ties to the Chechnyan oil industry.

While some Chechnyan rebels have used terrorist tactics in Russia, Russian policies are hardly better. For example the Russian policy of kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected rebels spawned the 'black widow' phenomena, where female relatives carried out suicide attacks.

http://economist.com/research/backgrounders/disp la ybackgrounder.cfm?bg=873282

Re:Hell yeah

[jafac]

Greensboro NC?

Perhaps you should move to a region of the US that invests in it's public education system better.

Then you can find tons of qualified unemployed engineers who would be willing to work for you.

Or if you're desperate to stay in a "squeal like a pig" state, then offer some competitive relocation packages to out of work engineers in California.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Kaos Incarnate]

That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard. I suppose it was the tooth fairy that hijacked the planes on 9/11. Oh, and the easter bunny is the one who attacked the U.S.S. Cole. Let's not forget how Santa Claus organized the bombing of the multiple Embassies in Africa.

I think this would be illegal

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seems to me that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law would make this action illegal (mentioning a candidate by name in the media Now, it is just barely possible that Moore has NEVER spoken to ANYONE in the DNC or Kerry Campaign. Which just might be enough wiggle room to get away with it.

However, odds that everyone involved in getting it shown on election eve can say the same truthfully are low. Which, again, makes it a violation of BCFR (aka McCain-Feingold).

Re:I think this would be illegal

[CrimsonAvenger]

Damnit! something got interpreted as an html code when I was silly enough to post without checking ;(

Please insert "less than 30 days before a general election, unless you meet some really stupid conditions)." after the word "media and before the word "Now".

Re:Or maybe, just MAYBE, the facts stand against B

[revscat]

If Bush is a bad President, it ought to be fairly trivial to refute the claims of any postings supporting him.

It is. When, that is, such statements are made. But Bush's record is the reason the Republicans are so insistent in their themes of fear and hate: his record is one of failure.

If their views are as "substantial" as you assert, they should display the substance of their views through hitting the Reply button, not the Moderate button.

I did, me old bucko.

USA-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the Politics section of Slashdot so USA-centric? Even the theme is USA-centic. There is a whole fuckin WORLD out there beyond your borders! You hamburger-gorging fatties could not locate Cornwall on a map if your lives depended on it!

Re:USA-centric

[sidhartha]

Because slashdot is run by Americans

Why would we want to know where cornwall is. Do they have good burgers there?

Re:USA-centric

[wicka_wicka]

It might be because this is a US-based website, and most of the viewers are American, and the whole politics section is temporary, and it's all for the upcoming AMERICAN elections, and...I could go on, if you like, or has your ass been kicked throughly?

Nice and toasty

[frogg320]

Gotta love a good flamewar! Burn baby, burn. ...and vote Kerry! I look forward to making my friends watch Farenheit 9/11 on TV.

Re:Hell yeah

[jafac]

I especially love how Bush likes to tell his story of the 7 Iraqi businessmen whose hands Saddam cut off.

Let's talk about the hundreds in Afghanistan who have had their hands cut off since we "liberated" them. Or the hundreds in Saudi Arabia who've been publicy beheaded since we became their bitch and eliminated their regional enemies for them.

If you want to talk about eliminating brutal dictators, Saddam was SMALL POTATOES. Stories of him killing millions were, by the way, more Chalabi distortions. Saddam killed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. Not millions. The numbers found in the mass graves were grossly distorted. Not a nice fellow, to be sure. But compared to the TERRORIST FUNDING BRUTAL THEOCRATIC FUNDAMENTALIST OIL-SUPPLY-CONTROLLING REGIME in Saudi Arabia, nothing. You want to talk about threats to US Security? Start with Bush's closest business partners.

GOP should demand equal airtime

[Retired Replicant]

If this piece of garbage propaganda runs on TV before the election, the GOP should get an equal chunk of airtime during an equivalent ratings time slot to run anti-Kerry material. All the GOP would have to do is run Kerry's 1971 testimony in which he slandered his fellow Vietnam vets, and run the clips showing how Kerry flip flops on multiple issues, and then it would be a fair trade off. Moore's lies about GW vs. Kerry's own words revealing himself to be a slimy backstabber and political opportunist with no convictions of his own.

I'm sorry, but Moore's movie is not simply Michael Moore's free speech...it is a piece of deliberately constructed, disingenuous propaganda designed to benefit one political party over another, and Moore has stated so himself.

Re:Propaganda-Family Ties

[niiler]

If you research the history of the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Kellog-Brown-Root, and other companies, you see that they have been in business with the Saudis for decades. I think that this is a rather strong FINANCIAL link.

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=HAL

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020709Page.html

http://www.nyse.com/cgi-bin/ny_charts?sym=UDI

The linkage between the Carlyle Group (TCG) and United Defense is known. UDI and Halliburton have both made oodles of money in the last year (see the charts on the bottom of the NYSE links). And it seems that Bush I is an owner of TCG.

And if that's not enough, check out Senator Bob Graham of Florida's book, Intelligence Matters, which is discussed here:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm

It seems that the Bush-Bin Laden connection goes beyond simply what Michael Moore understates. Graham, an obsessive compulsive about detail who documents his life on a daily basis, alleges that the Bush administration stopped an investigation of two Saudis who funded the 9/11 hijackers and then had them flew out of the country. What's more, Graham alleges that this fact was among the 27 pages blacked out of the congressional inquiry report on 9/11.

Whether or not you like Moore or his spin, there are a lot of questions that he asks in F911 that need to be answered before Bush gets into office again. Just my two cents.

WHAT?!

[Anonymous Coward]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation.

What kind of bullshit is that? When Dick Cheney says "If you elect Kerry, the terrorist will kill your kids and torture your dog", I am supposed to worry about some hyperbole from the good guys side?

These assholes got into office in an embarrassing shameful abuse of our system. They will sink to ANY low to get re-installed. Fuck them. There are no more rules.

Fox News is embarrassing

[SethJohnson]

You know, there are a lot of misinformed individuals around the world that say all kinds of slanderous things about America and Americans. I think all of us can usually turn the other cheek, etc. with the knowledge that these people haven't met real Americans, or just don't know all the facts. With the advent of Fox News, I have to be embarrassed for our country when these foreigners criticize the American media as being propaganda.

For so many years, we were able to point fingers at Russia with its state-run Pravda and contrast our freedom to their oppression. More recently we all got a laugh from the Iraqi information minister holding press conferences telling obvious lies, etc. But I must wonder, how does it look for our media (Fox News) to employ Oliver North to cover the war in Iraq? This guy was a military officer convicted of obstructing Congress and now he's working as a journalist? Everytime I see him on tv, I cringe knowing that to people around the world he represents America as well as that goof Iraq information minister did.

Inconsiderate, inexplicable, unjust GEEK

[orpx]

Considering how many questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda, one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Your so elegant at sounding so foolish. ONE HAS TO WONDER, if this mockery on humanity and nature is hurting the mental development of billions of people. Influencing them on what is truely right and wrong. Consumers dont worry so much, knowing there will be a sale next week.

It's obvious this world is being run by a bunch of arrogant assholes who think they deserve to run things because they have solved their own pathetic problems. They are nothing but waste climbing losers, but who gets on top is congradulated, because shit is what they are making everyone else eat.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

America is not at war. There is nobody to fight.

Some people just amaze me. How about telling this to the families of the 350+ (parents and children) who were murdered at the hands of Islamic terrorists at that school in Russia. What about the families of the four humanitarian aide workers who have been kidnapped by bin Ladin-following, Islamic terrorists. There is a war. Terrorists are fighting it. The terrorists would have no problems with removing your head from your shoulders to try and further their cause. The war on terror is helping to ensure that you can keep your head.

thorough contemplation, haha !

[[ella]]

thorough contemplation? I'ts hardly about politics anymore... the core foundation of democracy: go into a discussion with the people on how to improve your society!

• It's about what those two men did 30 years ago.
• It's about the rest of the world.
• It's about religion. (The very idea of mingling politics and religion is most repulsive.)
• It's about the big companies which support them.
• It's about the biggest lobbies.
• 1. The Jewish lobby.
  2. The Gun lobby.
  3. The Oil lobby.

Re:bite me asshat.

[EnderWiggnz]

"the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out" he was using the "royal" we? Are you saying that Kerry was simply relaying what he was told with no knowledge of whether it was true? If he did know that this was going on, then he himself, as an officer, is responsible.

He collected enough information to demonstrate that atrocities were being commited in Vietnam on a widespread basis. He spoke the Truth.

Are you telling me that "we" as americans did not commit ... lets not mince words here... war crimes in Vietnam?

Wrong!

[slashkitty]

Uhm, what history book are you looking at?

The Florida Supreme Court only ordered a Partial recount: http://covenantnews.com/dec08.htm

"The divided Florida Supreme Court brought Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign back from the brink of death, adding 383 votes to his total and ordering a manual recount of 9,000 disputed votes in Miami-Dade County and any other disputed ballots in other Florida counties."

These disputed ballots were recounted, after the fact and Bush still won. The critical mistake of Gore was not to challenge the votes in the entire state, instead only focusing on counties where he thought he should have more votes.

Re:bite me asshat.

[mikestro]

Without getting too emotional... :)

It's hard to forgive someone for basically saying that we are ALL a bunch of Genghis Kahn babykilleres when that simply wasn't the case. He was saying while we still had POWS over there. They Viet Cong then played his speech to those same American in the POW camps. Several of the swifties were in those camps and specifically remember being tortured while having to listen to Kerry rant on with that specific speech. i.e. The Viet Cong used Kerry's speech as propoganda and as a tool for mentally torturing our troops that were still POWs.

Now this same person wants to be president.

Kerry's lameness

[cthlptlk]

Putting aside the merits of the movie (which I haven't seen) I think it speaks to the incredible lameness of Kerry as a candidate that he needs a boost from this movie or anything else. Bush was caught torturing people for fsck's sake! Any idiot picked off the street should be pounding Bush in the polls, and yet somehow Kerry is on the run.

I'm on the verge of going back to Nader. Or moving to Europe.

Re:Kerry's lameness

[hamburguesa]

are you talking about his manner of speech? no intention was made to disinvigorate the masses. I know Saddam was in photos shooting rivals, Haven't seen anything like that about Bush.

Re:Kerry's lameness

[cartervt2k]

I'd like to call Kerry an idiot for campaigning on his flimsy war record, but since his Senate record is worthless (and detremental to his cause), his only other option would be to discuss nothing of the past and only talk about what he could conceivably do in the future if elected president. However, his record of switching sides on key issues keeps coming back to him leaving people to wonder if he's really going to go through with the ideas he's laying out on the table.

Re:Kerry's lameness

[hamburguesa]

I know.... Theresa should have shopped for a more marketable senator to marry.

Wrong

[Rui del-Negro]

Those films are about Moore and Moore's movies. They are not about the other side of the issues Moore exposes.

They do not show any evidence that the invasion of Iraq was justified, they do not show any evidence that bin Ladin's family wasn't whisked away from the USA two days after the WTC attack, they do not show any evidence that Bush jumped into action as soon as he heard about the attacks instead of reading "My pet goat", and so on.

That would have been showing the other side of the story. The only thing a movie (or a book, or a site) about Moore achieves is boosting Moore's ego even more, and making him more important than he is.

The important thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it was made by Michael Moore (it wasn't, really, 80% of the movie is clips from news networks, etc., and was common knowledge, at least to people outside the USA). It's the issues it calls people's attention to.

And that's what some people try to avoid. Focus on Moore (or whoever the messenger is), try to divert people's attention from the message.

Moore didn't tell tell Paul Wolfowitz to lick his comb. He didn't tell Bush to read a children's book while his country was being attacked. He didn't drop bombs on Afghan and Iraqi civilians (many of whom actually admired the USA, and now hate it - the ones that lived, anyway). He didn't tell Colin Powell to go to the UN's general assembly and say that the USA had proof that Saddam had WMDs. Those things actually happened. All Moore did was put together news clips about those events and shout "hey, watch this".

And he's the bad guy? I don't get it. Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.

RMN
~~~

Al Qaeda means the Base

[Anonymous Coward]

Does any of that matter a lot to me? No, Once I saw GWB in his Tux say:
Here I am with the 'haves' [dramatic pause] and the 'have mores'. Some call you the elite [dramatic pause] I call you 'My Base'

Did Bush call his supporters al Qaeda? Suddenly, everything makes sense. :)

Air it, of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do anyone really think that America would collapse?
The most could happen is a change in the White House and or maybe Bush would face criminal charges.

So what?

That's what makes his work so popular

[Excen]

I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party

As I said in my subject, it's refreshing for many people, including myself, to see the spin tactics that the Republicans have honed perfected used against their own agenda. Mind you, it's a bad argument, but it's just so gratifying to see the F.U.D.-style of manipulation used to even out the political spectrum

Greatest Conspiracy

[superpulpsicle]

If you read the book "70 Greatest conspiracy of all time" there was a chapter about the initial gulf war. That despite Saddam being the opposing side, there was actually a financial transaction from Bush senior account to Saddam's. Now before the FBI show up at my frontdoor... how much is Bush junior paying Michael Moore.

And yet it generates discussion!

[OoSync]

I finally saw F911 two nights ago. Of course, its full of MM's opinions on matters, but the film forces something upon the viewer that is genuinely necessary:

It makes you think!

It shows that George W. Bush and the people in his administration are not the simple Mayberry-ites they try to project. These are people with histories and dealings with many of the bad actors in today's world. They have ties and influence (and influenced by) a lot of what is the core of today's terrorist regimes.

You can dispute the movie all you wish, but it makes you think and wonder what's really going on. Oh, and its highly hypocritical to hold MM to a such a high standard when the Bush administration is allowed a pass on too many matters.

I think everyone should see it. Be full-warned that it has a strong emotional thrust in the second half, and the last third is a good bit different. I'd say all of the contested distortions are in the first half of the movie.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

See other replies. If you can't see the right spin, then your so far right, anything in the middle you must be defining as left.

Enough is enough....

[cartervt2k]

You Dems need to heed the advice of your fellow 527 and "Move on" with the "Gore should have won" balderdash. Speaking of which, glad to hear Kerry is "reporting for duty" because the Swifties just sank his ship - just look at the polls. There's not a whole lot you can say when you make your service in Vietnam the central theme of your campaign when there's audio and video footage of you accusing your "band of brothers" of "razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan" all while throwing your medals over a fence. (Nevermind, lying about spending Christmas in Cambodia or meeting with the enemy on 3 separate occasions in Paris while his "band of brothers" was still fighting.) As far as your corpulent friend Mr. Moore, anyone with a scintilla of common sense knows facts can be minced to acheive a desired outcome. If any of us could see the cutting room floor of Farenheit 911, you'd see just what I'm talking about. (Anyone have an idea when he'll be releasing Farenheit 1971? - just curious)

Re:bite me asshat.

[be-fan]

But we aren't fighting those people! Those are American terrorists, and we're not doing anything about those!

Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

You are obviously some who has fallen for the "Fair and Balanced" and "No Spin Zone" marketing that Fox claims to be.

I'm not complaining that Fox news is conservative, but that it has ZERO standards when it comes to journalism and not much different from Al-Jazeera. The Fox network under Rupert Murdoch's extremely pro-Republician agenda to promote the right wing politicians and vilify left wing politics.

I suppose you are an independant just as Bill O'Reilly claims to be independant. LOL. I guess I can claim to be platform agnostic like Rob Enderle.

Lets start with your claim of Hannity & Colmes. They have Hannity as the strong right wing person and a weak squirrely little agreeable left wing guy for Hannity's counter part. A former Fox news producer has clearly stated that when it comes to their guest speakers they get strong Republicans and pseudo-Democrats or ones that can agree with the host. On O'Reilly anyone expressing their views to forcefully will have their microphones cut or ask to "Shut up" in a stunningly unprofessional way. So much for the professionalism, guess you don't find any Walter Cronkite, Peter Jenning or Larry King on Fox. Fox also doesn't invite people back who expressed strong difference of opinion back to the Fox network and they weed out strong Democratic voices. The number of times Fox invites Republicians to a Democrat is a 6 to 1 ratio. Of those Democrats Fox tends to get weak and agreeable Democrats

Fox news will allow their reporter who covers Bush in the 2000 election continue with his coverage even though the reporter's wife is campaigning with members of the Bush family. When CNN had a simliar reporter cover Gore and CNN found out that the reporter's spose was working with the Democrats, they pulled that reporter. Why? Because CNN didn't want a conflict of interest, something Fox doesn't really care about because they have NO standards when it comes to journalism. Then there is that whole paradoxical reference by Fox News host to "some people say". Quite often you'll hear people on Fox News quote "some people say" as a news source, this in journalism is an odd and not really acceptable because you are supposed to quote your source of information. What Fox News folks do is state their own opinion by saying "some people say ....". In journalism you are supposed to source your reference, yet Fox News network blatantly violate this basic doctrine for jounalism.

When broadcast news networks like NBC, ABC, CBS broadcast the election 2004 coverage or count down the days. They don't have a Hannity telling you "180 more days before George Bush gets relected". You can't do that in journalism, one ought to say "180 more days for the 2004 election". I laught when I hear Fox's "We report. You decide". Whatever...

Another point I'd like to state is that Fox News is an expert in character assasination and political vilification. Take Richard C Clarke, when he came out to apologize to the 9/11 families Fox News worked overtime to project Clarke as a man who wanted to sell a book, instead of a man who worked closely with the president and was able in very clear terms show that the president priorities and agenda on Iraq where misleading and based on inaccurate information. When Fox News shows John Kerry they play comical French music in the background and their staff state and I quote "John Kerry looks French". WTF is that all about? First its a baseless attack on Kerry, to make him look less American and there by make him look not to be a patriot. Second, I think its racist to the French use those terms and language. Why doesn't the the Fox News use the same music and tone and state "John Kerry looks African" or "John Kerry looks Communist", because they'd be taken to the cleaners. The French are just an easy target of American ire and who is going to stand up for the French right? It just goes to show the conservative mind set that the Fox News folks have with other people of differenent cultures and opinions.

Fox ne

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[johnnyb]

"On O'Reilly anyone expressing their views to forcefully will have their microphones cut or ask to "Shut up" in a stunningly unprofessional way. "

This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either (a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or (b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.

And then about CNN - you don't think it's a conflict of interest for Carville and Begala to work directly for the Kerry campaign _and_ be on TV? The fact that you can point out one instance of Fox News doing the right thing and CNN doing the wrong this doesn't mean it's an epidemic. Are you sure you're not just ignoring the times when CNN is unethical?

'They don't have a Hannity telling you "180 more days before George Bush gets relected". You can't do that in journalism, one ought to say "180 more days for the 2004 election".'

Except that Hannity is not a journalist. Hannity & Colmes is a right-wing/left-wing slugfest. Period. Hannity pulls for the right and Colmes pulls for the left. I don't see the problem here.

""Where WMDs found in Iraq?""

Yes. The fact that you aren't aware of them just means that you don't pay enough attention. The fact that Fox News watchers probably have other sources of news as well (other than Fox or the traditional media) is not what the traditional media wants. For information on Iraq's WMD finds, see here and here, not to mention the WMD that were shipped to Syria and used in an attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan.

""Is there a connection between Iraq and 9/11 ?""

Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time.

Anyway, it's a long connection, but the imminent connection is between the larger war on terror and Iraq, and between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which noone denies exists.

Of course, the people who don't believe network news don't come up with the same answers as the people who do, but that doesn't make their answers wrong. What can I say but look up the facts and check them yourself.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time.

Uhhh what? OK. You have proven yourself to be out to lunch and not worth paying attention to. McVeigh was working for the lunatic fringe of the right-wing here in the U.S. He was part of that freaked out militia/gun nut crowd up in Michigan. Check out some Morris Dees books and the website for the Southern Poverty Law Center if you want to really learn something. Meanwhile, lay off the crack dude.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[Minna Kirai]

This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either

He's stopped it NOW, after a public confrontation with a totally embarrassing clip-tape of 40 "Shut ups".

(a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or

Jeremy Glick wasn't lying.

(b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.

"Shut up" is how O'Reilly dodges a question.

Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard

Funny. McVeigh, who did the OKC bombing, was in the US Army, which killed members of the Republican Guard... there's a connection I guess.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

Previous comments: "On O'Reilly anyone expressing their views to forcefully will have their microphones cut or ask to "Shut up" in a stunningly unprofessional way. "

This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either (a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or (b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.

Thanks. You just confirmed that O'Reilly does say "Shut up" to his guests in a unprofessional manner. All you did is try and justify it with your weak and twisted reasoning. O'Reilly isn't a man who can listen to facts or reason. He just likes to shout and cause a lot of drama. I have very little regard to people like O'Reilly. I'd rather see two intelligent well informed and respectful opponents debate things out. With O'Reilly its about him shouting and getting in the last word. You can't take an immature guy like him seriously

Yes. The fact that you aren't aware of them just means that you don't pay enough attention. The fact that Fox News watchers probably have other sources of news as well (other than Fox or the traditional media) is not what the traditional media wants. For information on Iraq's WMD finds, see here and here, not to mention the WMD that were shipped to Syria and used in an attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan.

You really buy into this don't you. Look, go read a real newspaper or something that has standards in journalism. Quote me something from the Wall Street Jounral or another conservative newspaper that has similar standards, not the radical news sources you've quoted me. Both Colin Powell and David Kelly have both said that WMDs will probably never be found in Iraq. Fresh doubts over Iraq's arsenal. Its a shame and tragic that Hans Blix was not allowed to finish his job and the administration was just itching to get into Iraq, damn the consequences.

Rice "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11 "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida

Previous comment: "Is there a connection between Iraq and 9/11 ?"

Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time. Anyway, it's a long connection, but the imminent connection is between the larger war on terror and Iraq, and between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which noone denies exist

Apparently, I'm separated from the President by two people from two different sets of people. Guess what? It doesn't mean much. John Walker Lindh (American Taliban) and Richard Reed (shoe bomber) are citizens of the U.S. and the U.K. yet do we claim that our country and others harbor terrorists? What kind of asinine argument are you trying to pull when you say that a country is responsible for terror because the terrorist lived there. Well, didn't Mohammad Atta live in Hamburg, Germany. Maybe, we should invade Germany, just in case they forgot their lesson right? Listen buddy, maybe you should take a closer look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, instead of barking up the wrong tree (or country so to speak) and lay of the crack. The irony of me arguing this with you is that you are the polar opposite of a Islamic fundamentalist. You'r

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[johnnyb]

First of all, on the day of the bombing, Congressman Istook told a reporter that they had known that this was coming for a long time, and that it was connected to the middle east. In addition, the day of the bombing, ALL ATF AGENTS had mysteriously been out of the building. Others in the building were alerted not to be there on that day because the building was under threat.

State Representative Charles Key here in Oklahoma did his own investigation which showed a lot of the public information about the OKC bombing to be false.

At one time Wolfowitz mentioned that the Iraq conection was worth looking into.

According to the New York Times, in Afghanistan there were documents about bomb recipes, one of which was marked "the kind used in Oklahoma City". They had more information on the recipe for the bomb than we do.

But I really suggest you read Jayna Davis's book The Third Terrorist or the book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the politics of Terror. Jayna Davis worked for KFOR in OKC and followed up on the story, and wrote a book on it.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

At one time Wolfowitz mentioned that the Iraq connection was worth looking into

Of course Wolfowitz one of the "Vulcans" would say something like that, but what is his proof? Even before the current administration took to power, Wolfowitz has always been eyeing to get back into Iraq, for the oil and to finish off Saddam. Hey, I not Saddam fan, but I would have rather spend $200 billion dollars and all those troops searching through East Afghanistan and West Pakistan looking for Osama bin Laden. Remember him? He's the guy directly responsible for 9/11. How come the at the RNC convention they didn't mention much of the "O" name?

Please provide news sources and links (from credible and well respected) from conservative (e.g. WSJ) and non-conservative sources you are drawing claims from your last reply. You quote that the New York Times said " According to the New York Times, in Afghanistan there were documents about bomb recipes, one of which was marked "the kind used in Oklahoma City". They had more information on the recipe for the bomb than we do." Please show the link. Secondly, the CIA trained the Mujahideen in making bombs and also kindly provided them with stinger missiles, so that explains the bomb making recipes. Storing a bunch of fertilizer in a truck as in OKC bombing is not exactly the most high tech method. In fact any one with some basic chemistry or watches enough episodes of Macgyver will be able to make their own low tech explosive. Your argument falls way short of a smoking gun.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[johnnyb]

I gave you two sources, either of which can be checked out from your local library. I don't understand your insistance that it come from "mainstream" sources. The book The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror was pretty well sourced from what I recall. The Third Terrorist is shorter, and deals a lot more with the middle-eastern connection. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror deals with a number of wierd things about OKC, plus how they relate to other world events, so it's pretty thick.

I'm sorry I don't remember links from every story I've ever read. Perhaps when I get a few hundred hours of free time I'll provide you with links to every news report I ever read on the subject. However, some good links can be found on jaynadavis.com.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

Speaking of books. Should you get the inkling to read these books.

American Dynasty by Kevin Phillipsformer Nixon analyst and as a former principal electoral theoretician. He was key as a Republican strategist.

The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill former Treasury Secretary, who was made to leave after correctly stating the cost of the Iraq war was going to cost $200 billion.

Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward Bob Woodward reveals in Plan of Attack, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were part of a group leading the charge to war while Secretary of State Colin Powell, General Tommy Franks, and others actively questioned the plan to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks while war in Afghanistan was still being waged

Against All Enemies by Richard C Clarke by former terrorism czar in several administrations including the recent one.

Finally that brings me to your book suggestion by Jayna Davis. Seen to be drinking beer with an former Iraqi soldier is one hell of a poor connection to state that Iraq had something to do with the OKC bombing. In fact in this country evidence like that is thrown out of court in this country. Did you know that Dr. Ahmed Chalabi the man who fed information of the fictitious WMDs and the administration used to him as their primary source invade Iraq (even though the State Dept didn't trust him) and the man who sat with Laura Bush during George Bush's state of the union speech last year, is now under criminal investigation for wrong doing in Iraq? Should I tie the president in Chalabi's dirty deeds if I was to use your high standards of guilty by association? Look, the authors listed above have a lot more credentials in their pinky than this Davis person you recommend. One should have better standards and scrutinize the source of your information if you want to have some credibility when you make those claims.

I'm sorry I don't remember links from every story I've ever read. Perhaps when I get a few hundred hours of free time I'll provide you with links to every news report I ever read on the subject.

Thats a shame. I have 3100+ bookmarks of topics that interest me, but not everything I read. I have 300+ links from solid sources on Bush-Iraq issue itself. Comes in handy for those occasions when I run into an extremist on Slashdot suffering from delusions :) As for your "mainstream" comments, well my interpretation is that you shy away from well known and respected sources of news that have standards in journalism. Come on, give me something from the WSJ or its respected conservative equivalent. If you can't then your argument holds no water and just sounds like a wacko getting high on some conspiracy theory, reading news from very dubious sources.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[johnnyb]

Tommy Franks against the war? I don't think so. He spoke to a local business meeting here, and was very much for it.

I've been planning on reading Plan of Attack for a while. Against All Enemies is not on my reading list because I trust Clarke as far as I could throw him.

If you think that drinking beer is the only evidence Jayna Davis has, you obviously haven't read her stuff.

"If you can't then your argument holds no water and just sounds like a wacko getting high on some conspiracy theory, reading news from very dubious sources."

Keep on trusting the establishment media. They're the ones feeding you information like CBS's documents regarding Bush's National Guard service (shown to be falsifications by others you wouldn't consider mainstream enough). Honestly, I have no trust for any of the major networks, including fox, and very few of the print magazines/newspapers (our own newspaper - the Tulsa World - is chock full of disinformation).

Anyway, The Price of Loyalty looks like a good read. Thanks for recommending it.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

Anyway, The Price of Loyalty looks like a good read. Thanks for recommending it.

You are welcome. I forgot to mention one book that looks interesting, but I haven't looked through it myself yet. Hence, I can't endorse it, although it looks like an interesting read.

Pakistan : In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan

I'm still trying to track down a paper written by a PhD student at our university, who spent time with the Pakistani military elite and picked up a great game of squash (like racquetball) while he was there. He is of German,Pakistani, Indian decent and his paper was about how Pakistan or any country has the ability to control other countries or other's politics through religion. Or in Pakistan's case, the religious madrassas that are unregulated/unchecked spread which spread Wahhabism in a viral manner, giving birth to the Taliban. Which the Pakistani ISI (Intelligence like CIA, FSB, Mossad,M16) then the used the Taliban to have complete influence over Afghanistan. The Taliban as you already know where the stubborn hosts and harborers of al-Qaeda. Until we attacked the Taliban and which I highly approve of. I only sadden that we did not keep the pressure up and got distracted in other unnecessary wars. Resulting in a reemergence of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[johnnyb]

I found this -- if you're interested in a WSJ article reprinted on Jayna's website:

http://www.jaynadavis.com/story090502-wsj1.html

Re:Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

I really appreciate the WSJ link. I was hoping for a news report, instead of a op-ed or commentary piece. You see, I have several journalist friends who worked in newspapers and magazines and back then when I used to send them op-ed pieces (from what you probably would consider liberal sources) trying to support my view point, they didn't accept those op-ed pieces. I didn't seem to understand it at first. However, later I understood the style of writing is different and in terms of journalism reporting, op-ed don't need to follow the same practices. I've read the commentary you sent, and I'll keep it in mind. As for myself, I'll read op-ed or commentaries and bookmark a few if I like the piece for myself to refer back in the future, to refresh the line of thought or reasoning. However, I've learnt not to forward op-ed as my proof of my argument in itself. Opinion and commentary can not be proven wrong, which is why one can say anything they want to and doesn't fall under news reporting or investigative journalism.

Re:Hell yeah

[tetsuji]

I call bullshit. Everyone knows there are no conservatives in Boulder.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, fundamentalism has grown rapidly in Iraq since the American invasion.
They have even attacked secular restistance groups.

The US is planting the seeds of fundamentalism all over the place.

At the RNC

[gerf]

Did you see the pictures of the protestors during the Republican National Convention? Some of them were still wearing their press passes! I sh1t you not.

MOD PARENT DOWN, WHINING IN ALL CAPS!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like YELLING!

Uniter vs Divider

[BSDimwit]

It amazes me that people think a president who runs as a uniter should automatically ignore all the things he believes in just to placate the other side of the aisle. The "Left" is just as much at fault for there not being a meeting of minds in the middle. Why is it only the president's responsibility to move toward the center. Daschle and rest of the Democrats in the Senate have done nothing since the inauguration but throw road blocks in the Bush's way. From fillibustering Judicial appointments to voting against a spending package to support the troops, the list goes on.

If you were to ask any true conservative about many of the pieces of legislation that have passed on G.W. Bush's watch, many would say that they either don't like them or think that they aren't very conservative. From the medicare drug benefit to the No child left behind act, time and time again, this president has definately leaned more toward the left than he is given credit for by the liberals. Sure, the war and all that entails is controversial, as well as the tax cuts he has delivered...(controversial to the Democrats anyway), but you can hardly say that all of Bush's action since he has taken office have been nothing but partisan...for that's a bold face lie.

If you honestly think that a Republican president should do nothing to but champion Democrat ideology so that you will think he truly is a uniter instead of a divider, then you really need to wake up. The fact remains that Gore lost the election...legally. Popular vote means very little in our election process for the Presidency and until you and your friends get that part of the Constitution changed, we have no recourse but to follow the rules until it is.

Rule change not necessary

[NigelJohnstone]

I re-read your first comment and thought it deserved a fuller response than me simply explaining what an 'overvote' is.

Consider the case of badly marked votes on a paper scanner machine. You might think that to count under or overvotes or bad votes on those machines would take a change in the rules, but this isn't true.

From Greg Palasts investigation:

"Sancho's used paper ballots. These ballots are read by machine, "optically scanned." He had set up a voting machine to demonstrate its use. I tried it out, voting for Pat Buchanan and Ralph
Nader - a deliberate error as a gag for a documentary film crew. I marked the ballot, then put it into a slot in the machine and
- grrrr-zunt! - it shot back into my hands, recognizing my error.

You cannot make a voting mistake on this machine, called an "Accuvote." Mighty cool. But if you can't make a mistake, how did so many votes "spoil" in paper ballot counties? I asked a clerk: Does every county using paper ballots have this machine?

The answer - yes and no - was disturbing. The adjoining county, Gadsden, also had machine-read paper ballots, but did not activate the reject mechanism. Make one wrong mark on your ballot in Gadsden and your ballot disappears into the machine - it will not be counted....

So I asked what I call The Florida Question: "By any chance, do you know the racial profile of counties where machines accept bad ballots?"
Then I got The Florida Answer: "We've been waiting for someone to ask us that." The clerk then pulled out a huge multicolored sheet, listing, for every Florida county, the number of
ballots not counted. The proportion of uncounted ballots to the Black population, county by county, was a nearly perfect match."

--------------

If the machine's could be set not to accept badly marked papers, yet they accepted badly marked papers in black districts, then those machines were set to accept bad papers in black districts.

Since blacks vote more for democrats, it was an attempt to maximize bad voting papers in mainly black/Democrat districts and minimize them in white/Republican ones.

The white's got to retry, the black's didn't.

So if you were calculating what would have happened if those machines were set equally under the SAME RULES, you would count overmarked and unmarked ballots in black voting districts because those ballots wouldn't have been over or undermarked if the machines hadn't have been 'tweaked'.

Just like the US and Iraq ???

[tygr007]

> Just like the US and Iraq, I suppose.

This would be the case if the US had have carpet-bombed Bagdad, Basra, Nadzaf, wiped out few villages, their troops tortured, killed, disappeared, raped civilians off the streets as a part of any military campaign waged there etc; (roughly 1/3 - 1/4 of the nation would get killed or lost http://www.hrw.org/photos/2002/chechnya/), the US press would had then refused to publicize proofs of those atrocities, coz it would be non-patriotic. If the US representatives would refused to negotiate or even talk with any (even the moderate and certainly not fundamentalist) representatives of the country in question (Maschadov in the Chechnya case).
If in the case of nearly any trouble the US press would say "a person of Arab (Caucasian in the Russian case) look was seen there".

Under such circumstances you may say that it is "just like the US in Iraq"

Forthemore, it seems that the Beslan attack has been performed mostly by Ossetians, Ingush and Arab muslim radicals. Whoever was it has surely nothing to do with Chechen citizens nor Maschadov.

Speaking to the people

[danila]

Everyone in the discussion keeps mentioning how the media uses propaganda, politicians uses propaganda, everyone keeps simplifying real issues and concentrating on insignificant trivialities such as how many times Kerry flip-flopped and whether Bush deserted from military service and served a sentence for cocain.

Meanwhile, across the Mexican Gulf the all-time favourite boogeyman, Fidel Castro, continues to give well-researched several hour long speeches, filled with numbers, facts and doesn't feel the need to dumb down everything to the level of stupid general public. May be when you believe that your real support is the proletariat and not your corporate buddies, you tend not to ignore the people, but respect them.

One may endlessly argue about how many dissidents Castro threw in jail (for CIA-sponsored sabotage) and how many people live in poverty because of some inefficiencies in state-owned enterprises (and inhumane draconian sunctions against Cuba by the US), but if you concentrate on communicating with people, I think Mr. Castro wins hands-down over both Bush and Kerry, and pretty much any American politicians.

Re:Speaking to the people

[DerWulf]

except that castro isn't elected at all. He basically owns cuba, so much for communism. And if castro and his gang of 'more equals' are so good at communicating and keeping in touch with the 'proletariat' how come you never see people risking their lifes trying to cross over from florida in fruit baskets?

I never thought I would see someone defending an obviously corrupt and repressive regime in my lifetime. Well, never say never as they say.

Re:Speaking to the people

[danila]

Except that he is. The UN didn't have objections over the last Cuban elections, which is more than could be said about the US. And the election process in Cuba is much more democractic (I am speaking about their Congress, since the president is not elected by popular vote, though in the US it isn't either). TV ads^H^H^H propaganda is not allowed, candidates are selected on much lower level, nominated by people and not by Party, Party has no say (at least officially, but this is more than you could say about the USSR) in the elections, etc.

And that Castro owns Cuba is a lie, or at least a completely unsubstantiated claim. As for the asylum seekers, incomes in Cuba are "not too great", that's a fact, though to a very large extent the US can be blamed for this with their draconian and totally unreasonable sanctions. However, the number of people fleeing Cuba are relatively low, compared with the population. And people come to the US from Mexico too, and from other countries as well - this is more an indicator of the US being perceived as "the land of opportunity" than of Cuban president not keeping in touch with the 'proletariat'. Among most Cubans the approval ratings of Fidel are quite high and have been high for a long time.

Re:bite me asshat.

[lee7guy]

Yes, I am very much up to date with the situation in Chechnya. What I am not up to date with are the "overwhelming ongoing data regarding Al Quada's operations in Chechnya." or "There are financial ties, operational ties, recruiting ties, etc.".

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chechnian rebels are now Islamic, but they used to be secular -

non-religious.

Totally false.

You should try reading Tolstoy's Hadji Murad some time. You will see that even back in the 1840s, the religious and political problems between Chechnya and Russia had been going on for hundreds of years. The main difference is the present and the past is that, though Putin has been inexcusably ruthless by modern Western standards, he almost looks like quite a nice guy when compared to the way that the Czars and the Soviets responded to rebellion.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Mr_Huber]

So, has the cost of the war been figured into the price of gas at the pump? What's the payback schedule?

Whether or not you believe oil was a motivating factor for the war, the fact remains that we are now in charge of the second largest oil reserve in the world. We are paying companies like Haliburton to run these production facilities and put the oil on the market. This increases the supply, lowering the per barrel price.

How about the cleanup costs for MTBE? Are those computed into the price at the pump? What about the costs of cleaning up roadside lead left from pre-1970s gasoline? What about the health care costs of the lung damage being caused by ozone damage and soot? Are those factored in?

Having an alternative fuel that makes economic sense will seem impossible until the real costs of gasoline are represented in the price at the pump.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends, are you really serving in the guard, or did you get lost on the way to the base and just went back home?

The eve of BS

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt AM talk radio hosts will take a time-out weeks before the election. If they broadcast their crap, Moore should be able to broadcast his.

Personally, I think info-tainment that pretends to be good news or debate is really exploitive.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that "winning the war" was not an option. The US had two options: 1) Kill them all 2) Leave.

We thought about it really hard, and it was touch-and-go for a while there, but in the end we left. It was the only honerable choice and the only *policy* moment in that war that we don't have to be ashamed of.

If you feel otherwise, please describe to me your plan for winning a war that we committed more and more troops to over a 10 year period and yet continued to lose ground in. While detailing that plan, please remember that most of the "enemy" were not an organized military fighting force that even a total razing of Hanoi would have stopped.

Re:bite me asshat.

[gearmonger]

Kick-ass post...made me laugh even though it's so saddeningly true. :-) :-(

Re:Hell yeah

[ageoffri]

So close to the truth. Of course hardly anyone at IBM lives in Boulder and the plant isn't located in downtown Boulder, closer to Longmont.

Etats-Unians elections are simple

[Anonymous Coward]

100% of the popular vote dont count In the US election , the Election is won by the guy who win the most Grand elector/states votes.

Thats what Bush won in the last election

All he is doing is fighting fire with fire

[tstoneman]

(Full-disclosure: I am going to vote for Nader, I hate the Democrats and Republicans equally)

Have you seen the lies and half-truths and propaganda spread by the Republicans? Zen Miller, Dick Cheney, the dishonorable ridiculing of Kerry's Purple Hearts? Did you see the Republicans wearing little bandages on their faces with purple hearts on them to mock John Kerry's war record? How stupid is that??? How insulting is it, since he actually went to Vietnam, and he actually saved people's lives... because he didn't die, or get a grave wound, it discounts his heroic actions?

When firemen go into burning buildings and save peoples lives, but they don't get burnt, should we not consider them heroes?

All the lies and spins that the Republicans are spreading is no worse than what Michael Moore is doing. Yes, what he says has a total slant towards the image that he wants to represent, but so what? He is doing EXACTLY what other politicians do, yet the politicians turn around and have the nerve to say that he is wrong. Politicians don't just speak lies, they breathe lies. That is their nature.

The only way to fight them is fighting fire with fire, and I say good for Michael Moore... give ALL these politicians a taste of their own medicine. The only difference is that he is much, much better at it than them.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, clearly we should have just kept on truckin' there in Vietnam. I think you all are just disappointed that there weren't more photos of naked children screaming as they died from the phosphor coating and burning their skin.

I think if I was there and I saw that, I'd come home and say "nasty shit happened there that should never happen again" too. I guess thats what makes the difference between a human doing his duty to his country and a mindless, spineless killing machine. One of them regrets what he's done when its over; the other doesn't care, wants to blame someone else for their actions, or worst of all: enjoyed it.

As for "only reporting what he heard", Kerry's sworn statement to the government is that he participated in these activities. Though I suppose what with the whole "Swift Boats" crusade, sworn testimony just doesn't count when its not what you really want the truth to have been. And lets say both Kerry and the swift boaters were lying when they gave their respective sworn statements so many years ago, there's a lot more Vietnam vets out there who have also sworn to these atrocities too.

Do you really think they all lied to the government so their good buddy could get elected a few decades later?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Viet Cong used Kerry's speech as propoganda and as a tool for mentally torturing our troops that were still POWs

Yes, and one weakness of a free country is that people are allowed to say things that are embarassing to that country, and which enemies can use to their advantage.

I understand that some of the people who had to undergo listening to Kerry's speach to Congress while PoWs (and presumably a lot worse at the same time) will never be able to let that go. It's going to be impossible for some of them to ever seperate in their minds Kerry's words from the conditions and abuse they were subject to.

But, if we cannot support a man for speaking what he felt to be the truth then... what WERE/ARE we fighting for?

Let's not all fall into the trap of thinking that the Viet Cong would not have come up with some other way to demoralize PoWs if they didn't get ahold of Kerry's testimony.

Mod Parent Up

[rsmith-mac]

n/t

You are pretty much correct

[Sycraft-fu]

It's not actually hardcore liberals really, just everyone in general. I have, in the same 8 hour period, had a conversation with two different people one who believed that CNN was an ultra liberal (and thus throughly despicable) publication and the other that believed CNN wasn an ultra conservative (and thus throughly despicable) publication. I've talked to many more that, while not as extreme, see it as either liberal or conservative bias and don't like it that much because of it.

Well what's happening here? The publication, as a whole, can't very well be biased both liberal AND conservative. I mean an individual story can, but if the over all publication has a bias either way, it must be one and not the other.

Of course the real answer isn't the publication's bias, it's the readers'. It's much like white bias. Our eyes will bias to whatever temperature of light we are in at the time, and we'll see it as white. However the difference between a hot white like a computer screen (9300k, a very blue white) and the sun (5000k, a fairly red white) is significant. Doesn't matter, to us we percieve the one we are in as "white".

Same with temperature. Heat is molecular motion. The more of it, the more heat energy something has. It's an absolute scale, with 0 being none, and going up form there. However we call things "hot" or "cold". What does that mean? Even very cold things have some heat, so what do the terms mean?

Again, a case of bias. If we touch something and heat energey transfers from us to it, we call it cold, if energy transfers from it to us, we call it hot. It's simply a matter of it's percieved temerature, relitive to us. Our bias influences what we think of it.

So it goes with the media as well. There is bias in the media, I mean it's human created so that's a given, however I think it's generally much less than the screamers would like to proclaim. Fox is conseravitive and NPR is liberal at least as far as their commentators go, but to call either extreme is silly. The extreme bias lies not in the media, but in the person watching/reading/hearing it.

Fox news is Al-Jazeera of the Western world

[saha]

Please refer to my previous statement

memo for next time

[Run4yourlives]

you try to sound smarter than you are:

It's you're not your when you mean to say you are.

Re:memo for next time

[orpx]

wow, you managed to point out some inane aspect when you dont even try to digest what i actually said. you try. i do.

Re:memo for next time

[orpx]

keep sending your memos also, for that is what your life is worth

book by Tom Clancy

[iriles]

In your link about "unprecedented corruption" I found a reference to a book "Battle Ready" by Tom Clancy and General Tony Zinni that seems to be in opposition of the war on Iraq.

It's interesting, how many former military and intelligence personnel have come out against the war. Zinni, who was the U.S. Central Command Commander in Chief, sums up some of the main reasons why I don't support the war nicely:

"false rationales presented as a justification; a flawed strategy; lack of planning; the unnecessary alienation of our allies; the underestimation of the task; the unnecessary distraction from real threats; and the unbearable strain dumped on our overstretched military."

Too bad Kerry supports this mess.

How did F9/11 "lie, mislead, or slander"?

[0x0d0a]

Please, tell me. What about F9/11 did you take issue with? I see a *horde* of claims that Michael Moore is wrong and a liar and whatnot, but not one convincing claim that makes me think "yeah, that movie is BS". I haven't seen F9/11, but I have seen Bowling for Columbine. I think that Moore focuses too much on the emotional side of things instead of the factual -- the Charleton Heston interview footage did nothing to help proove Moore's point factually, but was emotionally powerful. However, using emotional arguments is *very* different from actually lying. Rove has Bush making emotional appeals all the time, like to courage and strength and whatnot.

Re:Hell yeah

[SilentChris]

Never in the history of the world has a true democracy developed from another country coming in and pointing a gun at the head of the current leader. Never. Find me one example that this could potentially become a democracy and I'll be very impressed.

You missed the point.

[Run4yourlives]

You won't see Chomsky calling bush a liar.

And that's why the average joe knows nothing about Chomsky, or his (very intellegent) opinions.

Moore speaks to the average american.

Re:You missed the point.

[bigmammoth]

"This approach ... allows him to be become a successful information distributor"

=

"Moore speaks to the average American."

I think we are mostly on the same page... no points missed that I can see.

Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't read about pet goats for ten minutes. In fact, I have a vague feeling that virtually any other president in US history would have immediately left for an emergency meeting with his staff. What Bush did was like someone sitting watching TV after being told his house was on fire. You can run away or you can try to put it out, but only a moron sits there doing nothing.

But hey, "you are not a Bush supporter", eh? Imagine if you were...

Re:Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a feeling that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't read about pet goats for ten minutes.

No, because he knew the Japanese were going to attack from intelligence reports months in advance, and realized he needed to permit Japan to launch the attack in order to change US opinion about going to war with the French and Brits.

At least that's what many historians and experts have said - with more credibility than any Michael Moore film.

So what would you do if someone whispered into your ear: "A plane has just crashed into one of the the World Trade center buildings" - grab the nuclear football and cut loose? Run for cover? Tell the children they're all gonna die? Remember your history that planes have crashed into skyscrapers before, such as the B-29 bomber that went into the Empire State Building, and go about being a president while your people gather data?

Real leaders do not react, they make rational, planned, proactive decisions. Study military history: history's military leaders always chose their battleground, rather than let their opponent select it for them. In this one moment, we all had an unrehearsed opportunity to realize Bush wasn't some legislative parrot like Kerry and Edwards, but a leader of the executive branch.

Re:Are you really that dense?

[ssstraub]

[q]So what would you do if someone whispered into your ear: "A plane has just crashed into one of the the World Trade center buildings" - grab the nuclear football and cut loose? Run for cover? Tell the children they're all gonna die? Remember your history that planes have crashed into skyscrapers before, such as the B-29 bomber that went into the Empire State Building, and go about being a president while your people gather data?[/q]

A. Get the fuck to somewhere protective, since I am the fucking leader of the country and arguably the biggest target.

B. Figure out what planes have been hijacked, and where they are currently.

This isn't what comes to your mind?

Re:Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing comes into his mind, he's a republican.

Re:Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing comes into his mind, he's a republican.

Remember comments like this and you'll understand why you'll be working in food service the rest of your career.

Re:Are you really that dense?

[jnicholson]

At that time, was there any evidence to suggest it might have been deliberate? If I had been president, I would certainly have continued what I was doing. I probably would also have instructed my speechwriters to start working on some sympathy & strength speech, since the president is supposed to react to that kind of thing.

Head for the nearest bunker? Ground all aircraft in the US? Nuke the world? I think any of those'd be an overreaction with the data available at the time.

Whether or not the guy's an idiot, his actions during that time do not constitute evidence of it.

Re:Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

He knew about the first plane hitting the towers before going into the class. He heard about the second one in class, and was (reportedly) told "America is under attack."

So, yes, he knew it was deliberate. There was more than enough "evidence" to "suggest" it. Back at the White House, the real leaders of the executive branch had sprung into action (by hiding in bunkers and getting the Pentagon on the phone).

If someone had told you, as president, "A tactical nuke just landed on Wilmington", would you have continued reading your See Spot Run? Or would you think, "Shit! There could be more on the way! Get me to the hotline!"

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Re:Are you really that dense?

[RobNich]

A. Get the fuck to somewhere protective, since I am the fucking leader of the country and arguably the biggest target.
And since he's arguably the biggest target, he doesn't run around making rash decisions about his own security. It is the job of the Secret Service to keep the President safe. If they had had a safer place to put him immediately, they would have put him there. It is not his job, and he would not be able to do it--he's not familiar with the area, didn't come weeks ahead of time to observe the area, determine routes, set up guard stations, safe houses, etc.

B. Figure out what planes have been hijacked, and where they are currently.
Not only is that not the President's job, he doesn't have the means to do it. It is the job of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who would report to the President when they had it done. He knew, as most intelligent people do, that the FAA has procedures to handle these things, and he knew that they were doing their job.

Re:Are you really that dense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so, imagine he had done exactly the opposite. Would you criticize him, or would you defend him exactly with the arguments that other people are now using against him (and which you dismiss as irrelevant)?

You're a republican zealot who will smile and cheer whatever that moron does. If he sent you to Guantanamo and fucked you in the ass you'd point out how anal sex is, "all things considered, the right thing to do".

Re:Are you really that dense?

[RobNich]

If he had done the exact opposite, the press would not have covered the story and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You wouldn't have cared.

Except that you would probably be attacking him for being irrational etc. I am not defending him, I am having a discussion about a specific incident, and giving my opinion regarding it. The fact that you assume that I am a zealot leads me to believe that you are in fact such a zealot, and that you would attack Bush regardless of his actions.

Re:Hell yeah

[SilentChris]

"Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%."

And did the employment rate plummet in the same way during the first 4 years of Clinton's presidency as it has with Bush?

sure

[fw3]

I expect bush has access to data that you and I don't.

That not withstanding GWB's response to 'Iraq did not materially support or enable Al Quaeda in this' has been reported as 'Find me a connection to Iraq, it has to exist.'. Guess what, when you tell an agency what data / conclusions you want sure enough they can generate reports to match. That process isn't called intelligence, it's called making a culture of 'yes-men'.

So crap yourself, Bush as portrayed by his own nat'l security adviser went into office focused on some mythical big picture, and ignored actual data which ran counter to what he wanted to see.

*After* 9/11 Bush proposed *exactly* the same department of 'homeland security' in name, structure and purpose that has been proposed by rudd/hollings, and which our 'war president' had rejected 6 months prior to the attacks.

I also agreed with many of GWB's reasons for ousting Saddam Hussein, but not his unilateral/blindered approach, and certainly not his lying to the nation and the world about the reasons for starting this war.

We and our children will be paying the financial cost of this war for a decade, and the cost to the respect of our nation for many decades.

Missed the target

[Rui del-Negro]

That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes.

Trying to shoot the messenger and divert people's attention from the message.

Re:Missed the target

[Abcd1234]

Sounds like standard conservative strategy to me.

Re:Missed the target

[rpdillon]

Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.

And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.

Further, its arguable if your statement is even valid; Farenhype911 may very well be about the "other side" of the issues Moore raises, but since its not out yet, I think we are both speculating. However, I did watch the trailer and it seems to be *only* about those issues (terrorism, 9/11, the war in Iraq). No ad hominem attacks against Moore were present in the trailer.

Where do you get your information that says otherwise?

Re:Missed the target

[ibbey]

Well, sometimes the "messenger" bears some scrutiny. Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.

And just as determining whether a witness is credible in court is a valid procedure for determining if their testimony is valid, so is analyzing whether Moore is a credible source of information on Bush. He may have done research, but he certainly has an agenda he's pushing, and its not objective fact reporting.

Once again, don't criticize Moore as the messenger without equally criticizing Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Drudge... They all use exactly the same techniques to support their arguements. The only differences between Moore & the rest are 1) their agenda, and 2) their format.

Re:Missed the target

[rpdillon]

Your assertion is absurd. Just because I criticize the one political-fringe activist does not require me to also criticize every *other* political-fringe activist. Since I'm addressing Moore, let's talk about Moore. Anything else is offtopic.

I grow weary of "but conservatives have an agenda too" arguments. Its interesting, obvious and completely irrelevant. Lots of politicians have agendas, but again, that's not the point. The point is I object to Moore's "documentary" for the reasons already stated - it intentionally misleads people, and anyone with enough motivation to do research from multiple sources will discover that quite a few of the conclusions Moore wants you to draw from the footage he shows are, in fact, incorrect.

The fact that this happens all the time, or that someone else does it from the right wing, or that it fits within the definition of "documentary" are superfluous. I think it is irresponsible; I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side.

Re:Missed the target

[ibbey]

The right has consistently painted Moore as a propagandist. Well he is. He admits it.

And I don't fault the right for having an agenda, of course they do. That's their job. I fault them for lying to further there agenda, and then criticizing the left when they do the same. Those who live in glass houses... If you criticize Moore for his dishonesty, without criticizing Rush, Anne Coulter, etc. then you are just as dishonest as they are.

"I would love to see the day when people make documentaries that try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side".

And I would love to see the day when talk radio hosts try to be more balanced, and to show both sides of an issue, rather than taking just one side. Of course, there are numerous unbiased documentaries. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room in the world for opinionated documentaries as well. What it sounds like you really want is documentaries that agree with your point of view. Fortunately, your goal hasn't came about yet. But if Bush gets four more years...

Documentary???

[deranged unix nut]

Fahrenheit 9/11 is about as documentary as Starship Troopers!

The 9/11 commission report is out in paperback and it is very readable...go read it.

Democrats are conservative...

[Run4yourlives]

Compared to the rest of the world.

Just because you're comparing them to gun-toting religious freaks doesn't mean they're liberal.

Osama is pretty conservative, does that make him the smartest?

Re:bite me asshat.

[killjoe]

Or that all the targets were prominent democrats? No wonder the justice dept isn't investigating this all that hard. Better to go after those evil people distributing dope to cancer patients.

Great response from Aladdin Casino

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thought that most people would enjoy reading this as much as I did...The Aladdin Casino's Response couldn't be much better!!


Linda Ronstadt, Aladdin Casino, & Michael Moore

Michael Moore's, "Open Letter to Bill Timmins, President Aladdin Casino and Hotel" As you most likely know, Michael Moore posted the following letter:

After the letter, you will find the response..

Bill Timmins President Aladdin Casino and Hotel Las Vegas, NV

July 20, 2004

Dear Mr. Timmins:

I understand from the news reports I've read that, after Linda Ronstadt, one of America's greatest singers, dedicated a song to me from your stage on Saturday night, you instructed your security guards to remove her from the Aladdin, which they did.

What country do you live in? Last time I checked, Las Vegas is still in the United States. And in the United States, we have something called "The First Amendment." This constitutional right gives everyone here the right to say whatever they want to say. All Americans hold this right as sacred. Many of our young people put on a uniform and risk their lives to defend it. My film is all about asking the questions that should have been asked before those brave soldiers were sent into harms way.

For you to throw Linda Ronstadt off the premises because she dared to say a few words in support of me and my film, is simply stupid and Un-American.

Frankly, I have never heard of such a thing happening. I read that you wouldn't even let her go back up to her room at your hotel! Are you crazy? For crying out loud, it was a song DEDICATION! To "Desperado!" Every American loves that song! Sure, some people didn't like the dedication, and that's their right. But neither they nor you have the right to remove her from your building when all she did was exercise her AMERICAN right to speak her mind.

Of all the things that go on in Las Vegas, this is what creates the need for serious action? What about the other half of the crowd at the Aladdin who, according to the Las Vegas Sun, cheered her when she made her remarks? Did you throw them out, too? I think you owe Ms. Ronstadt an apology. And I have an idea how you can make it up to her -- and to the millions of Americans you have offended. Invite her back and I'll join her in singing "America the Beautiful" on your stage. Then I will show "Fahrenheit 9/11" free of charge to all your guests and anyone else in Las Vegas who wants to see it.

Mr. Timmins, as the song "Desperado" says -- "Come to your senses!" How can you refuse this offer? I await your reply.

Yours,
Michael Moore Director, "Fahrenheit 9/11"


Aladin Casino Response:

July 21, 2004

Attention: Michael Moore,

In response to your letter dated July 20, 2004: You are correct that I had security remove Linda Ronstadt from Aladdin Casino and Hotel where the fun never ends and everybody wins. How very interesting to learn you are such a fan of Ms. Ronstadt.

You questioned where I live and surprisingly knew Las Vegas is in the United States. You should visit it sometime. There are thousands of wonderful 'All You Can Eat' buffets.

There are also a lot of casinos who's owners don't **** around I am aware of the First Amendment and you have the right to talk about your hatred of America but once you are on my property and you are upsetting my guests, you will quickly learn about my rights. I can't remember if it was Jesus or George W. Bush that said, "Freedom is a two-way street." Ms. Ronstadt learned this long before I had her thrown out of my casino. You question my actions? If you come onto my property and upset my guests, you will receive the same, if not worse, treatment than Ms. Ronstadt received. I am sure your mere presence would upset my guests.

You claim your film, "...is all about asking the questions that should have been asked before those brave soldiers were sent into harms way." I think yo

Re:Great response from Aladdin Casino

[cartervt2k]

That is f'ing hilarious! Thanks for the post!

Re:Great response from Aladdin Casino

[crushinghellhammer]

Entertaining, but untrue. If Bill Timmins ever replied to Michael Moore's open letter, it was never made public.

Here's the proof for those that are interested.

Urban Legend

Re:bite me asshat.

[killjoe]

I remember when we used to be on the side of the chechnians. That was during reagan/bush. How time flies when you are having fun huh?

Yes, it is

[Rui del-Negro]

No, his statement was pretty clear, and if you don't understnad it, that's your problem. What he said was that people who accuse him of lying without providing any evidence will be sued. Virtually any company or "publicly visible" individual will do the same. It has nothing to do with "silencing people who disagree".

You're free to disagree with anyone you like (if you live in a reasonably free country, anyway). But if you want to accuse someone of lying, you need evidence, otherwise it's libel.

Go it?

RMN
~~~

emotions

[Anonymous Coward]

"one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation"

LOL, gotta be kidding right?
Do you think Bush using fear and 9/11 as an entire platform to win an election doesnt rely on emotion?

those aren't reporters

[SethJohnson]

You mention Carville and Begala. Those are commentators. They don't conduct interviews or report news. They discuss politics. In the Fox News case I cited, this is a reporter. Reporters are tasked with asking hard questions of the people they interview. They may not have connections to the stories they report or else that is considered a conflict of interest.

Already the Fox News effect is demonstrated in your blurring of commentary and reporting. Fox News features a guy named Colmes who loves to finish his segments with "Only X days before we get to re-elect George Bush." The defense of this is that guy is a 'commentator' not a reporter.

Greta van Sustern, by the way, is employed by Fox News. If you are correct about her Husband campaigning for Kerry, which I could not find anything about in a Google search, then this would be another example of Fox News' slack ethics.

I agree. Fox News is filling airtime with irrelevant stuff like the Lacy Peterson murder trial in order to avoid talking about issues that might reflect poorly on the Bush administration. Whoops! 1000 soldiers now killed in Iraq. How many US troops were killed during the previous administration? Oh, how about less than 10% of that number died in Kosovo and Somalia combined. Fox News would prefer to downplay the significance of this milestone and instead distract viewers with irrelevant courtroom drama.

Re:those aren't reporters

[johnnyb]

"Fox News would prefer to downplay the significance of this milestone and instead distract viewers with irrelevant courtroom drama."

It isn't a significant milestone. Why is 1,000 more important than 999? Both are extremely low numbers for a war. They are tragic, but very low considering what has been accomplished.

"Already the Fox News effect is demonstrated in your blurring of commentary and reporting."

Actually, it's pointing out the fact that there _is_ no difference between commentary and reporting. What you choose to report is as much a commentary as what you say about it.

Does Fox News have slack ethics? I don't know. I'm certain that theirs isn't any more slack than the other networks.

"Oh, how about less than 10% of that number died in Kosovo and Somalia combined."

How about the story that _noone_ is covering - Iraq's involvement in terror activities on US soil in the Clinton administration - Ramzi Youssef worked for Iraq, Ramzi Youssef also trained the OKC bombers, who were working with a member of Iraq's republican guard at the time. Perhaps the reason why the numbers were so small in that era is that Clinton didn't really want to do _anything_ that involved the military internationally, especially in the Middle East. GWB had the balls to do it, and has done quite well.

Re:bite me asshat.

[say]

Totally false.

Tolstoy

Actually, my knowledge of the subject comes from a speech made by a researcher in the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and she mentioned Tolstoj's description of the Chechnian people's view on the Russians. It was terrible. Tolstoj describes it in strong words, "they look upon the Russians as nothing more than rats" and so on. This was, according to Tolstoj and my speaking researcher, due to heavy use of violence from the Russians during the wars of those times.

According to the speech I heard, that conflict didn't start out because of religion, but the differing religious beliefs of the two peoples got pulled into it. Nowadays, the same thing is being done, and the Chechnian post-Soviet leaders used these historic wars against Russia in their campaigns to muster the people to war for independence.

And as such, history has indeed repeated itself. By using excessive violence, the Chechnians actually gain a real reason for claiming the Russians are brutal. But Chechnia is a war district with terrible crime, and the fundamentalists are gaining ground every day. Therefore it could be outright dangerous for Putin to give this nation its independence. As it seems, it is pretty dangerous to not change course as well, as they at the moment are militant and desperate.

I wonder why Putin does not parley with the leaders of the Chechnians, for instance the relatively moderate nationalists. The moderate forces would gain ground if they could tell the Chechnians that they can make a deal with the Russians giving Chechnia (partly) independence.

The speaker I heard speak on the subject said that the wars of the later years in Chechnia (1993->) started out with a secular nationalist group. But of course, this has a longer history, only suspended by the Soviet union. (OTOH, the Soviet government deported Chechnians en masse to Kazakstan. So the Soviets weren't particularily popular either.)

Re:bite me asshat.

[killjoe]

"Personally I think that they are going to make our efforts in Afganistan and Iraq look like a picnic."

If it's going to be anything like what they did in Chechnia and Afghanistan then be prepared for the worst.

In afghanistan entire villages were firebombed. When people hid in ditches and drainage pipes the Russian army flooded them with gasoline and lit them on fire. There was also widespread rape and torture.

Bush opened up a can of worms when he declared that the UN did not matter and that international law did not apply to people who had enough bombs.

I can only imagine Russian forces firebombing entire cities in iraq, iran, saudi arabia or wherever. I don't imagine GW objecting much do you?

Re:bite me asshat.

[blackdragon7777]

Welcome to Conspiracy Theories 101.

Today's class is about how to pull something out of your ass and claim it to be a conspiracy.

Fox News is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore's film is no more propaganda than what's shown on FOX or Murdoch's radio stations. Freedom of speech should extend beyond those who own the media.

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[cartervt2k]

FOX is no more slanted to the right than CNN is to the left. Take off your political blinders and see for yourself. (By the way, it's a little known fact that ratings for FOX were higher than both MSNBC and CNN during the DEMOCRATIC National Convention.)

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[Retired Replicant]

Just today CNN announced that James Carville and another one of their show hosts will continue to host their shows on CNN while they work on the Kerry campaign. There's objective news and analysis for you: served on CNN directly from the Kerry campaign.

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[hamburguesa]

The problem is there is so much propaganda on both sides it cancels each other out. I am left to vote on what is remaining and as of now here is what I see. Bush does what he says he is going to do - whether I like it or not. Kerry complains about how things are but has not tried to solve them by introducing solutions he says he wants in all the years he has had in the senate. ........Tough call

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't Fox which announced Bush as a President, while the voting was still on and all?
Wasn't the Fox new editor of that shift a Bush relative?
Wasn't all this published in Michael Moore's last book?

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they were the only network to declare Bush the winner, and who was right, hmmmmm? I don't know what shift you're talking about and have better ways to waste my time and money than on a book by that fat blowhard.

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[BCW2]

Thats why the Republicans call CNN the Clinton News Network. A name well earned in the 90's.

Re:Fox News is propaganda

[smash]

One thing that scares me, is consider the following:

1. As far as I've been able to ascertain, from JANES military reading, in the 1970s, fighter planes avionics systems were capable of running in the order of 100-200+ MIPS.
2. Consumer grade hardware could not achieve that performance (486-pentium level) until the early 90s, 20 years later
3. Given that, it would be reasonable to presume that government processing capacity for "top secret" projects would maintain a 20 year lead on consumer grade equipment, at least. Given that their gear is not necessarily required to fit within the confines of a fighter plane, probably more advanced...

Now.... "consumer grade" equipment, when used in server farms, is capable of rendering stuff like Shrek, Final Fantasy, etc.

Consider 20 years worth of processing advancement (and therefore, rendering capacity). Keep in mind the advancement made in rendering between say, 1994 and 2004.

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe there there's NOT the capcity for computer generated footage purpose built to suit a particular government's cause?

smash

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I simply point out a fact and you mod me down. Great job on censorship slashdot.

Re:bite me asshat.

[sc2_ct]

When a muslim blows up a building or shoots children while screaming "Allah Akbar", they are an islamo-fascist terrorist SOB, not a "freedom fighter". Period.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this somehow disproves the previous poster's comment how?

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[cruachan]

Er no, you just have to remember that the moderators are spread all over the world, and from an average global perspective Bush is a rabid right wing lunatic, indeed virtually all USA politicos from are well to the right of centre seen from just about anywhere outside the usa. You don't have any left wing at all in the states, only far right and extreme right. Indeed I find it a source of much amusement when Kerry is described as a Liberal - by any normal perspective he's alarmingly far to the right.

Reminds me of the old joke my (UK) economics lecturer started American Politics 101 with. "The USA has a two party system. There's the Republican party - which is roughly the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democratic party - which is roughly the equivalent of our Conservative party. :-)

Wrong target (also, I answered that above)

[Rui del-Negro]

That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes.

Trying to shoot the messenger and divert people's attention from the message.

Re:Wrong target (also, I answered that above)

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the promo moron! I can't believe so many people can say such utter lies so easily. This is getting scary how easily people will lie!

No wonder why American politics can be such a rat infested sewer! And I am an American, BTW.

Re:Wrong target (also, I answered that above)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, look at the promo, moron. And the whole site. That "mockumentary" is a joke. It's all unfounded rethoric and not a shred of evidence or documentation. And it's scary to see how some people keep posting as AC, "agreeing" with themselves. Must be a really sad existence when "winning" an argument on Slashdot becomes your life's goal.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

I still don't understand what it was that Kerry did that you think is wrong.

Was he supposed to cover up what he had heard reported (and presumably had seen)? Would that have stopped torture of POWs? If you were an American prison guard, and knew that some of your compatriots had been tortured and raped by the compatriots of a man in your custody, would you abuse that prisoner? (Think carefully about your answer, and check the news before you respond.)

And let's get the story straight, here. Are the Swifties saying Kerry didn't earn his medals because they saw him NOT doing what his Naval record says he did, or because they don't like the fact that they were tortured while listening to him talk about bad things that American soldiers had done?

I'm sorry, but every single argument you've offered has, at root, been emotional and not logical. Either Kerry lied, and no one told him about atrocities they'd committed (or those things never happened), or else he told the truth. Whether you WANTED the truth to be told does not affect whether it was the truth. Did those things happen? All bullshit aside, you and I both know that My Lai was not an isolated incident.

I am NOT suggesting that John Kerry is the third coming of Christ, nor am I suggesting that he's the corporeal form of Gozer the Destructor (if anyone, Clinton looked more like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man than Kerry does). What I'm saying is that you haven't described anything bad that he did. What you've said is that you don't like him, that you wish he hadn't told what we now know to be a fairly accurate account of American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam, and that he shouldn't be president because he told the truth when it was difficult to do so. I have yet to see any quote in which he implied or stated that all US soldiers were monsters, or that all US citizens condoned such awful behavior. Your suggestion that he did so is (according to what I'M aware of) an exaggeration and a twisting of the truth, an emotionally-loaded way of describing his statements.

Honestly, I still can't follow your logic. Why shouldn't Kerry be President?

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!! (MOD PARENT UP)

[nerdb0t]

(MOD PARENT UP)

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the swifties are voicing what they feel to be the truth. The Kerry supporters can't have it both ways. They can't say well, it's okay for Kerry, but not okay for those same vets to voice their opinions on it.

Honestly, I don't think it would have been an issue had Kerry ran on the actual issues rather than his 4 months in Vietnam, which IMHO are much stronger and mean a lot more to me.

Now it's just turned into a mud-slinging match and no one is listening and everyone is just screaming. :/

Re:bite me asshat.

[hexix]

And so exactly how is that turning his back on fellow veterans? You just quoted him saying exactly what the parent you were replying to said. That there were orders given to soldiers that qualified as war crimes. So, what's the beef?

Darn emotions

[ChaosDiscord]

...one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."

Yes, because as long as F9/11 doesn't air, there won't be anyone using emotional tricks to try and influence the vote.

By the most cynical of viewpoints, it's just a really long anti-Bush ad. There will be plenty of anti-The-Other-Guy ads either way. You'll will only see this particular one if you seek it out, and since it's much longer it can try to put togeher more compelling arguments (I have no idea if it succeeds). I'd certainly rather face a bunch of overtly biased 1.5 hour documentaries that have to at least pretend to have lots of useful facts than dozens of content-free 30-second ads.

Re:Hell yeah

[cain]

Shut up you moron. Go back to Russia where you belong!

Re:Hell yeah

[Ragica]

As for me, I just sold a business because I could not get quality employees. [...] but I guess it does make some feel better if they have someone to blame for what is likely just bad luck.

Yeah, it's a sad shame that Bush is so unlucky and just can't seem to get enough quality citizens. I guess he'll have to sell the country, or something.

Will democrats blame Moore when bush wins?

[Mongoose]

Moore would just increase Bush supporter turn out. Just like the people that blame Nader it would be pathetic. Well, I can't want for the backlash, because I don't want Kerry in office.

Democrats don't like opposing views in their own party -- look how they treat their own party members that aren't overtly liberal. I think Kerry moving back to anti-war now will finish him off. This is how Al Gore lost -- not having a message.

Re:Will democrats blame Moore when bush wins?

[BCW2]

They won't blame Moore, it would end the flow of funds from his movies and books.

Kerry is not a choice for Commander in Chief. His Senate testimony in '71 broke faith with every person who ever has worn or will wear a uniform in service of this country. He dishonored everyone he served with in that rant. Just to build a public face for later politics.

I'm a vet and I vote!

A nice idea...

[Timex]

....but it will never see the light of day:

Open the voting polls nationwide at the same time, and close them at the same time. I would suggest opening polls at 7:00am Eastern and closing them at 9:00pm PST (or 8:00pm, whatever the western-most US time zone is).

It would also be good to make it illegal for the press to "declare" a winner or project winners while the polls are open. The press has this nasty habit of affecting the voter turnout by declaring a winner one way or the other, then proving themselves to be utterly wrong (cf: Florida, 2000), often more than once. This would allow people to vote if they want, how they want. After the polls close, the press can talk all they want, and project all they want (even based on the returns, if that's what they want to do), and it won't affect the actual vote. Waiting for the East Coast to close, then making projections hurts the folk who live in the more-western time zones because people East talk with those on the West, share information that is being broadcast, and next thing you know, it's all over the place.

There are probably a few other things that should be done, but those right there would be a great start.

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

You are not the person bearing the brunt of this.

Bullshit. I had 3 employees at one business I owned, and while I lost $20,000 in three months from lost profits, NONE of them lost a single hour of payroll, I made sure it was so. My largest client in another business suspended all accounts for 3 months as well, costing me at least another $10,000 in pure profits. Two weeks prior to 9-11, I had just invested almost $10,000 in equipment that I never got to use.

The difference is, I slashed my expenses, sold an extra car I had, wholesaled out some equipment, kept my employees fed, and ate an unreal amount of beans and rice. We ebay'ed some personal belongings. I didn't sit and cry and blame the President, instead opting to get out and chase some business. But I kept going.

I didn't do anything special, I just took responsibility for my own life, and for keeping my employees fed. I decided I wasn't going to roll over and die. It took 6 months for the business to start paying its own way again, and two years to recover the lost income, partially by earning more than I had ever before. I never received 1 cent in help from anyone, nor did the idea ever cross my mind.

So yes, I bore quite a bit of the brunt after 9-11, thank you very much.

I am not smarter, better or luckier than anyone else. I am harder working and more willing to make sacrifices than some, and less likely to shift the blame. That is the difference.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[RobertB-DC]

The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.

I was hoping for better than the Fifteen Hundredth Post to make this suggestion, but it goes with your comment. Plus, I need to make my crystal-ball prediction before it comes true.

I've believed, and have since early this summer (when I almost had to pay $2.00 a gallon for regular unleaded in Texas), that the Saudis are planning to play an active role in George Dubya's re-election. How can they do that, when election laws expressly forbid foreign contributions? Simple: adjust the price of oil.

Right now, I see $1.719 and think "wow, what a bargain!" But the night of 9/11, when gas lines were around the block at every station, the same price was absolutely absurd. It's only a bargain compared to the $1.80 I was paying two weeks ago, and the $1.90 I was paying earlier this year.

Now the price is dropping. Here's my prediction: prices will continue to drop right through the election, regardless of world events (short of a 9/11-style cataclysm). When Biff drives his H2 to the polls in Highland Park, he'll be thinking of how nice it is to have cheap gas again, not the 1000+ troops sent to die in Biff's name for that cheap gas.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Specter]

Senator Kerry admited that he personally committed war crimes (see the attached excerpt from an MSNBC transcript which quotes Senate hearings from 1971).

In the attached excerpt you'll see that he tries to back pedal out of that statement, but the fact is that he either did commit atrocities as he says he personally did or he lied to Congress about it. Either way the man is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of the United States.

(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):

MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End videotape)

Mr. Russert: You committed atrocities.

Senator Kerry: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.

Mr. Russert: You used the word "war criminals."

Senator Kerry: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.

Mr. Russert: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...

Senator Kerry: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.

Mr. Russert: So you stand by that?

Senator Kerry: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twic

Amazing..

[hugo_pt]

I saw this movie last week, still can't believe how a country like America allowed Bush to become president. I never liked the man, but after seeing this documentary ? Damn. Especially shocking was in 9/11 when he was at the elementary school.. and he sat there instead of doing something. I couldn't believe this actually happened, but everything in the movie did make sense. IMO, the last stages of the movie (focuses on iraqui war) and the testemony of that mother who lost her son are there to cause some revolt on the american people, that really seemed to be his intention.

Is John Kerry for or against the war in Iraq?

[Retired Replicant]

I still don't know.

Re:Is John Kerry for or against the war in Iraq?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly man.
John Kerry is BOTH for AND against the war in Iraq.
Just depends on what time of the day, what week it is, what crowd he is talking to, what shirt he has on, and most important what his wife (and controler of the purse strings) tells him he can and can't say.
LOL!!!

Re:Is John Kerry for or against the war in Iraq?

[junk]

you sure? i though it was simply an every other week decision. maybe every other thursday...

flip flop

[talaphid]

He can't change his opinion on supporting GWB. Then he'd be a FLIP FLOPPER, which apparently is a horrible example of duckspeak. Not
doubleplusgood, to say the least.

I'm just confused as to how pretending to be infallible came to be viewed as a virtue.

Re:bite me asshat.

[TheCaptain]

How does one deal with the chaffing when wearing a tinfoil hat all the time? Inquiring minds want to know.

Nevermind...will write more later. Art Bell is on.

Creative quoting?

[Rui del-Negro]

Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.

Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):

"A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).

But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:

[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"

[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"

[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"

[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"

[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"

I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.

Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.

RMN
~~~

Re:Creative quoting?

[Bobobob314]

lets rebold that shall we? [1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view" [2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme" [3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter" [4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects" [5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view" read http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm and tell me Farenheit 9/11 is non-fiction.

Re:Creative quoting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I guess I was wrong. I always thought Moore's crap was "editorializing".

#1 says "an interpretation". Moore fits the bill there.

#2 says... wait... it says "nonfiction". Define nonfiction. How about telling half truths? Or, in Moore's case, half lies?


#4 says "creatively" I guess we'd all agree that Moore is creative. Half-truths? Suppressing the full story? That's creative.

#5 "factual footage arranged in such a way". Sure... Moore fits that also. In fact, he's very, very creative in how he arranges his footage, and also in how he arranges that some footage never makes it into his "theatrical release". He definitely works very hard to get his point of view accross.

I was wrong. I always thought his stuff was fiction... but it really is a documentary. I'll have to learn to take all future "documentaries" with a grain of salt.
I sure wish Moore would publish more information about his own behavior. He's always good for poking at everyone but himself. He's made an AWFUL lot of money, and he's never been quite honest with the public about it. I want to hear more about his extravagant hotel lifestyle.

Re:Creative quoting?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you can change the font. Could you please also use paragraphs, and also try to make some sense and possibly post your own opinion, instead of simply reposting links to trash even worse than Moore's? Thank you.

where are the issues?

[Imazalil]

Slightly offtopic... Where are the real issues this election? The future of a country is being decided by someone's service record in a war that took place 30 years ago? Honestly, WFT!

bear patrol

[sg3000]

> "There's not a single bear in sight--the 'Bear Patrol' is working
> like a charm".

That episode of the Simpsons should be required viewing for anyone trying to forward a "bear patrol" argument that the war on terror is going just great.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Because the previous poster's comment was factually incorrect. None of Kerry's testimony was false or misleading. If you read the full transcript, it's rather honorable.

It won't influence the elections

[BobaFett]

Primarily because it was not meant or made to influence anything. Moore is a genius, and I'm totally awed by the brillant idea and perfect execution, but the idea was not to influence. Moore came up with a way to create the "Badge of a true Bush-hater", something any true Bush-hater MUST have, or he does not belong. So now half the country absolutely positively 100% must have The Badge aka watch the movie. If you manage to do that, you can sell the badges for $8 a piece, rake in the dough and laugh all the way to the bank. Pure genius, and I am not being sarcastic, it really is.

However it's not a very effective tool to bring in people who were not sure whetehr they want to wear The Badge to begin with, because they were not True Bush-haters.

If it's shown on the eve of elections, it won't sway anyone (the other reason is that there's nobody left to sway, everyone is either for Bush or for Anybody-But-Bush). It may, however, energize "the base" and increase turnout for Kerry. But it may also make the other base mad and increase turnout for Bush. But either way, the effect on turnout will be the key, because this election will be decided not by how many independent or undecided voters swing to either side in the end, but by few committed Bush or Kerry loyalists who may or may not run out of gas or get lost on their way to polls or get sick on the election day or for some other reason go or not go to vote.

Re: spinsanity's analysis of Fah 9/11

[Wilk4]

SpinSanity, a group proclaiming themselves to be non-partisan and "Countering rhetoric with reason - The nation's leading watchdog of manipulative political rhetoric" has this analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Spinsanity - Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn

Note: generally I avoid reading or recommending political sites, but Spinsanity seems to fairly hold *both* sides accountable for their 'spin,' analyzing rhetoric from both campaigns, pointing out inaccuracies in media reporting on politics, taking on books and documentaries, etc. Nice to see someone seeking to document truth so twisted and lost in the political battles... Anyway, a site to watch)

Flame-Retardent Disclaimer: I'm not saying what's true and I haven't seen the movie yet, nor do I plan to. Just providing this link as a resource for the discussion.

Re:Hell yeah

[protohiro1]

For the record, I am doing just great. I actually agree that the president doesn't have much to do with unemployment. But I can't help but think that money the president spent on fighting wars and cutting taxes would have been better spent bailing out the state and local governments that were very hard hit. But that's just my opinion. On economics I accept that I just disagree with conservatives on how best to do things. Not because I don't think people shouldn't have to take responsibility for their actions...I just have a different view of what government should do. Read Galbraith if you want to understand my viewpoint on that.

I am NOT sitting and crying and blaming the president for my own problems. I jsut don't like his policies.

MX Missilie

[glrotate]

Specificaly I was referring to the deployment of the MX Missile in europe. The Usual suspects of pinko's, anarchists and their sympathisers cried that this would bring nuclear war. Thankfuly he didn't listened and went ahead.

You are correct that when Gorbechev came to power Reagan decided that he was a reasonable man that could be worked with, however that doesn't describe most of the leftist eurotrash that did, does, and always will hate America.

POUM!

[temojen]

Reminds me of the Spannish civil war.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Cromac]

Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.

You don't suppose that might be because the US military destroyed a huge terrorist stronghold and one of their major sources of funding, do you?

"You're realistic"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the common bullshit of the right. Yes, you're just pragmatic, just hardened to reality, people who disagree with you live in fairy la la land.

Fuck you. Seriously.

And you agree with most of Coulter's major points? Like that we should go into the Middle East and forcibly kill or convert (to Christianity) every Muslim? That all liberals hate their country?

Bull-fucking-shit.

Then you go on with this straw man: personally, I've yet to meet a "lefty" who thinks Moore is a god, and furthermore the vast majority of them admit that there are some problems with his documentaries.

Anyway, let me close once again with "fuck you": that "realistic" rhetoric is self-aggrandizing bullshit. So quit it.

It isn't whether they're interested.

[khasim]

It is that they are industrializing now.

Which means they'll need more oil.

So, a limited resource but increased demand ...

Re:It isn't whether they're interested.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why they're building Nuclear power plants (to divorce themselves from a certain reliance on fossil fuels) and probably (I'm speculating) researching alternative energy sources to both fossil fuels and nuclear.

Re:It isn't whether they're interested.

[Ohreally_factor]

Which might be the real reason we invaded Iraq. If the US can exert more control over the oil supply, we can slow or even strangle the economic development of potential rivals.

And the Chinese know this, which is why they're in a major push to expand their nuclear power industry.

Hey, I just noticed I'm replying to you, khasim! What's up? =)

I think it's totally hilarious

[HangingChad]

That the Republicans are backing a draft-dodging Connecticut Yankee for pres and a draft-dodging vice pres and don't see anything hypocritical about it. They used to rip on Clinton about that, called it lack of character. But it's no lack of character when it's their candidate. Nooooo.

I want my party back from these right wing fanatics calling themselves conservative when they don't know the meaning of the word. Back before the right turned into the religious right. Back when being a Republican stood for lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Big Brother out of your damn business. That's not the Republican party of today. Government spending is out of control, there's no such thing as an unreasonable search under Ashcroft and the number of government employees has surged more than 22% under Bush.

And my friends wonder why I'm backing Kerry. Even if he's a democrat I can't see him doing any worse than dubya.

Re:I think it's totally hilarious

[pease1]

Back when being a Republican stood for lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Big Brother out of your damn business.

Pretty funny statement when Dubya lowered taxes (more then any one since Kennedy) and we learn today is a key player in letting the assault weapons "ban" die on the vine. As for smaller government, most of the increases have been related to the formation of DHS... an evil result of 9/11.

Good luck. I crossed once many years ago and regret doing it to this day. Certainly JK isn't going to do ANY of the things you want as a conservative.

Re:I think it's totally hilarious

[HangingChad]

Certainly JK isn't going to do ANY of the things you want as a conservative.

And that's a reason to support Bush? I'm sorry, I just can't get behind a draft dodger, I don't care what party they come from. I disagree with Senator Kerry on quite a lot but he took his chances in the shit at the pointy end of the spear and that means something to me. He protested the Viet Nam war, but he earned that right in the jungle. And what Karl Rove engineered against Max Cleland...disgusting.

If Bush was running against my dog, I'd vote for the dog. I don't think she would do much that I want as a conservative, either. But I know between the dog and King George who I'd want backing me up in a fight and it's not dubya.

Good luck. I crossed once many years ago and regret doing it to this day.

Don't worry, the chilly payback is already starting. But I got a good dog, a lot of friends on both sides of the fence and a clear conscience so I'm not backing down.

Re:I think it's totally hilarious

[DerWulf]

If you are small government, pro liberty type republican, as your previous post suggests, you would really want to vote for the guy that dodged the draft. What is honorable about being a government slave? Honor for me means maintaining ones freedom. The amount of honor is equal to the size of the adversary threatening that freedom. It doesn't get biggern than defying the us government.

So?

[sheldon]

I don't really like Michael Moore. But why is it bad that he's biased? Why is it bad that he is presenting his point of view and interpretation of events?

I watched F9/11. I didn't particularly like it. I felt the only meaningful point made in the film was the 7 minute footage of Bush just sitting there when the towers were hit by planes.

Watching that, I can't imagine anybody being impressed, and yet I heard scores upon scores of people making the patently stupid statement, "Oh, but he didn't want to scare the children."

Christ, talk about bias.

On many occasions, in Moore's film, he is misleading and deceiving, even cut-'n-pasting audio clips, or leaving out important conext.

You've just described the entire GW Bush reelection campaign, right there. How many times have we heard John Kerry is a flip-flop based upon taking statements out of context?

If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself.

Re: So?

[dh003i]

"If you're going to whine about bias, you better be willing to whine about everyone. Otherwise you're nothing more than a biased shill yourself."

I never said that I like G.W. Bush, or Kerry, or anyone else. The only person in politics who you'll ever hear me give unconditional praise to is Ron Paul.

All that your statement shows is your own bias and assumptions, such as the apparent assumption that if I don't like Moore and criticize him, I'm probably a fan of G.W. Bush. Bush is a liar, Kerry is a liar: they're both liars, crooks, and socialists (small s). It's usually not worth my time to completely deconstruct either. Between the two of them, it's just a question of who's dick you're going to get fucked with. I'll vote for Badnarik.

Pointing to others and saying "they do it too" isn't a justification. If I came to your house and demanded that you pay me 30% of your income (at gunpoint), you would rightly call me a crook and a robber. If I point my finger and say "well, the State does the same thing!" that doesn't justify my actions, but only shows that the State is also composed of crooks and robbers.

It is one thing to have a bias. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, and Misean (Austrian), for example, and have no regrets about stating that. Someone else might be a Statist socialist in line with Marx and Engels. It is quite another thing to lie about facts or to purposefully deceive people, putting together information in a blatantly misleading manner. Thus, while I can say that all of Marx' theories were wrong, I can't accuse him of lying and deceitfulness (as I can accuse Moore of), because Marx was an accurate historian (Austrian's analyze the same history as him, with different conclusions, for example).

Re: So?

[sheldon]

All that your statement shows is your own bias and assumptions

But I've never claimed to not be biased. The key is whether or not you are honest about it.

Pointing to others and saying "they do it too" isn't a justification.

Justification for what? I'm not justifying anything. I'm simply saying bias is good. We've all got bias. We all have opinions. Let them all hang out. Quit trying to hide and claim you aren't biased.

It is quite another thing to lie about facts or to purposefully deceive people, putting together information in a blatantly misleading manner.

You mean like claiming income taxes are the equivalent of theft? Interesting how you use a tactic you accuse others of.

But now... Where exactly did Michael Moore lie in his film?

What you've complained about thus far is simply taking things out of context. But what is context? Context of that particular moment, or context of the broader picture?

Historians do this all the time. The reason why Marx has certain theories is because he looked at events within one context based on his perceptions. Other's had different theories based on different perceptions.

For instance, in my perception, based upon the context of just these two posts of yours... I think you're a fucking whiner.

Re: So?

[dh003i]

As I said, bias is fine, and unavoidable. It is blatantly obvious that Moore went out of his way to make it look like things were one way, when in reality they were another. The reason I'm so critical is this reflects badly on opponents of war. It is intellectually dishonest and deceiving.

Consider if I say the following:

"I am opposed to hatred. There are those who hate Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals; I think that being of such a mind is a punishment in and of itself."

Someone can come along and quote me as follows:

"I...hate...Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals."

While technically not a lie, due to the ..., someone who quoted me in such a manner has taken the words out of context with the clear intent of making it sound like I was saying that I hated Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals, when in reality I was arguing against that position. If you can't see how this is wrong and dishonest, then there's really nothing more I can say. It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to defend shit.

A historian who does something similar is a fraud and a worthless historian. Marx did not do this. He interpretted history incorrectly (that is, his class analysis is wrong), but taking as a base the same historical events that he describes, Austrians can interpret it correctly (see Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis). Now, Marx' incorrect theory may have prevented him from searching for some other relevant historical data, but he did not (for example) give the reader completely wrong impressions about historical happenings of fact.

This is not to say that full quotations with ample context are always required. I'm sure that Hitler had a lot of long-winded rambled statements, with parnethetical interruptions which would be appropriate to clip out, but the punchline being that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems.

Elipsing out various parts of a sentence or paragraph is appropriate to do if you maintain the original meaning. It is not appropriate to do this when you modify the meaning, or make it appear as if the author/speaker said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.

From my perception, all I can conclude from this is that you are fucking intellectually dishonest, since you go to such great lengths to defend a work which is dishonest (and the word "dishonest" does not mean only flat-out lying).

PS: Claiming that income taxes are the equivalent of robbery (not theft) is not misleading people. It is a moral statement, no different than saying "abortion is wrong". Simply because a group of people write a document, declare themselves "the State", an then presume to go around "taxing" you for "the services they provide" doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't theft -- it's a protection racket on a grand scale. The only difference between these two actions is that while one is considered illegitimate by most people (and you are allowed to defend yourself against), the other is considered legitimate (and you are not allowed to defend yourself); this is merely a matter of normative force, and popular opinion, and has nothing at all to do with morality.

Re:questions raised - Most were NOT facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a nice presentation of the actual lies, completely innacurate assertions and inferences:

http://fahrenheitfact.blogspot.com/

I'm shocked at how many people believe as truth this movie. Shows how dense people are at evaluating informationf. Moore gladly kept all the money from the movie and didn't donate it charity like the Swift Boat Veteran Book.

Re:bite me asshat.

[sp0rk173]

Will, I'll give you 20 dollars for your banana.

So Flip a F#(ing Coin

[TolkiEinstein]

Reading all this crap about the 2000 election really pisses me off, until I have to start laughing about it. Honesty, flipping a coin would have been more democratic than that nonsense in Florida. Personally, I'd call Heads for Gore and Tails (or Asses) for Bush.

Re:Moore's smear-job on Charlton Heston.

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly disagree. If you've only read the text, I can perhaps understand your point of view. The words alone don't convey the false impression Moore painted of Heston's attitude.

Firstly let me explain that I am pretty ambivalent about gun control. From a theoretical viewpoint, the libertarian in me sees the arguments for freedom to bear arms (guns don't kill, people do.), but then being pragmatic I have to say I feel safer here in the UK with our strict gun controls. I'm also pretty left-leaning in most political subjects, with a few exceptions. I tell you this to make but one point: before I saw Bowling for Columbine, I had no prejudices about Micheal Moore or the subject matter of the film.

And I was taken in. At least untill I got the full story, I fell completely for Micheal Moore's shameful smear of Charlton Heston.

Moore deliberately used the defiant "Cold dead hands" clip from a completely different event to set a tone that when combined with the drastically abridged clips from Actual day in question, conveyed the impression that Heston had a callous attitude to the people of Littleton. He made Heston's Denver visit seem like a big "Fuck you" to the victims and their families.

In fact, when you read the whole speech, it's clear that Heston had given a lot of thought to the situation. All the festivities were cancelled. Here are a few of the cut parts which I think conveyed the true tone of the event:

Still they say don't come here. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care. We don't care as much as they do, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver, and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

I think he respectfully made a valid point. I mean, ARE the guns to blame? Tim Mcveigh killed 168 people using fertilizer and fuel oil. Al-quaeda killed thousands using passenger planes. It could well be argued that the easy availability of guns makes it worse when people "flip-out" (as opposed to carefully planned mass-murders), but there is surely room for debate.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

And ironically, Heston's final words:

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

Which is exactly what Moore did.

Michael Moore is a big , fat stupid white man!

[Anonymous Coward]

He eats too much, farts all the time, he stinks to high heaven, and he spews out anti-American, Nazi propaganda.
Luckily for mankind, he is so fat and ugly and out of shape, that he is not likely to live very long.
Good riddance, I say.
All that MASSIVE amounts of food he consumes can be used to feed to poor and straving children in poor countries instead.

As for this clown releasing his "crokumentary" before the elections, I say BRING IT ON DUDE!
Michael Moore released his movie in theatres and President Bush SHOT RIGHT UP TO AN 11 POINT LEAD in the polls!
We need more of his nonsense!
That will make clear thinking Americans even more determined to vote for the ONLY candidate that makes any sense at all, Goeorge W. Bush!

Re:Michael Moore is a big , fat stupid white man!

[junk]

have you read that book yet? very interesting. i'm a big moorewatch.com fan. it's amazing what that sack of shit gets away with/

Re:Michael Moore is a big , fat stupid white man!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I read the book.
This Michael Moore is truly the biggest, (and I mean that literally) sack of shit this country has ever produced.
The French and the American-hating Euro-nuts, are welcome to have this fetid piece of waste matter any day.

Ok...

[sheldon]

Where I have issues with the Libertarians is largely in their wanting to eliminate police and fire services.... and their hypocrisy in complaining about mass transit and wanting to promote instead the mass confiscation of land in order to add more lanes to highways.

I think there are good points, I think they should be part of the political debate. But he doesn't have a snowballs chance, and the risk of Bush winning reelection is too great to go playing around with third parties.

Besides the Democratic party is already fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I have a few issues with some of their stances on health care and education funding... but those issues are generally negated by the Congressional debate, and I'd rather have them discussed then implement the Corporate Welfare solutions the Republicans propose as alternatives.

Read what I wrote.

[khasim]

"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."

What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.

"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."

Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?

I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.

"Even the terrorist act on 9/11 is stirring the pot and, if you can't see that, well..I don't know..I guess I wouldn't be surprised. Seems like most people don't anyhow.."

The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".

It isn't.

"Terrorism" is the EXCUSE given to justify those actions. Most of the new laws we have to deal with were proposed BEFORE the WTC attack. But they didn't have any hope of passage.

Once there was a significant FOREIGN terrorist attack in the US, it was used to justify the passage of those laws.

Terrorism isn't the cause or the reason.

Power is the reason.

Terrorism is the excuse.

Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.

Only we can do that.

Re:Read what I wrote.

[coronaride]

Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush. As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to. Terrorism is a buzz-word and people are throwing it around without any regard nowadays.

What-the-fuck-ever. If that's what you want to believe, that's your perogative.

That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time. WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it.

The problem is that YOU see EVERYTHING that happens as being the result of "terrorism".

Where did I say anything remotely close to that? What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it. The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made...

For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive. So invasive, in fact, that it causes a complete civil war or public uprising. If it weren't for even the existence of terrorism, there wouldn't have been need for the Patriot Act in the first place, so it indirectly caused the regime change! Now, I'm not saying that this is going to happen, this is purely hypothetical.

That said..people like you piss me off. You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey. Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?

You really need to get a clue..

Osama will never take D.C. nor will he ever be elected President of the USofA. He and all the other terrorists will NEVER overthrow the USofA.

Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected??? He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking around his homeland. I don't blame him for the latter.

Only we can do that.

You're right, only the USofA can overthrow the USofA...? Do you even know what you just wrote? Ironically, you are correct - the positive kind of change will come from within...but it doesn't seem like Americans are very interested in that right now.

Re:Read what I wrote.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now I'm not saying that we're going to overthrow our existing government and install a Muslim theocracy in its place, but it is totally and intrinsically inaccurate to say that "Nothing any terrorist can do will EVER destroy the USofA"."

Again, what-the-fuck-ever. Do you believe the terrorists will EVER overthrow our government and install THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT in its place?

I don't. And until they can do that, they are NOT a threat to the USofA.

What I think he's saying is you can never say neevr. Liek let's say the terrorists find a way to make a small black hole, just the size of pencil eraser, and they threaten to drop it into the center of the earth unless we change to a muslim theocracy by next thursday.

Now, assuming they just lauched one of thier suckers at the moon and we all watched it collapse into a singularity, don't you think just an OUCE of self preservation would allow us to say, hey, maybe being a muslim ain't that bad for now. After all, we can always just pretend until we have a chance to take away thier black hole making ability.

Re:Read what I wrote.

[Crazy Eight]

You're right, only the USofA can overthrow the USofA...? Do you even know what you just wrote? Ironically, you are correct - the positive kind of change will come from within...but it doesn't seem like Americans are very interested in that right now.

I think the guy you're responding to agrees with you completely, but you're both going at the same thing from different angles. Can't you two see that you really love each other!!!

Guilt by association is a logical flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, one of the flaws committed by Moore himself, but also by you it seems.

It's Propaganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

as defined by Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: propaganda
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The definition fits what MM's goal is here.
Yes, the documentary makes a strong anti-Bush case, just very one-sided. It should just be used as a catalyst for the audience to think about the events surrounding 9/11 and afterwards, but definitely NOT to base your November vote on.

Do Bush or Kerry Really matter to an average ameri

[Greenisloved]

I dont know how many would agree..I beleive an average american cares for electing officers in his state.Example , If he like the republican candidate in his town , he votes for Republicans and thats it.Bush being good or bad for america is not a convincing thought process. This is becuz they think the gov at the higest level is not going to impact their lives better than the level that they vote for

In short , Bush or kerry wont matter...Its the body that choose.Crying against Bush or Kerry wouldnt make any difference.

RE: U.S. and wars

[King_TJ]

While I hadn't really stopped to count all of the wars the U.S. was involved in since WWII, the number 24 sounds believable to me.

Is that supposed to imply anything negative about the U.S. though?

One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations.

For one example, look at Cuba. U.S. businesses invested money there, putting properties there in partnerships with their government. Then, along comes Communist rule and we lost control of all of it. I think it's the JOB of our country to defend the properties of our people in sitatuons like this. Because we've fallen down on the job, though, people are attempting to bully the U.S. around a little bit more today....

The same thing seems to go for the oil felds in Iraq. At one time, those were constructed in partnerships with the U.S. If we didn't just let them seize control of the whole thing after helping them build it and make it all work - we wouldn't have these billionaire princes running around making political decisions today.

True, you don't

[Rui del-Negro]

The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.

On the contrary, you have a lot of company.

you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911."

"Very carefully"? Again, is that supposed to mean something, or just sound witty and clever? Because, again, it fails. I don't mention it because a) I didn't read all of it and b) the parts I did read never mentioned any lies; it simply pointed out that "Moore's language is such that it leads people to believe that (etc., etc.)". In other words, the only objective accusations it makes are that Moore is focusing on one side of the story and avoids shooting himself on the foot. Well, duh! Moore never tried to hide the fact that he's presenting his point of view, and is obviously going to use all of his film's frames to present evidence that supports it.

I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience.

You're right; you don't understand. He isn't lying. He's presenting his point of view (which happens to be shared by many people, BTW), and the evidence that led him to have that point of view. Apparently you think that, since you have a different point of view, which his evidence does not support (in fact, one that's rather hard to maintain, in face of that evidence), then "he's a liar". But that's simply not what "lying" means.

Perhaps he's not telling "the whole truth" (can anyone, in finite time?). Perhaps his conclusions (expressed in his narration) are not the same conclusions you or I would reach, based on the same evidence. But neither of those things is lying.

Frankly, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 a bit boring. Most of it I already knew (from the internet, international news channels and other documentaries, like "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"), and the other bits are simply not very interesting (maybe they appeal to americans). I would definitely have focused more on the disrespect for international law, the ridiculous lies to the UN and the reactions of other countries (beautifully condensed in the german foreign minister's reply), Guantanamo, etc., and less on individual stories about soldiers. I guess most americans (possibly Moore included) care more about 1 dead american soldier than about 100 innocent foreigners being kept prisioner and tortured.

But anyway, nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 is "second-hand" material. Clips from TV news, quotes from official papers, etc.. And the rest is interviews and Moore's commentary (which the movie could live without, in fact, and not lose any of its impact - but Moore loves to be on the spotlight). Unless you're saying the video was somehow altered, or the wording in the official documents was changed, there is simply no way you can classify it as "lies", unless you don't understand the meaning of the word.

I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend,

First of all, I am not your friend. And second, I really have better and more important things to do than look up information about a useless subject on which (as it turns out below) I was actually right to begin with.

not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason.

Did I ever say that "anyone can sue anyone for any reason"? Or are you just engaging in some "half-truths" and "misleading statements"...?

Need me to repeat what I said? Here:

"anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)."

I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.

In other words, exactly what I wrote above. So basically you're calling me an ignorant and then "correcting" me by repe

Re:True, you don't

[Alaska Jack]

I've been on /. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth, so smug in its condescending evasion of the issues.

This is getting kind of tedious, but let me make a few quick points.

1. Your intellectually inane defense of Moore begs a very basic question. Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts? Your lengthy discourse suggests (ahh, but never outright claims!) that it is not, that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?

This matters because it is precisely this that Moore is accused of. As law professor Randy Barnett puts it:

"Notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression ... Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false."

For Pete's sake, even the film's *defenders* have noted Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts (see Paul Krugman, for example).

Your relativistic approach -- that the selective ommission of facts is merely one's "point of view" -- is one that would have warmed the hearts of propagandists the world over.

2. One more note, just to point out how disingenuous you are. You say:

"Need me to repeat what I said? Here: anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)"

Yes, but that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying. You said, and I (once again) quote verbatim:

"If you ['you' in this case being the author of the parent comment] think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has..."

In other words:

1. You say the original poster should sue Moore for lying;
2. You imply (ahh! But never actually SAY!) that the reason no one has sued Moore is because no one can prove Moore is lying.
3. I point out that this is complete bullshit; that the reason people don't sue Moore is not because they can't prove he is being deceptive, but because they lack any standing to sue.
4. Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you go on some rambling tangent trying to deflect attention from the quote I criticized.

Nice try. Re-order your condescending-but-inane ramblings into something resembling an actual argument that addresses the points, and play again.

- Alaska Jack

Re:True, you don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with your post. This guy seems to think that desception is a valid "point of view". Where I come from that is utter bull. A point of view is supposed to contain something factual, something with some real truth in it. His idea of a "point of view" is in my book rather scary to invision taken to its logical extremes, which it seems is where we are headed.

Glad to know there are still more sane people in this world.

Re:True, you don't

[Alaska Jack]

Thanks. The great Democrat Patrick Daniel Moynihan once wrote that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

The funny thing is that you'd think people would have learned after Bowling for Columbine. The author of The Truth About Bowling for Columbine showed that there are a number of places in that movie where Moore indisputably cut and pasted and edited things to leave his audiences with "understandings" that were false. This is a guy with utter contempt for his audience. Imagine the contempt he must feel for his fanboys.

- AJ

Re:bite me asshat.

[Kwantus]

>latest string of attacks by Chechnian revolutionaries

Don't count the school in that list just yet. "About half of the 32 terrorists have been identified and we have not yet discovered anyone from Chechnya." That from a government I'm convinced wants it to be Chechens so they can continue cleansing the ethnics from an oilpatch. So far there's nothing connecting it to Chechens but cheap words.

Enough Already!

[rubberbando]

I'm getting tired of all of this propaganda from both sides. These people are so closed minded and ignorant. They don't have any opinions of their own, they do what they are told by whatever side they follow. They need to wake up, both parties are driven by the almighty dollar. Neither care about anyone other than themselves. This system is broken.

Monty Brewster had the right idea!
Vote! None of the Above!

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush is a rabid right wing lunatic, indeed virtually all USA politicos from are well to the right of centre seen from just about anywhere outside the usa. "

This has got to be the most stupid posts of the day, on a day of really stupid posts.
If "Bush is a right wing lunatic" as you put it, what do you call Jeane Marie Le Penn of France? The guy who actualy got over 30% of the vote in the presidential elections. And whonot only admires Hitler, but makes Hitler look like the boys scouts?
And what do you call the National Front Party in Britian, and Enoch Powell with his "rivers of blood" speeches?
What about the Nazis in Germany?
Hey dude, compared to the rabid, nasty, vicious, super racist right wing crazies in Europe, President Bush looks positively benign.
I'll take President Bush over a million rabid , extreme right wing EURO-NAZIS any day, any time!!

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[Curunir_wolf]

After five years of making thoughtful and informed posts, I have some karma to burn. I'll regret having posted this when I see that "-5 Troll" beside it later today -- but I figure, a guy's got a right to let off some steam.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. It looks like only the Bush supporters are getting modded down in this thread.

Rant away! Lots of + mods for liberals today!

'Base'

[theolein]

Translates into Arabic as Al Qaeda.

Ironic, isn't it.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

"it"?

OK, can somebody PLEASE set out in black and white what Kerry said, and what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth believe about it?

What a couple of people in this discussion have suggested is that the SBVFT ads, which expressly deny that Kerry earned his medals for valorous conduct, are the result of POW's being tortured while Kerry's post-service interview describing American-committed atrocities was being played aloud - which makes no fucking sense to me. It sounds as if SBVFT are calling Kerry a liar because he spoke the truth. WTF?

Exactly which truth are the swifties voicing, IYHO? What is it that (IYHO) Kerry supporters think Kerry should be allowed to express an opinion about, but the SBVFT shouldn't? Can anyone here actually describe, in specific, what the issues really are? All I hear is dislike, but not why.

You, sir, speak in glittering generalities but offer nothing of substance.

Re:bite me asshat.

[ph1ll]

How many terrorism related deaths have there been in the US since 9/11.

Now, does that number match what you would have perceived on 9/12?

There were no more attacks on American soil to my knowledge after Pearl Harbour (except a few agitprop shells on Oregon) but that does not mean America was not at war. Nor did it mean things were going well.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

It is well know that the 9/11 terrorist, who were Saudis all had Kuwaiti passport, stolen from Kuwait by Saddams forces.

Mikes movie is nothing but an ad for Kerry and should be treated as such. If Kerry wins I see another Tammany Hall getting started...I just don't know who will be Boss Tweed this time around....my moneys on Hillary.

"Questions have been raised"

[MilenCent]

Anyone can raise questions about anything. The people who raise questions about Moore strike me as flywheels. But then, everything about Fox News strikes me as flywheelish.

But the point is, raising a question is easy to do spuriously. Allegations are similarly useless without good information on who's doing the allegating and the specific facts of the matter. Of course, these facts tend to get in the way of the need to present a short and informative Slashdot story, so what do I know.

Re:bite me asshat.

[ph1ll]

Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were [Iraqi] links to al-Qaeda

The Bush regime also gave $43 million to the Taliban just a few months before 9/11 (see CNN) with the full knowledge they were harbouring bin Laden.

Gee, so according to your argument, I guess that means Bush had links to al Qaeda...

Links, please, and facts in context, too...

Re:bite me asshat.

[KarmaOverDogma]

This is an interesting claim.

Got any proof? References?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Re:bite me asshat.

[disntrstd]

I think the both of these posts make a very good point.

Silly and naive

[TheConfusedOne]

You do realize that those inspectors were in the country only because there were 100,000+ troops on Iraq's borders?

You also realize that despite the presence of those inspectors and those troops Iraq was declared to still be in material violation of their orders? Even Hans Blix had to admit that Iraq wasn't complying with the inspection process yet again.

You can harp about the intelligence all you want now but the fact remains that EVERY country in the UNSEC believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Re:bite me asshat.

[KarmaOverDogma]

I agree completely.

The whole process of this political debate has really bothered me. Especially the attacks on John Kerry's Factual Proven record (unless, of course you happen to be a personal friend of GWB and/or have diect ties to those on his campaign committee).

I have been following this mud-fest, er, race for some time now and I am amazed at how democrats almost always allow the Republican party to claim the moral high ground by rarely taking the offensive on substantiative issues.

The Republican Party, for all its many faults (and yes Democrats have theirs too, but they are, especuially in this time, clearly the lesser of two corrupt bodies) at least knows how to present itself for maximum effect. I strongly object to what they stand for but at least they take stands (inconsistent and conveneient ones, but they do make them).

The Democratic party can't seem to make up its mind on a Real Platform or how to mount a strong, offensive, substantiative and issue-tenable campaign; it's like biting into Millbrook bread with milk when the competition has a grilled-cheese sandwhich and a cold brew.

I was totally taken aback to see Zell Miller, the Darth Vader of the Democratic Party spew forth his hateful, angry speech and see him challenge Chris Matthews to a duel on Crossfire afterwards when he was asked about how his speech didnt further meaningful dialogue (It was the most hateful speech I have seen to date from a "mainstream" poilitical figure on the national level).

I have wanted to make donation to the DNC (about $300.00) to help combat the campaign of distraction of the Republican Party, but until John Kerry really takes a stand to show he and the DNC will put my money to good use, I think i'll pass. Even the New York Times ran a piece entitled "Democrats Urge Kerry to Turn up Intensity of Campaign." he needs to fight back -hard. there's plenty of ground to do it on but the Demorcratic Party, and Kerry in particular, seems afraid of alienating someone and so instead fails to connect effetcively with undecided voters.

What I cannot understand is why so many people like Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign, so much. I truly don't understand why his approval rating is even at or near fifty percent. Are people that uninformed? Or am I truly missing out on an informed opposing point of view? The Problem is for the most part that the more I hear (from NPR mostly) the more I dont like what he has done.

One thing is for certain: the fact that so may people either love or hate GWB does reflect the present and growing cultural divide this nation faces and GWB is actively encouraging. That is what disturbs me the most: a nation so divided by values and ideas, the haves and have nots, the knows and know nots, the churchgoers and non-churchgoers.

Even the terrorists could not have done that as well as we have done it to ourselves.

Re:bite me asshat.

[djeca]

Your sources?

And your evidence that the putative passports were supplied to Al Qaeda by the government of Iraq, as opposed to just being bought off the street in a Baghdad market?

Let's keep this factual.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know who I want in a foxhole with me

Perhaps you'd prefer GWB, the fly boy who chose to desert his post in the Alabama Guard?

What the movie is about

[radtea]

Paraphrase:

"It has always amazed me that the people at the bottom of American society are the ones most willing to serve in the military. They serve, so we don't have to. And all they ask in return is that we never, ever send them into war without a good reason."

Any discussion of the film that misses this point, missed the point.

--Tom

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[Xeger]

Side effect of all the techies living on the left coast, I'm afraid.

Don't you worry; we'll get ours come November 3, when the nation rams their chosen president up our puckered liberal bungholes.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Either that, or the complete absence of terrorist strikes in the US since 9/11 indicates -- not that we are fighting "terror" and winning -- but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America."

And people wonder why leftists are being written off as kooks. BTW, Orwell was describing Communism.

kerry made his own bed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right, which is why "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" were so unsuccessful."

Nah few people believe that Kerry did not earn his medals. What really hurt Kerry is that first he got side tracked...his fault he brought up the vietnam war and then when the ads came out made it a national issue by calling on bush to denounce them...you would not see bush do this...instead bush has other people do it for him. To be honest it makes kerry look unpresidential. If he can't keep his mouth shut on something like the swift boats issue before he his elected then what the fuck is he going to do when when he is president and the real critisism comes his way.

I mean look at all the 527 ads against bush...i have seen like 5 of them from 3 different orginizations. Does Bush bitch and moan about every single one of them putting the discussion of these ads into the national spotlite? No he sticks to the issues he wants to emphisise he sticks to the agenda he wants to promote. Kerry in August was an idiot. If he became president I really don't see him getting anything done becouse any argument he gets he will simply be side tracked into bantering statements about how he was wronged rather then focusing on an agenda.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

All the worlds intelligence organizations. One, they were the real documents from the Kuwaiti government, not street knock-offs.

I do agree that Iraq was a low priority target, it still should have been a target, but Osama should have been first. Too bad Clinton let him go four times before 9/11.

Thorough contemplation??

[sl4shd0rk]

Christ, what a crock of shit. We're fed heaping handfuls of horseshit from the very beginning. Elections are all about building the bigger pile of shit that everyone else thinks is chocolate ice cream. As far as I'm concerned, the "democratic" process in this country is a fanciful farce prepetuated by Neilson and the rest of the media. Moore should run his movie every weekend from now until hell freezes over. Thorough contemplation has nothing to do with an election.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[disntrstd]

It's called fighting fire with fire. Unless the American people learn how to critically think and make choices they will continue to fall prey to propoganda. People follow their hearts and not their brains. That's always a big mistake IMHO.

In one sense, I am glad Moore is taking down Bush, but I also question the means by which he does so. I guess , in the end, we are going to have to follow the lesser of two evils and walk down the progressive path to truth. It's either that or 4 more years with Bush.

I believe that Moore is intelligent, compassionate, and that his intentions are pure. I have yet to see Moore as anything but a true populist. I will support him, and I will support Kerry. I am quite sure that Kerry would make a much better leader than Bush.

um...

[Run4yourlives]

Slashdot's international so you may be excused, but in the US American's do (if they bother) vote directly for their president.

Re:um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Americans do not vote directly for the president.

Bad system in my opinion, but then again, this is /., no one cares about any one else's opinion... ^_^

or very high figures....

[SethJohnson]

They are tragic, but very low considering what has been accomplished.

You might consider this to be a low death toll. I do not. The lion's share of casualties have been suffered by Americans in this conflict, second only to Iraqis. Had we really invaded as part of a UN coalition as the US participated in the Kosovo war, the numbers would be more evenly distributed. I am also outraged that most of these casualties have occurred after George Bush announced an end to 'major combat operations in Iraq' with the 'mission accomplished' banner in the background. A capable war president would know better than to call a premature end to a war.

I'm certain that theirs isn't any more slack than the other networks.

I disagree. If you are so certain the other networks are as biased as Fox News, then I challenge you to watch the movie OutFoxed and then scrutinize the other networks. But you won't. You'll prefer to sit with your pre-formed opinion without exploring other perspectives on the topic.

I checked out information on the Youssef-McVeigh connection. Sounds plausible. I'd support the Bush administration investigating this connection. We've still got Terry Nichols alive (and his brother), so they've got people to work with. It would certainly be the strongest connection of Iraq supporting terrorism against Americans. To date, there has been no evidence documented that connects Iraq to terrorism against Americans.

Re:or very high figures....

[Anonymous Coward]

the numbers would be more evenly distributed

Oh I see, the great humanitarity...

As far as FoxNews is concerned, get out of the Vietnam/Watergate/Tinfoil-Hat CNN style news coverage or do alternate opinions worry you (they certainly appear to).

Re:or very high figures....

[johnnyb]

"If you are so certain the other networks are as biased as Fox News, then I challenge you to watch the movie OutFoxed and then scrutinize the other networks."

Interestingly, I don't have insider ties to other news organizations, so I can't perform your test.

"To date, there has been no evidence documented that connects Iraq to terrorism against Americans."

Except that Ramzi Youssef was working for Iraq when he set of the WTC bomb (he is usually counted in with the Saudis, because that's his nationality, and most people don't mention that he was working for Saddam at the time). Also, there is the assassination attempt against former president GHWB. Also there is the fact that Iraq harbored many of the terrorists involved in attacks against americans, including the remaining attacker from the WTC bombing in 1993.

I agree that "victory" was called too early, but remember at the time the media was outraged that GWB was taking too long to declare victory. GWB was pressured into calling victory too early. I blame GWB (he should be above following the popular opinion of the media, but was weak in this case), but I certainly don't think Kerry would have done better.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[TheCaptain]

If we went to war in Iraq for oil, then why isn't THAT lowering the price? Why are the Saudi's manipulating the price of oil? Because we went to war in Iraq?

You aren't making any sense.

If we wanted to invade for oil, Venezuela is what the target would be. If our leaders are all a bunch of oil men bent on oiling us all to death, don't you think they'd know that too?

Gas prices drop after labor day weekend? Now theres a shocker. Umm...not.

bushy

[N3wsByt3]

Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.

Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?

Do you think his reaction on the golfterrain was only normal too?

I, for one, do not think that it's a normal reaction of a president, hearing that his country is under attack, to just keep reading and continuing his PR-tour. As others have said: it's not about giving a press-conference on the spot, but it IS about knowing your priorities, cutting short trivial (in comparison) things like the PR-profiling and normal routine, and trying to get more information and holding a staff meeting, or something. THAT is what I would expect a president to do, and it has nothing to do with hindsight.

And the same with most other things that were shown of bush (and his reactions): it is NOT normal or a BFD-class molehill; M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.

Re:bushy

[Brandybuck]

Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.

I avoided them because they didn't address my original remark about the book reading "incident". But since you bring up the Bin Laden family the third time this thread, let me answer briefly:

Yes, Bush supplied the Bin Laden family with favors. If I were president I would have done the same thing. This is, to use a very localized vernacular, a "nothingburger". Having ties to the Bin Laden family is completely immaterial. You do not condemn an entire family for the actions of someone they disowned years ago. Moore didn't bring up this topic because he was concerned about the president's ties to wealthy individuals in other nations. He brought it up solely because of the name "Bin Laden".

M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character

If he would have kept it at that, I probably would not have had much of a problem. Lobbing charges of lack of character and intelligence is an old and worn tactic by all sides. I ignore it when I hear it. But Moore went beyond this. His thesis wasn't "look how stupid this guy is", but rather "look how evil and conspiratorial this guy is."

Re:bushy

[RobNich]

Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?

It is absolutely irrelevant. All flights in the US were grounded to keep new planes from being hijacked, and the family was not going to be targeted by terrorists, so letting their plane take off was not a security risk. The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception. It is not unreasonable to get the family out of the country considering that they may be targeted as reparation for what their family member did. Additionally, if the family were even covertly hostile and had been involved in the attacks, they would have been out of country already, and would not have needed to get special permission to leave. And to top it off, RICHARD CLARK gave the order to allow the Bin Laden family to leave. Look it up.

...and trying to get more information and holding a staff meeting, or something.

What the hell good would that have done? It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York. He was told the key points, and his staff were still gathering information. If he had stopped and called a staff meeting, those people would not be able to gather more information, as they would be in a MEETING. He did exactly what I would expect from a sane and intelligent person: he didn't alarm the children, he finished what he was doing, and he let his staff get on with the gathering of data. To expect otherwise is absolutely idiotic.

Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.

On the contrary, his actions in the school showed that Bush is not a complete idiot, and doesn't make hasty decisions based on incomplete information or call a meeting because "something is happening." He is confident in his staff to gather the data and his Chief of Staff to give him information at the pertinent time.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

John kerry came back, and joined a group of veterans called the "Winter Soldiers" and testifies to congress as a representative of that group. ...
. ... He came back from Vietnam, and spoke Truth to Power. He spoke against an unpopular war. He pulled back the curtain on the atrocities that were occuring every day in 'Nam.

He did the right thing.

John Kerry didn't speak "truth to power." He was a powerful spokesman who convinced many to believe poisonous lies:

He [John Kerry] said in essence that his fellow veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy to commit such atrocities.

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans , which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of the reason that even today, people who are too young to remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent "Tailwind" episode some months ago. ... But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S. atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked about it to no one, discussed it very little even among themselves."

And more:

Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.

The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.

Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his service:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, t

Re:Hell yeah

[geekoid]

" I have been bitching since Desert Storm I that we left the Iraqi people out to dry"
I agree. Politically it was a good move. Leave an unbalanced country so OPEC needs are military. W screwed that up.

That said, the reason went went into Iraq at this time was not handled correctly.
Lying to us and making it suddenly be about 9/11 while not saying so much about Bin Laden.

We should of gone in for violations against his agreement, not for made up reasons.

Not to mention that our troops have been treated like crap. segreagtion between gaurd and 'real' military. how ytou get more real then sitting in a middle of a war getting shot at is beyond me.
We were not prepared for a long war, and we are in one. regardless of what Bush says.

I don't know why more people weren't pissed when he declared the war over while OUR people were under enemy fire.

If lying about getting your dick sucked is an impeachable offence, why isn't lying about the end of a war, the reasons we went to war, and raping the constitution an impeachable offense?

Re:bite me asshat.

[centralizati0n]

You've looked at three factors of a much larger problem, and selectively chosen those three factors. Yes, we have succeeded at some things, and, yes, we have failed at many others. Come on, let's not resort to logical fallacies.

Check this one out, you'll like it

[melted]

So you think Pentagon was damaged by a passenger plane? These fellas don't think so.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html

Re:Check this one out, you'll like it

[Anonymous Coward]

That shit's crazy!

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Miguelito]

What about the costs of cleaning up roadside lead left from pre-1970s gasoline?

Pre-1970s? I was using leaded fuel in a car up until 1992 or so. It was still available for awhile after that too.

How ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

> No, because he knew the Japanese were
> going to attack from intelligence reports
> months in advance

You mean like the report that Bush got (and probably ignored, and went on holidays as usual) a couple of months before 9/11, titled "Al Qaeda determined to strike inside the US", and which specifically mentioned hijacking planes?

Quite simply too stupid to be president.

Re:How ironic...

[RobNich]

The Presidential Daily Bulletin that you are referring to is absolutely irrelevant. It did not provide a specific threat, the general threat did not have a simple, cheap, or socially acceptable solution (people still complain about the difficulty from airport security, even after the attacks). You can Google for it, and out of five results, the first is my site.

The FDR reference, which I'm not sure I believe, refers to a specific threat to a specific place which is a military installation and was not placed on alert. If it is true, it is not good, but I wouldn't call it damning either--who in the hell could argue that our stepping in and defeating Hitler was a bad thing? And without us, Europe would have fallen.

Fighting Terrorism is like fighting Winter

[tentimestwenty]

The war on terrorism is like a war on Winter. You can do all you want to protect yourself with fancy clothes and have insulated transport and shelters but in the end it's still cold outside. The last thing you'd want to do is expose yourself and run far away from your house. Hell, stay home, work on your social graces and soon some friends might even come over to share your company.

Another movie you should see (or read)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to offer a little more fodder for the flames. There is another movie out that talks about Bush's alleged intelligence deficiencies.

It's great fun!

http://www.truthuncovered.com/film_press.html

Transcript of the film
http://www.truthuncovered.com/images/UNCOVER EDtran script.pdf

It's pretty interesting. You don't have to read too far to get the
point. "...he [George Bush] was misleading the public and the
Congress" said JOHN DEAN former White House counsel. "The most
troubling thing about the fact, the distortions and the misleading
statements that Bush gave Congress is that it is a federal felony,
it's a crime to mislead and distort information to present to the
Congress."

Hitler NEVER won a majority

[JimmytheGeek]

In 1933 the Nazi's actually were in decline, which was what made them tractable in the negotiations with the industrialists who preferred him to socialists and chaos. He got about a third in the previous round, and slightly less, as I recall. Then Hindenburg, a very sick puppy by that point, was encouraged to give him a shot at forming a government. The Nazis got the Interior Ministry, where the cops are, and consolidated from there.

You can blame the Germans for not revolting (which is called treason). You can't blame them for voting for the guy- most didn't.

He was fairly popular for the first few years after he took power, but he didn't test it with real elections.

Don't Make Promises You Can't Keep

[ppp]

There is some truth to your post, but remember, Bush PROMISED 300,000 new jobs per month in order to get his tax cut legislation passed.

He is in effect being held accountable for his own promises, something he would eagerly exploit if HE was the challenger instead of the incumbent.

Sounds like fair play to me.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a extermely good point...the Chechnian rebels. It is clear that these people are terrorists. Well if the US is so bent on destroying terrorism, why the hell aren't we doing something to help Russia? For christ sake, the bastards are killing children over there and what the hell are we doing? Nothing. But hey...lets go invade Iraq on the FALSE permise of WMD. Bush is POS and how the hell anybody could support him is beyond me.

Loosing the wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is losing the wars he's fighting.

1] The war on terrorism is just terrible. It has never been as much terror ans after Bush realized his complete failed conceptions about terrorism and how to get rid of it.

2] Afghanistan is a mess. Independendt warlord own it and production of opium is up several thousand percent.

3] Irag. Oh my God. 15.000 Iraqi civilians dead. 1.000 US soldiers. And Insurgents are taking control over one city after another.
Samarra, Fallujah, Ramadi, Baqub, Najaf and Karbala, they're lost. No US soldiers there, and they stay out. They know what awaits them if they enter.

Iraq is a lost case. It's gone exactly like the entire world tried to tell USA early in 2003.

But you can scream and swear to a donkey. Does it help?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your thread filter to include -1.

Liberals like to mod the truth down.

This is what the poster was referring to:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread783 00/pg 1

Later, while still in that condition at St Albans Naval Hospital, one of my earliest recollections was hearing of John Kerry's testimony before Congress. I remember lying there, in disbelief, as I learned how Kerry told the world that I served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's; that officers like me routinely let their men plunder villages and rape villagers at will; that "war crimes" committed in Vietnam by my fellow soldiers "were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Bais Media??

[Anonymous Coward]

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
Editorial Note.
You can't look at it from one side like this.
People are trying to stop the airing of it because it might effect voting.
What do you think all the current media events in favour of the government are on the air for???
What do you think we have campaines for?
To sway votes... So its fine to air media in favoure of the government but anything against we should be warey of. Can't you see how wrong this is, it's called having bias media which stops democracy from working. How can people make fair judgements if they only see one side?

There is a reason why we hear both sides in law to make fair judgements. The same needs to be in the media.

Is he pulling Bush's strings, then?

[Rui del-Negro]

Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.

Excuse me? Are you saying he told Bush to sit for 7 minutes holding a children's book while the USA was being attacked? Are you saying he ordered the american generals to invade Iraq, or that he made up the supposed "evidence" about weapons that never existed? Are you saying the news clips shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 (with Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) were written or directed by Moore?

Because that is the message. It speaks for itself. The rest is a few interviews and some (more or less obvious, and frankly unnecessary) commentary. Moore's commentary is there to do the same as the canned laughs in Seinfeld - to tell people that it's okay to laugh (or, in this case, to feel outraged). That doesn't make the jokes any less funny, and people who don't need the canned laughs to feel comfortable with their own laughs can simply ignore them.

So if you don't need (or like) Moore's commentary, just ignore it. The film stands up quite well without it. I admit I find his voice a bit annoying.

But, back to the subject.

Living in Europe, I really couldn't understand why there was such a big fuss about Fahrenheit 9/11, because I had already seen nearly all of those clips, documents, etc..

Then I found out that most of that had never been shown inside the USA. And that makes me even more worried about what the USA is becoming.

P.S. - Yes, I'm sure that the fact the movie is called "Fahrenhype 911" is just a coicidence, and is in no way a direct reaction against Michael Moore or his films... [rolls his eyes]

Re:Is he pulling Bush's strings, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in Europe...And that makes me even more worried about what the USA is becoming.

What? Like Europe??? God, I hope not. Jew killers (no, I'm not talking about Nazi Germany, but modern day France. Oppressors against Islam (France again). Not only public appeasers of dictators, but willing and interested in selling anything to killers. Missiles? WMD manufacturing gear? Scientists to train your people on how to make bioweapons? You name it, there's a European willing to set anyone up in the genocide business (and better yet, they'll feel morally superior and blame Americans for being 'unsophisticated, bad people.' Talk about one hell of a projection head case!)

Oh, speaking of genocide, what about those morally superior Europeans and Rwanda? The former Yugoslavia? The Sudan? And don't forget other European engineered mass killings, such as Cambodia and Uganda. While we're at it, we ought to toss in the twentieth-century genocide caused by European socialism, taking 40 million in the Soviet Union alone, millions of Jews, and probably greater amounts of Chinese - all from a wonderful European relativist political invention.

Yes, I am impressed with Europeans. They have a track record the United States will never, ever understand. Still in denial, still aspiring to rebuild their empires (most still cling to remaining colonies which they oppress, rape and fleece like French Guiana), preaching hatred for others, fearing Jews and selling weapons to genocidal killers, they haven't changed a bit.

Your point was something about a book and seven minutes? Amazing how things like that no longer seem relevant...

Re:Is he pulling Bush's strings, then?

[rpdillon]

In order:

The phrase "kill the messenger" comes from the days when royalty, emperors, and other rulers would write a message (or have a scribe do it) and then have a messenger take it to the other ruler. Often, if it contained bad news, the recipient would "kill the messenger". In this context, Moore is *not* the messenger, he is the author of the message. Carrying the metaphor further, to "kill the messenger" would be to shoot the projectionist showing the film.

Next, to address the issue of Bush sitting for 7 minutes after he heard we were being attacked: in your infinite wisdom, what would you have done? Better yet, what can you imagine he would have done that would have been better? Excused himself, moved out into the hallway, and still stood there? Maybe gotten into a car and raced off somewhere? Where? To do what? No, he did the right thing, and stayed cool. He is, in essence, a decision maker. In that faculty, he can do his job most anywhere, so long as he is being supplied with information.

Next, I think in your first paragraph you are asserting that "facts are facts, and I saw the footage in the movie, so I know what happened." This is the logical equivalent of saying "creative editing of actual footage is still facts, and still portrays the truth, no matter what." I'll leave it as an excersise for the reader to disprove that.

Lastly, with regard to "Farenhype 9/11", as far as I can tell, it does in fact tell the other side. It doesn't attack Moore, or any of his other films, I think it simply attacks the assertions, implications and "facts" he presents in "Farenheit 9/11". In fact, you said:

"That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes."

And I disagree: it is not a movie about Michael Moore. It is not a movie *about* his films. It is a movie *in response* to his films on the topics of 9/11, terrorism, and the war in Iraq. Your statement that the naming is "just a coincidence" is bait, and is a specious argument. I'm not going to bite.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that factually incorrect? What part was factually incorrect?

It was a direct quote from Kerry's testimony. Just like Michael MorON.

LOL

[autopr0n]

So anyone saying Dubya is a cokehead must be a cokehead themselves? Your evidence: you used to be fat, and now you don't like fat people.

I don't know if G-Dub snorted coke, I think it's likely. But I don't think that having snorted coke should make you inelegible for the whitehouse. Intrestingly, Barak Obama (who democrats love) admited to taking coke in a book he wrote.

The people who push this story do so because they hate bush and they want other people to hate him to. It's entirely possible to hate people because of who they are, not because of you who are.

Wrong

[autopr0n]

They didn't 'find' a sarin bomb, a truck was hit with a bipolar saran shell in an IED a couple months ago. No one knows where the shell came from, it could easily have been smuggled in from syria or iran long after "major combat opperation" ended.

A little social psychology for you

[sharky611aol.com]

Despite the fact that the odds of anybody actually making it to this post are slim to none, I'll throw a quick lesson on the psychology of persusion.

There are basically two forms of persuasion, as pertains to the political arena. You can either:

a) Use logic, reason, facts, etc., also known as the central route to persuasion. This tends to work best when the persuadees have time to mull over the information, and requires that they be making active strides towards making a decision. You'll therefore see these types of ads (actually focusing on issues), around this time of the year.

or

b) Use emotional appeal, scare tactics, weak arguments, etc., also known as the peripheral route to persuasion. This is highly effective when a decision has to be made very soon, without sufficient time to mull over the facts. Thus, you will most likely see this type of ad (often seen as "dirty") right before the election.

Pay attention to the way the ads change as the election approaches, and you'll see my point.

Obviously, F911 could be classified as either form of persuasion (probably depending on your political party...), but it most certainly is designed to have a highly emotional impact, thus will be very effective in persuading folks right before the election.

Ok, that's my 2 cents. Guess that psych major came in handy after all.

FUCK REPUBLICANS! -nt

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK REPUBLICANS!

Re:FUCK REPUBLICANS! -nt

[Glidedon2]

Are you a good looking blonde rebublican? If you are I'm game.

Re:Hell yeah

[brandido]

" Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%."

Although this is true, it does not reflect the fact that there is a huge number of people that have given up finding work, or are no longer able to get unemployment benefits, so don't count towards the 5.4%. Over 1 Million jobs have been lost under Bush when he had promised to create 5 Million - just this year, they said there would be over 2 million new jobs this year! This is the first time since Herbert Hoover, that a president has lost jobs during his precidency. Claiming that Clinton had a 5.4% unemployment rate, so things are the same is either using statistics to lie, or not understanding the statistics.

On the issue of whether or not the president has control over the unemployment rate is a debate that goes beyond my ability to fairly engage. However, even if he doesn't have complete control, he can influence, and bottom line, if a Republican President, and Republican Senate and a Republican House aren't responsible, who is? This administration has not been big on taking responsibility, but it has got to start some time!

Re:bite me asshat or Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr

[Cleetus Freem]

"bite me asshat"... now, is that a cockney slang version of the old British insult "Bite My Grasshat" or the Australian "Bite My Ass Shat"?

You know that both of those come from the ancient gaelic insult "Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr Sgruigean" which is first seen used by the famous (well, to Irish folks anyway...) Lord Cuchulain during the war between Ulster and Connacht (50 B.C or so)?

Purportedly he said it during an "honor meeting" as he faced off against Táin Bó Cualgne... historically it went like this,

Táin Bó Cualgne - "You are surrounded, your men are weak, you are outnumbered ten to one, you've no weapons left, you have neither water nor food... you have no hope. Surrender now and I will allow your men to return to their families, showing them the mercy that you have denied so many others."
Lord Cuchulain - "Bite me, asshat."

Of course he actually said, "Bìdeadh Buideal Mòr Sgruigean." but you know that already.

-Cheers.

Re:Hell yeah

[Lord Omlette]

No, if Kerry had come back to vote, the Republicans would have said "aw shucks" and the ones that voted for it would have switched their votes to "No" and let it go... because there can always engineer more opportunities to make him look bad.

Michael Moore is right, but Kerry will lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brit in the USA for a good few years now, and after experiencing 9/11, the Anthrax scares, Afghanistan and Iraq, and WMD and intelligence fiasco, the economy, rising healthcare costs, etc, etc, along with everyone else over here, and now seeing the Bush vs. Kerry campaign. I've come to a conclusion...

Americans are a bunch of ignorant bastards.

The thing is that you're all brought up to think you're better or special. You're not. You are the most powerful nation on Earth, not because you're clever, but because you have vast natural resources. You're a child with a gun. Selfish and closed to the world.

I can find many individuals who are thoughtful and intelligent. Mostly you're all pretty small minded. Don't tax me so everyone can have healthcare. I don't care. I want my extra movie channel.

Bush will win in November for no other reason that he preaches to the scared child in all Americans. Terror terror terror. You hide under the bed and I'll keep watch. Trust me.

This isn't the America I came to in the 90s. I don't know what it's turning into, but it isn't good.

Bush will win. It's a done deal. To think otherwise is to have your eyes closed to the world.

Four more years. My God.

Re:Michael Moore is right, but Kerry will lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still bitter about the colonies having kicked your arse, I see.

~~~

Re:Michael Moore is right, but Kerry will lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all you've got? I was at least expecting the, "well why don't you piss off back to England?" line... no matter.

Re: the colonies: We were busy with the French back then, but you got what you wanted. And a grand job you've done too.

Funny how things turn out. Before the end of WWII England was always at war with someone. Now though, it's all peaceful on the Western Front, and the British are respected throughout the world. The US, on the other hand, are despised universally. The ignorant man-on-the-street puts this down to "jealously". Riiiight. And when I say "despised", I don't mean generally disliked (the way the English and the French tend to generally dislike each other), but I mean really hard-core despised. And again, it's not individuals. Individuals are smart, appropriate, thoughtful, caring, etc. But as a nation... oh my God.

I'd like you shake you all and shout "wake up!", but you're already awake... you just can't see.

Re:Michael Moore is right, but Kerry will lose.

[DerWulf]

before judging others you should clean your own goddamned front porch. England has nothing of her grandeure, charm or culture left. The country has thoroughly degenerated into a bunch of alcoholic brutes kicking each other in the nuts after a soccer game. No book, no film, no music (besides Robbie and the Spice Girls), no painting, no poem has made its way out of this shithole you seem to admire so much. Your government, especially Mr. Blair, was left out to dry by Schröder and Chirac while they get to decide what the union will look like tomorrow. Meanwhile Northern Ireland is still repressed by what little is left of the migthy imperial british fist. Your monarchy is a joke for the rest of the world to laugh at. A doddery old woman as the national symbol and head of state. I won't even get into her dysfunct relatives.

Definition of terrorism too broad

[JimmytheGeek]

I think it would have to include the deliberate targetting of non-combatants. Otherwise, it's just another buzzword used to make an enemy's actions seem worse than they are. I hate that debasement of language and reason. The fsking Soviets using a laundry list of "bandit-imperialist-terrorists" like a schizophrenic. And the right-wing thugs in Latin America labelling any labor leader a "communist". Or calling environmentalist sabotage "ecoterrorism" Might as well start trotting out "double-plus-ungood!"

I think political leadership is a legit target, too.

It occurred to me the other night that it's kind of an odd conceit, that civilians have nothing to do with the fight. I definitely support the conceit, but it's a minority position in world affairs. Hell, in "Red Dawn" it was civilians turned guerillas that turned the tide! An awful movie, but a good point about the legitimacy of resisting occupation. The Iraqi Shiites are basically Patrick Swayze.

I ramble. Excuse me.

Re:What the hell is this doing on Slash!

[base3]

Post the password--I'll take it.

Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've been moded down by slashdot admins or somthing. I've gotten at least +2 for insightful, -2 for 'overrated' and my +1 bonus has been stripped away. Odd.

Re:Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose your karma bonus if you get modded down twice.

Anything to get rid of Bush is good...

[matdodgson]

Anything to get rid of Bush is good...

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say that he was told, or he saw, he said he did it

We've impeached presidents for less! And people are seriously considering this as an option?! Maybe it will keep them more entertained while the US grovels at the feet of the rest of the world like the proper super power it is!

Re:2001 Anthrax Attacks Origin and Targets

[DeadScreenSky]

Wikipedia has an excellent explanation, especially in detailing the targets. The article here is now subscription only, but you can get the jist of it from what is given. Obviously you could google for "Steven Hatfill", who at least was suspected as being part of the leak (I have no idea if he is still under suspicion, but obviously the government figured it was from one of their labs if they were looking at him). A good (early) article about why it looks like military anthrax samples were used is here.

But honestly, you probably should have just briefly looked into this yourself. Obviously most of this is common knowledge to quite a few people, and has been for some time (I learned that it was almost definitely US military in origin probably well more than six months ago).

Re:bite me asshat.

[DeadScreenSky]

That from a government I'm convinced wants it to be Chechens so they can continue cleansing the ethnics from an oilpatch.

Maybe, but as the article states, the Russian government also wants the incident to look like Chechnya wasn't a factor. I think it is still a little too early to tell what really happened and who was really involved.

Re:bite me asshat.

[upsidedown_duck]

Ask the American people if anyone knows why we're in the war to begin with?

If I understand correctly, the Vietnam War was essentially the last hurrah of World War II, where south-east Asia was left in a power vacuum between Japan and China and was terribly mismanaged by French and British occupiers. The USA inherited the resulting mess.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

"Liberals like to mod the truth down."

I take it, then, that you are suggesting that My Lai WAS an isolated incident? That Kerry was lying when he relayed stories of repeated atrocities by American soldiers?

So, apparently, John Kerry told the world that the quoted officer served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's, routinely committing war crimes. WASN'T THAT TRUE?

I'm frankly unimpressed by feelings of "betrayal", *if* those betrayed happened to have done what Kerry said they did. If a soldier who raped, murdered, and burned civilians at My Lai or one of the innumerable other similar tragedies is insulted that Kerry tattled on him, tough shit. The soldiers who engaged in such atrocities shouldn't be telling me how awful Kerry was for telling the truth, they should be IN JAIL. None of them are.

Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

If you wish to tell me about truth, then show me some. Show me that My Lai only happened there, and nowhere else. Show me that John Kerry was unjustifiedly awarded all those medals. Show me that POWs were tortured because of Kerry, and for no other reason. Show me that George Bush went AWOL during his Air National Guard service, or that he was conscientious about meeting his military obligations. Rhetoric does not impress me. Facts do.

I'm not picking a side here, I'm repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) asking people who make assertions here to support them. None do. You included. Facts? HELLO?

Re:bite me asshat.

[dpilot]

Last I remembered, Clinton was the one who sent cruise missles after bin Laden. He has also said that that was the most he could get away with on the home front. Even with 'just cruise missiles' he was accused of 'wagging the dog'. Curious timing about that movie, wasn't it.

Richard Clark also had an antiterrorism plan drawn up, including nastier plans for Afghanistan. The Clinton administration felt it would be wrong to leave the incoming administration with a War on Day 1, so they left the plan on the shelf, ready to go.

Needless to say...

Just the facts

[t_allardyce]

Speaking of media.. ok im off-topic but has anyone heard the stuff Emanuel Goldstein recorded at the NY RNC protests? the NYPD seem to have turned into fascist fucktards, not '911 heroes' i think its important people hear all facts and see raw evidence taken in context, it always speaks for itself and it doesn't need any sort of pushing. F911 did have a bit of bias and opinion in it but its raw scenes were the ones that stood out. I think an army of journalists/pissed-off people should go on a mass hunt for incriminating evidence from the bush administration (and in fact from all other parties and corporations) because there's plenty - even if it means you have to violate a few 1st amendment rights and go searching senators/ceo's homes without warrants (yes break in to the fuckers, they do it to you) and get all the crap they don't want you to see and make as many copies as you can and stick it on tv and post it around. If your corporate pig boss has been dealing with the government, don't feel any guilt in rifling through their desk and copying whatever you can, homeland security wants you to be vigilant: well be vigilant!! spy on your government and the people with power and get that information to everyone else!

Re:Bush got his share too...

[baldass_newbie]

Erm, those are the records that he's released, not his full military file, like Bush released for his service because the press was SCREAMING for them.
Big difference.
See what I mean?
Relevant quote:

"Although Kerry campaign officials insist they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records."

So, while you take Kerry at his word, I'm a little more skeptical of the man who said that my father and every other general officer in Vietnam committed war crimes.
I think he just might lie about military activities to score political points. But hey, believe whoever you want there, big guy.

You've avoided the question.

[khasim]

What if the PEOPLE all VOTE and elect a RADICAL ISLAMIC THEOCRACY? Particularly one that is anti-US.

As it seems they will likely do, at the moment.

Do we go in again and "finish the job" again?

Re:You've avoided the question.

[Pharmboy]

That is the risk we take. The primary goal is to get a system where all the people can vote and decide. If they choose a Theocracy, then we will have to live with it.

Odds are that as long as everyone is given an equal chance to vote, they will not. Likely they will eventually develop a parlamentary system that recognizes their religious beliefs, like Turkey. Whatever it becomes, at least it will be the will of the people instead of the will of a small minority of people who are in charge simply because they have the weapons.

Anything that is democratic is better than the former system. Very seldom do you see wars between two governments when the peoples of both countries have equal representation. Its always two dictatorships, or one dictatorship against one democracy.

Fair taxes

[dpilot]

Actually, I'll talk about taxes and wealth distribution, and completely avoid the use of the word, "fair."

It's a somewhat cheesey analogy, I'll admit, but not entirely cheesey.

Consider money as an anology for water. Water flows across the land. People drink it, then p*ss it. They grow crops with it, and those crops eventually end up back in the land. Water evaporates. Water goes into the sea. But through all of this, water just keeps cycling around, and keeps life flowing.

Now add the 'water wealthy' to the mix. The 'water wealthy' could be modeled as an icecap or reservoir. Water goes there, and it stays there, by and large. I know the water is "invested," but in reality ownership of that quantity of water hasn't changed, it isn't doing the same type of work as if it were flowing, irrigating, and being drunk.

The problem comes in when there's only a finite quantity of water. When the wealthy store up too much of it, there isn't enough water flowing in the land. Commonly called a drought.

When the total quantity of water is growing, it's OK for the wealthy to accumulate, because there's still enough to keep the land fertile. That's not where we are, today.

Re:Fair taxes

[rkischuk]

Two problems here - one is the assumption that wealth is a zero sum game, if only during a drought (recession). An enterprising citizen can start a business and find himself wealthy even during times such as the past few years, though perhaps not as easily.

The second, and more noteworthy problem is the idea that the money held by the wealthy stops flowing. In truth, the only way the wealthy keep money out of the economy is if they bury it in their backyard or hoard it under a pillow. Otherwise, where is that money? It's in a bank account, where the bank can lend that money to other citizens. It's invested in businesses which can create jobs and grow to build the economy. It's used to purchase goods and services, which pays other citizens. It's used to build buildings, which require both labor and supplies.

In short, it's almost impossible for the wealthy to keep their "water" to themselves.

Re:Fair taxes

[dpilot]

It's an anology, not a model, so it's far from perfect. I tried to say that sometimes the economy is growing, and it isn't a zero-sum game. The issue is that you have to compare the accumulation rate of the wealthy to the growth rate of the economy.

No, the wealthy can't keep the water to themselves, but it is bound up tighter than if it was being spent. IMHO, most of the stock market isn't really investment, it's a horse race. The money moves during an IPO, or a new issue, or when it's truly leaving the market rather than juggling from one stock to another.

That Michael Moore.

[surfcow]

I'm beginning to think he's somewhat biased.

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of telling that this comment would be marked "Offtopic", when this entire topic has spun into so many directions that most of it can be regarded as "Offtopic".

Perhaps the slashdrone moderators are trying to supress it?

I think it was a good comment and deserves some kind of reply, what's up with the spelling though..."Slahdot"?

Kind of funny actually...slahdrones...I like that.

Propaganda

[liam_p]

We used the american election strategy and political advertising campaigns as an example of succesful propoganda techniques in our communications A-level. I think its probably fair to say a vast majority of votes are based on an emotional reaction or just what you/ma and pa voted for last time.

Re:bite me asshat.

[GeekyGuru]

WTF? A score of -1? John 'F' (Fucked-in-head) Kerry must be moderating...

links to al quaeda?

[theblacksun]

Any links to al-Qaeda are minor at best. The Baath Party is very secular; al-Qaeda is a theocratic militant organizion. Idealogically opposed.

From what I understand, Osama supposedly went to the ruling Saudis and offered to take care of Saddam around the time of the First Gulf War, though I cannot validate such. I will assert that my source is a highly educated, well-read individual who's past revealations include the fact that Chalabi was a snake long before any mainstream press wrote about it. The simple fact is the link is not sufficent for "Regime Change" or as I prefer to call it, eliminating a sovergn(sp?) nation.

that's a bunch of bullshit

[dh003i]

Saying that someone works at the Independent Instittue, and thus is lying, is bullshit. Likewise, saying that their institute is "market-oriented" doesn't discredit them. Just briefly looking over that article, it seems like it's largely saying "well, you have to understand the movie from this perspective (namely, that it's designed to cater to leftie-commies), and then most of the 'deceits' aren't relevant". It seems like people are saying "well, this is a documentary, so of course he can do all of these shady things, like cut'n'paste audio clips and take information vastly out of context". That's not a justification to me; to the extent that the argument works, all that I can conclude from it is that all documentaries, insofar as they are like Moore's, are deceitful and worthless crap.

Re:Bush got his share too...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, that Bush is a god among men, and ge shall be the last to fall since we will all lay down our lives to protect the almighty one? Sig Heil, Mein Bush!

Re:bite me asshat.

[merdark]

So well known that you can't even provide a link to a reputable source with this information?

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

" I have been bitching since Desert Storm I that we left the Iraqi people out to dry"

I agree. Politically it was a good move. Leave an unbalanced country so OPEC needs are military. W screwed that up.

I would say that Osama screwed that up. The pre 9-11 situation was tolerable, but not great. Once the towers came down, the price was too high to NOT shake the place up. Right now, we have a presence on two sides of Iran, and next door to Saudi Arabia, the two real sources of Terrorism. Its ugly, its painful, but I still feel its better than the alternative.

We have lost 1000 people, which I hate, but as a Vet, I know its the price you pay. With all the bitching about effectiveness, the fact is we have killed more than 10x the number of enemy soldiers/combatants. Probably closer to a 50 to 1 ratio. A 2-1 ratio would normally be considered effective, yet we have succeeded in reducing our losses to 2% or less compared to "the enemy". This is success by any standard.

It may not be popular here on Slashdot, but I fully support the idea of thinning the herd of radical elements. 100%. Like it or not, I would rather blow up potential problems that see them on our soil. Educating women is as effective as killing men in Afganistan, since it defeats their political philosophy. I have read the Koran, and it doesn't look great for women, but it doesn't excuse the domination of men by keeping women uneducated and subservient. That alone was reason enough to drop some bombs, in my opinion.

I don't want anyone to die, but if someone must die, I choose them. I say we take the battle to them, and assist them in their desire to die in battle and ascend into heaven and hook up with 72 virgins. If that is what it takes, so be it. I just am not afraid to admit it, and don't feel the need to post as AC when I do.

As to lying, I am not convinced he lied to anyone. I think he is embarassed that either 1) there were no WMDs, which is odd since even the French thought there were, or 2) The WMDs were moved to another location. My money is on them being moved. Being wrong isn't evil, its just wrong. It happens, and no country thought the WMDs didn't exist, so we were ALL wrong.

Rush was right about at least one thing, the definition of "Peace", which is that period that follows after one side beats the living snot out of the other. There really never HAS been a negotiaged peace, it has always taken a war. We tried it on our soil, that was much worse than going into Afganistan and Iraq. Again, this should be an easy choice to make.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Hellsbells]

The homegrown Fundamentalist Christian and White Supremacist groups are just as big a terrorist threat (if not greater) than the foreign groups. There are hundreds of these groups in the US.

William Krar got caught with weapons of mass destruction in May this year - he had a stock pile of chemical weapons, brief case bombs, pipe bombs, remote control bombs, and half a million rounds of ammo. This barely rates a mention in the media, yet the "dirty bomber" merit weeks on the front pages. People get in a panic over a Syrian band catching a plane, and this makes the news.
William Krar got sentenced to 11 years in jail, while his accomplices got around 5 years.

There is an article on the Australian ABC here:
link

Re:bite me asshat.

[merdark]

And someone who has never seen combat IS fit to be Commander and Cheif?

What a joke.

I see that Bush really helped prevent further atrocities in that prison in Iraq. Anyone who grins like a mad man while talking about killing is not fit to be Commander in Chief, nor any sort of other person in power. Seriously, Bush probably thinks it's all some big game of Command and Conquer.

Don't worry, Bush will win...

[boy_afraid]

I just had an idea. [b]When[/b] Bush win's again the communist left will lose the argument of "Selected, not elected" since he will have been elected in 2004.

Boo-ya!

Wealth != water

[Anonymous Coward]

Faulty assumption: the amount of money in the economy is not like water. Water is a finite (al beit a reusable) resource. Wealth is created. There is more wealth now then there was a century ago. The amount of water in the world hasn't changed (may have changed forms, from hydrogen etc) but the amount of atoms is fixed.

Re:Wealth != water

[dpilot]

As I said elsewhere, it was just an anology. The idea is that when the economy is static or shrinking, money *acts* like a finite resource. Or when the economy is growing slowly, and the wealthy are accumulating faster, it *acts* like the amount of flowing money is shrinking.

The net effect can look like a drought.

BTW, there are theories that say a large part of the Earth's water came from comets. In that scenario, our water *wasn't* fixed.

Re:bite me asshat.

[div_2n]

Yes, we have succeeded at some things

Name a few. Anything remotely having to do with Iraq doesn't count.

not enough art

[kardar]

You see those commercials about what happens if you don't get enough art in school - well, listen to people tearing apart this movie and about how this thing or that thing is incorrect.

Who cares? That's not the point. I was very, very, very, and I mean VERY sceptical before I saw the movie. I read all of the websites that are critical of Moore. You could say that I had a pretty good idea about what was in the movie, and what was wrong with what was in the movie, before I ever watched it.

But then I said OK - I am going to watch this movie. And it's a cool movie. I like it. I think that if you want to tear apart the movie because it's supposed to be a "documentary" and it's "factually inacurrate" or WHATEVER is irrelevant, that's not really the way it was presented.

You have to use your imagination to understand the larger concepts and the abstract things that make the movie what it is, and similarly, you have to use your imagination to try to believe that tearing those larger, abstract concepts apart has any relevance or merit.

The movie may or may not be this or that, but one thing we need in America is a greater appreciation for art and abstract concepts.

-------------------

I think that what happened with the oil crisis, the Iran hostage crisis - which lead to the Reagan era is a natural sort of balancing out of the excesses that America still represents. Getting fundamental, conservative, and thumping bibles isn't going to stop the natural balancing acts that nature performs on superpowers, or those that try to be and/or become superpowers.

Look at Russia. They were once trying to be a superpower. Look at how now they are completely unable to prevent terrorism. The theatre, and now the school. This is what happens to superpowers. It's not good.

So while fighting against the natural balancing acts that the global environment is presenting to America might be one numb-sculled approach, the end result, the lesson that we should all learn is that it's not good to be a superpower. If you want to drive fast and not get pulled over, don't put sporty stripes and fancy spoilers on your car.

More art, less neo-con philosophy, and a greater ability to defend (that's DEFEND - not preempt). Even peace-loving hippy folks take marital arts self-defence courses from time to time. The neo-con philosophy has its own dictionary entry for defense - what most normal folks would call offense. Micheal Moore, appropriately, has his own dictionary entry for documentary - and if you don't get enough art, you won't "get" that.

Re:not enough art

[jejones]

I get it. Bias and deceit don't matter; the higher concepts do. Sort of like the way Dan Rather insists that what's important are the questions raised by the forged memos...

Even peace-loving hippy folks take marital arts self-defence courses from time to time.

Would that be like learning to fend your mate off with a copy of the Kama Sutra?

Re:bite me asshat.

[midimastah]

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.ht ml

Everyone should check out this article. According to the author's theory first proposed in 1993, we are moving toward new type of global conflict. 14 years later, it doesn't seem so far off.

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[Xeger]

When the populace drops the reins of power, the nation always gets taken for a ride. I'd thought America hadn't quite gotten to the bread-and-circuses stage yet, but I suppose the politicos wouldn't be spending bazillions of dollars on attack ads and appeals to sentimentality if it didn't all work frighteningly well.

I fear you're right, and hope you're wrong. Is there anything we can do to recover, any measure we might take to cause people to vote based on the policy position of their candidates, instead rah-rah-rah-go-teamism? If there isn't, then we're already doomed.

Air it the same day the GOP pulls Bin Laden out

[Bob Bitchen]

for their October surprise. There is some reasonably reliable reports that Bin Laden has already been caught (in Pakistan, in August) and we grabbed him and have him, he will be "found" in October and paraded around so the GOP can say "see"
we have been fighting terrorism. It'll be the perfect day to air the program. (there was a news report I saw on the google news about the capture in Pakistan, the article was not available for very long)

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[jswalter9]

And that just might sway them enough to vote for the other side . . .

As long the other side is Nader, I'm ok with that. heh.

Speaking of which, the election has promted me to change my sig.

Re:bite me asshat.

[theLOUDroom]

I swear to God, I don't understand your problem.

Thanks for the laugh. You see posts like the one you were replying to and all you can do is scratch you head in amazement.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

And someone who has never seen combat IS fit to be Commander and Cheif?

What a joke.

So Bill Clinton, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln should never have been President? Or does your opinion change on this from election to election depending upon the qualifications of the candidate of the party of your choice?

I see that Bush really helped prevent further atrocities in that prison in Iraq.

The answer is a definite yes since:
- Saddam is no longer amputating ears, hands, and arms there
- Saddam is no longer whipping and beating people to a pulp
- Saddam is no longer using it as one of the sources to fill mass graves to the tune of 30,000 /year
- The 30 rogue US soldiers who were putting underwear on some prisoner's heads, humiliating and scaring them, and assaulting a few are being court martialed.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq did explcitly fund teorrism against Israel. Does that not count?

Simply stated

[rhizome]

Propaganda is a mechanism for disseminating information reserved specifically for those who are in power at the time. Michael Moore is a much-maligned and marginalized character who has found a way to propound his opinion via mass communications, just like anybody on FOX news or the other partisan or, shall we say, "opinionated" infosources so prevalent today. To call it "propaganda" elevates it to a level that almost begs for Godwin's law to be invoked. While Bill O'Reilly may be an *agent* of propaganda in the way that he adopts a perspective favorable to the current administration, I don't think anybody would say that Michael Moore is acting at the behest either consciously or unconsciously of anybody else - well, I'm sure someone would - so the aspects of propaganda that serve to preserve the existing power structures just aren't there.

Propaganda isn't material disseminated in opposition, it's disseminated in support. Support of the existing regime.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. invading Venezuela for oil interests?
Nah, that'd never happen.

Speaking of film, this documentry shows inside of the failed American coup attempt.
http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/film/home_film.h tm

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberals like to mod the truth down."

I take it, then, that you are suggesting that My Lai WAS an isolated incident? That Kerry was lying when he relayed stories of repeated atrocities by American soldiers?

Overall. Yes

So, apparently, John Kerry told the world that the quoted officer served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's, routinely committing war crimes. WASN'T THAT TRUE?

Nope. He was generalizing. Not true.

I'm frankly unimpressed by feelings of "betrayal", *if* those betrayed happened to have done what Kerry said they did. If a soldier who raped, murdered, and burned civilians at My Lai or one of the innumerable other similar tragedies is insulted that Kerry tattled on him, tough shit. The soldiers who engaged in such atrocities shouldn't be telling me how awful Kerry was for telling the truth, they should be IN JAIL. None of them are.

Then Kerry should be in jail by those accounts. He admitted himself that he commited "atrocities".

Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

It has everything to do with the Swift Boat veterans. That is the real reason they can't stand Kerry.

If you wish to tell me about truth, then show me some. Show me that My Lai only happened there, and nowhere else. Show me that John Kerry was unjustifiedly awarded all those medals. Show me that POWs were tortured because of Kerry, and for no other reason. Show me that George Bush went AWOL during his Air National Guard service, or that he was conscientious about meeting his military obligations. Rhetoric does not impress me. Facts do.

I have. You choose to ignore the facts and the truth.

I'm not picking a side here, I'm repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) asking people who make assertions here to support them. None do. You included. Facts? HELLO?

I have. You ignore the facts, then tell everyone to state the facts like you are some intellectual superior. Got any? HELLO?

Moore "controversial"? Or is Bush "controversial"?

[fcassia_at_gmail]

So apparently Moore is "controversial"... let's see:

Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80s
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.re gime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

America's WMD: Air Force tests "mother of all bombs"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq_moab03 0311.html

"In a flashy debut for its biggest non-nuclear bomb, the Air Force today dropped a 21,000-pound behemoth onto a test range in Florida"

"Anthrax sent to U.S. senate matches Army strain"
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/12/18/an thrax.investigation/

CNN: Army confirms anthrax production in Utah
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/12/army.anthrax/

BUSH SPURNS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BAN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,494257 ,00.html

"a 1972 treaty banning biological weapons has been added to the list of international protocols Bush has decided to ignore"

U.S. accused of trying to derail anti-torture pact
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/torture.html

"The United States on Tuesday was accused of trying to derail a new draft international treaty against torture that has taken a decade to negotiate."

"The treaty, which is to be debated in the U.N. Economic and Social Council beginning on Wednesday, would set up an international system of inspections for all sites where prisoners were held, to insure that torture was not taking place. "

and this:

Document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key U.N. Security Council members
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239, 905936,00.html

I don't think Moore's film is the cause of "controversy". I think the hawkish Bush administration and previous republican ones are the cause of controversy. Don't shoot the messenger.

simply because he didn't lie

[dh003i]

Simply because he didn't lie doesn't mean he wasn't deceitful, which is the title of the article (deceits, not lies). I think there were a few lies in there, but most of it was deceits. The most atrocious example was the one Senator who he left looking bewildered, but who actually supported Moore (if you read the whole interview). He presents facts so as to make you think one thing (such as that Bush met with Saudi's), when the reality is a completely different thing (such as that the Saudi's came to meet with Bush [all Moore told us], but that Bush refused to meet them). This is wrong and immoral. It is intellectual dishonesty. In an academic setting, this person would (hopefully) be expelled from the profession.

Re:simply because he didn't lie

[legirons]

"Simply because he didn't lie doesn't mean he wasn't deceitful"

No, quite correct, the essay itself was correctly labelled. However, if he didn't lie as the essayist seems to be admitting, then the target of my question would be the people (thousands of them) who said that Michael Moore did lie throughout, and use that website as proof.

I didn't count them, but some 20-30% of the ~1500 posts to the slashdot discussion seemed to be accusing Michael Moore of outright lying, and the only evidence being offered was links to that website. Look to the general public for even more people shouting "complete crock of lies" and again, pointing to "59 deceptions" as proof.

Re:simply because he didn't lie

[dh003i]

You're right there. People tend to lump things together, and forget distinctions. However, from my pov, it is no better to deceive than the lie. Deceit is simply a more clever implementation of dishonesty than is lying, thus is more sinister in my opinion. E.g., like double-speak.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

The National Geographic channel had a great show about bin laden and the lead up to and after 9/11. After Clinton told the CIA to bring in bin laden at all cost the Sudanese government contacted us and offered to turn him over to us. He was in Sudan at the time and they wanted him out.....badly. Clinton turned them down because the case was not totally airtight. Even after the case was proven there were three other occasions we could have called strikes in to wipe him out and maybe possibly capture him. Two were turned down because Clinton did not want to make it look like murder. The last one the son of a Saudi diplomat was visiting Osama and Clinton did not want to piss the Saudis off.

Clinton also let the Taliban have free reign in Afghanistan because of the pipeline Unocal wanted to put in. Neither administration has done enough to pursue bin laden in my book.

If you get a chance catch the show on the Nation Geographic channel, unlike Moores movie it covers this administration and the last one very well and the mistakes they both made. I consider it the best documentary on the subject.

Know thy enemy

[Spekdah]

Bin Laden does wear a vote Bush t-shirt, I'm sure he is even finding ways to pop up his campaign money. There's nothing like keeping an ineffective, incompetent leader of the enemy in power :-)

Re:Know thy enemy

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

You think that's the reason?

I guess you aren't aware that the Bin Laden family is a major investor in the american arms companies ... the Bin Ladens made a great profit through all the government arms contracts needed to replace the weapons used in Iraq.

I guess you also aren't aware that the Bin Laden's are a major oil family, and that by helping Bush destabilize the world oil markets using the false scare tactics, and pinching off the oil supply from Iraq, Bush and his Bin Laden friends have gotten exactly what they wanted ... an oil price that has more than doubled!

In fact, just in July of this year, Americans sent $90BILLION more dollars to saudi arabia to buy oil than they would have with the pre-war / pre-bush prices!

You have no idea how much the Bin Ladens love you dumbass americans.

Re:Know thy enemy

[junk]

i bet you didn't know that lots of people invest in oil. lots of people make money off of legal weapons trades. the bin ladens aren't bad people. there are a few who are evil, but the rest are well to do family with a lot of good business ventures. moore is profiting off this war pretty well to. i don't recall his movies being handed out for free. doesn't that make him a bad person too?

ps-i think moore is a horrible person, but not for making money

Re:Know thy enemy

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

How could you have missed my point so completly?

Making money is perfectly fine! I encourage it, go make some money, then go spend / invest it to help the economy, to help others prosper.

But if you hold a powerful public office, use that position for the good of the people, NOT simply to put more money in your pockets and the pockets of people in other countries purely at the expense of your own people ... expense in both money and many lives.

Everything Bush has done as president has been either to increase the demand for oil, decrease the supply of oil, increase the price of oil ... or advance his radical fundamentalist religious views.

He ended a plan to require new vehicals to have 3mpg better mileage than they have now. This increase would have saved 3 times more oil that has been imported from Iraq each year historicaly. This would account for 6 times the oil that could be produced each year if Bush got his way and allowed oil drilling in the world heritage park in Alaska.

He SUED california to stop them from further increasing the fuel efficiency and decreasing the pollution from new cars in that state.

When he spouted off about the great hydrogen economy and passed $4billion towards research on the topic .. the same bill also sent $17billion in subsidies to the oil industry! ... of course he never talked about that part.

He had good practice in manipulating energy prices, he helped do it with electricity before doing it with oil. Bush's friends own the electricity companies responsible for the shortage in california a couple years ago. The final report on the incident found that they intentionally shut down power plants to artificially create a shortage, to drive up the price of electricity for their own profit, and to force the government to give them subsidies to build more power plants. Today the price of electricity has crashed in that region due to a vast oversupply! Over the course of the shortage, the energy companies effectively stole $30BILLION from the wallets of the public.

I could go on for hours with all the ways Bush has screwed your people. Why is it so obvious to all the world except to you americans!?!

Will it really have to get to the point of US citizens 'disappearing' from american soil, never to be heard from again, taken by your own government's hand? The new version of the Patriot Act will legalize exactly such a thing so dont complain too loudly when it becomes law lest you 'disappear'.

Oh, and on the religion thing ... I could go on and on there too, but i'll end by reminding you that bush is a strong believer in the book of revelations. He literally doesnt believe the earth should be protected for our children's future because armegeddon will destroy it all anyways.

and you dumbasses think he's made you all safer.

Re:Know thy enemy

[junk]

i was going to reply with a long winded answer, but i realized something. you don't live here. you don't fully understand how great it is to live here. we're not blind to the way our politicians work. we know all about it. politics, like everything else, is a business. people tend to look at this as corruption, but it's not. we're a capitalist society, which is what makes us so strong. we have truckloads of money and aren't afraid to abuse it.

this isn't about helping others. help yourself. my car gets 8mpg, don't care about fuel economy. if we want to save the planet, let's startingfeeding vegans to the lions and cut off the air to the people who want to complain about it's poor quality. why can i say and advocate these things? because i'm american and i don't give two shits about what the rest of the world thinks. i can be as selish or as selfless as i want and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

and i don't know what everyone imagines is so wrong here. we have great health coverage, if you can afford it. if you can't, you're probably not contributing much and i sure as hell don't want to pay for it for you. i didn't work for 14 months, but i'm working now and have been for almost 9 months. sounds like a good economy to me.

are problems are obvious to the rest of the world because you all need to sit and have some good reason to hate us. how come your complete jealousy of our way of life is so obvious to us and you all seem to be so blind to it?

Re:Know thy enemy

[Democritus2]

I do live here. And I agree with the parent. Your reply does nothing to refute his claims. Not sure why i bothered actually .....

Re:Know thy enemy

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Actually, here in Canada, we dont have to sit and think about reasons to hate you, the reasons are so obvious that there's no need to go out of the way at all.

Great health care? ya sure. keep believeing that. In Canada we spend HALF the money per capita as you do on health care. HALF! and yet our sick and injured tend to receive far better care than people in your system, they also tend to have a much higher survival rate for many common diseases and procedures requiring hospital care ... oh ya, and that better, cheaper health care goes to ALLLL, not just to the jerks like you who can afford health insurance and like to flaunt it while others suffer.

How does that make you feel, to know that in the USA, you pay twice as much money for health care, yet are more likely to die from the common diseases and procedures seen in all our hospitals ... even though you dont 'waste' money on poor who suffer without care.

Anyways, of course you dont give a damn what the world thinks! you're american! just how redundant do you have to be?

Perhaps one day you will open your eyes and realize that you're lives will be better if you stop treating the world like shit and whining when the enemies you have created come back to bite you.

Re:Know thy enemy

[DerWulf]

and the great health care is surely the reason why canada was the only country in the west that had a SARS outbreak. Your healt care system sucks 2nd world ass and even europeans like me know this.

Re:Know thy enemy

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

the USA had SARS as well, just not as bad.

I guess you europeans with your brains rotted from decades of BSE forgot that.

So, how did that work out? Did you finally realize that you shouldn't feed cows to cows?

And I guess you just don't realize that your neighbourhood is only one plane ride away from being wiped out by ebola. It could happen anywhere.

Re:Know thy enemy

[DerWulf]

well, if you compare the few cases that where recognized almost immediatly and treated with the appropriate meassures, in addition to having been quarantiened, to the 'almost' outbreak in toronto where asian-canadians would come to the doctors saying 'well, I was in china and I have these symptoms' and where sent home with a bottle of aspirin. You should be glad that SARS wasn't that bad, otherwise you wouldn't be typing righ now.

So, how did that work out? Did you finally realize that you shouldn't feed cows to cows?

No, we haven't gotten rid of it yet. And most amusingly, for the same reason the canadian health care sucks. Farming is controlled by a EU wide buerocrazy. It's socialized, and therein lies the problem. Everytime a food scandal comes up, the governments bail the offending companies/farmers out. There is no incentive for keeping your food save, you'll stay in business anyways. There is no incentive to have a company control that the food is acutally save, because the state says it is so. Do you see the problem? Rewards and 'punishment' how they are absent? Now check your health care system on those critierias.

And I guess you just don't realize that your neighbourhood is only one plane ride away from being wiped out by ebola. It could happen anywhere.

Actually thats a pretty likely scenario. We have socialized health too. It'd probably take half europe down. Put I guess there are also planes to canada from infected-but-not-yet-detected europe. The only ones left will be the americans, laughing 'told ya so'.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting. If true, why are aren't these even covered by MM's fact-packed F9/11? I'd watch National Geographic before I'd want to watch a 2 hour flamebait-fest, they've got more objectivity.

Problem is that Republicans control the Power

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the reason that Clinton can be investigated for a blow job but Bush & Cheney's connections and profits via Enron and Halliburton can remain only "unofficially" investigated is due to the republican's ties to the military power of this country. They are the true insiders to power, not the other way around. To some extent, it appears that not even the democrats can have a candidate unless he marries into power also.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

or John Kerry, who would backstab you because of ALL the other servicemen he makes out to be committing atrocities.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

How about:

www.9-11commission.gov

They have a site called Google that works really well for this sort of thing.

BTW. As I said going after Iraq was not a good idea. Bush should have pursued Osama instead. Saddam was a Dick and he got what he deserved but this should have happened after Osama had been captured....not before.

Also Kerry, Clinton, Gore and most others believed that Saddam was helping them before 9/11....hint you can find their voting records via Google as well.

Hitler only said 11 times.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am surprised, this is /. after all. Then again, 10 of the 11 posts that had the name Hitler, were all modded 5. The 11th, was the title of another thread.

Coincidence? Engh.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you don't have the right to oppress others. Oppressive governments don't have the right to exist.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

"If lying about getting your dick sucked is an impeachable offence, why isn't lying about the end of a war, the reasons we went to war, and raping the constitution an impeachable offense?"

This is a very good question. It is because the Republicans were trying sieze power and they would do anything to get it...even if it meant behaving in a unethical fashion (who cares if somebody got a BJ...what a pathetic bunch of losers).

It should be a impeachable offense. The fact that you can impeach, or attempt to impeach, over something done behind closed doors that was a private act that is the business of Clinton and his family, but not fucking over the entire country...it's hard to fathom. And the fact that people think this is ok....is mind blowing.

No that was Peter Jennings

[GnarlyNome]

He called Gore winner before the polls closed
which is illegal by the way

Re:bite me asshat.

[LardBrattish]

When you've got a REAL terrorist threat like we did in England from the IRA you get a s**tload more than one terrorist attack in 3 years.

Oh, and thanks a bunch America for funding terrorists in one of your most "valued" allies.

When Bush announced the war on terror I initially said "good" because I thought he was going to arrest the IRA fundraisers in the USA & extradite them to England - well, maybe I didn't. But really terrorism is all a matter of perspective. It's where you sit & what you perceive.

The British army in Belfast was either protecting law abiding citizens from terrorists or a bunch of terrorists depending on your religion (usually).

Similarly some people in Iraq view American soldiers running around crushing cars with tanks as terrorists, others see that they are trying to keep the peace. You can't be black and white about this.

Individually acts of terrorism are indefensible but there is inevitably a group that seems to think they are justified.

The only real way to stop terrorism is to stop giving terrorists a reason to terrorise.

Re:bite me asshat.

[The Conductor]

"Liberals like to mod the truth down."

He appears to be pointing up a moderator abuse. It appears that someone went through and modded down a several anti-Kerry posts (or at least non-defending-Kerry...my post got modded down and I never even said I agreed with the Swifties).

But getting back to the Swifties, some of their complaints are more legitimate than others. To try to impugne the brave things he apparently did in 'Nam is a stretch; even if the vetting process for military decorations wasn't as thorough as it should have been, you can't blame that on Kerry. But to call his anti-war activities irresponsible is fair. Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts. A true reformer would have carefully collated interviews, cross-checked facts, built his case, and suggested paths to reform. Kerry's behavior seemed more calculated to launch his politcal career on anti-war sentiment than actually improving the situation. Like I said before, it goes to intent.

Now, none of this would matter a hill of beans if Kerry simply said, "Hey, I was young and stupid, shot my mouth off, blah blah blah." Be he has, and continues to, claim that what he did in 'Nam qualifies him today for high public office. He placates the Democrat base by touting his anti-war history. So all the rest of us are stuck here debating the merits of what happened decades ago.

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[GnarlyNome]

That is scary but it says more about your politics than ours prehaps you need Cromwell to come back

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

This uncredited transcript is apparently from the "Winter Soldiers Investigation" held by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. (Vietnam war, that is.) This has been widely discredited.

Here are two sources where you can read more about that sham:

Vetting the Vet Record

In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled Conversations with Americans , which claimed to recount atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.

wintersoldier.com

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At the height of it, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, "packed with pretenders and liars."

A good book which uncovers the truth about fake Vietnam war veterans and the havoc they have caused is Stolen Valor

We did not inherit Vietnam from the French

[KarmaOverDogma]

If you will recall your college history lessons, the Unted States troops presence in Vietnam started in an "advisory" capacity under the Kennedy adminsitration as part of the Cold War affort to keep Communism in check. The Unted states did not care to take a close look at what an emerging leader of the day there (Ho Chi Minh) had planned for Vietnam. He was viewed as a Communist Aggressor that had to be stopped.

It was under the Johnson Administration after Kennedy's assassination that the United States Military Presence increased in numbers and it's expanding role there. It was a very conscious and deliberate decison on President Johnson's part; he was convinced he was doing the right thing.

Further, it was under the dubious claims of the gulf of tonkin incident that things really got hot over there. At first seeming to be a completely appropriate response, there were later accusations that the whole story was deliberately concocted to sway Congress to get the U.S. more involved. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was never proven to be true or deliberately false, but it was successfull in getting congress to authorize a significantly increased troop presence there by a resolution, which appears to be the modern day equivilant of declaring War. When congressmen later complained of how things were going and asked who gave him the authority to conduct a war of this scope President Johnson correctly replied: "you did."

The French knew when to bail. The Unted States, for better or for worse (I would say for worse) stayed for a while longer...

It's a curious parralell to today's situation with Iraq:
1) the certainty of being right on the part of the current sitting President
2) claims that false and or misleading information was used to get congress to approve large scale involvement, some of which have been proven to be false (the tubes for uranium enrichment being supplied by a forign power) and many others to be dubious (chemical weapons stockpiles and links to Al Quada).
3) A growing national concern over the intervation and the accusations of a lack of patriotism and weakness towards those who question the administration.
4) the fact that the U.S. is in the middle of quite an ugly mess where 98% of the troops there are ours, with over 1,000 american soldiers dead so far, and no end in sight.

The only difference: The previous occupying power (the British) had left almost 100 years earlier, although they still left a mess behind.

.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, explain to me, in a logical and easy to understand way, what exactly you believe is bad about that quote from Kerry. Also, if you could, explain to me exactly what you meant when you said Kerry was "full of shit". To what statements were you referring, and is there any evidence that his statements were lies?

Here are two good links to get you started:

Vetting the Vet Record

wintersoldier.com

If you read those, it shouldn't take you too long to start getting your feet on solid ground.

Yadda, yadda, yadda

[Rui del-Negro]

I've been on /. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth

I would feel flattered, but I suspect you just have poor memory.

Your intellectually inane defense of Moore

I never "defended Moore". First, because he doesn't need any defence (especially from "attacks" as pathetic as the ones on this thread), and second because I actually find him a bit annoying.

I merely pointed out that "carefully selected" facts are still facts, and that a documentary is not required (either legally or formally) to be impartial - quite the contrary. The definition of documentary (as applied to documentary films, by authors, critics, etc.), usually implies a deliberate effort to show a specific point of view, and make a critique of the subject being treated.

Now, informative journalism ("reporting") is supposed to be impartial and show all sides of the issues, and often it's not. But that's a different issue.

Documentaries are and have always been opinion pieces.

Most people who accuse Moore of making "false" (or "bad") documentaries do so simply because they disagree with his opinions, find the facts exposed in his documentaries uncomfortable, but can't actually deny them. So they start shooting in random directions (often hitting themselves on the foot in the process).

It's the good ol' "hysterical rethoric" principle:

If the facts are against you, use logic. If logic is against you, use the facts. If both logic and the facts are against you, cry bloody murder.

Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts?

Of course. Otherwise there wouldn't be any marketing departments. But a lie is a lie. And if a company's marketing department lies, the people affected by that lie can fight back. It happened recently with some Apple and Microsoft ads, for example. They were found to contain objective lies, so they were banned.

The same is valid for documentaries (or fiction films, speeches, even opinion pieces in magazines). If you lie and if your lie objectively harms someone, that individual (or company, group, etc.) can take you to court (in most countries, anyway).

Your lengthy discourse suggests [...] that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?

I am "trying to say" exactly what I said. That Moore's point of view is that the Bush administration is bad for the USA (and its citizens, and the world), and that he's going to use every second of his film to show arguments that support that point of view. Expecting him to point out arguments that go against his conclusions would be like expecting Apple to publish documents pointing out the advantages of Linux and Windows.

It's not as if there isn't enough pro-Bush propaganda around (namely in places - like certain news networks - that are supposed to be impartial).

that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying

Anyone can read your reply, click on the link at the bottom, labelled "parent", and see which post you were replying to. And anyone who does that will see that you are (and I use the word with its full meaning) lying. You are a liar.

In other words

Those really are other words, in the sense that they aren't the words I wrote (as you know, and as anyone can check, but you're so deep into unfounded rethoric you don't even care anymore, eh?).

You say the original po

Re:Yadda, yadda, yadda

[Alaska Jack]

Let me guess: You're a college student.

Go to my original post [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121032&cid=10 192348]. See the little curly marks around the sentence that looks very familiar? Those are quotation marks. The sentence looks familiar because YOU WROTE IT.

I QUOTED YOUR WORDS VERBATIM, and simply noted that the assertion formed by those words was WRONG. You came back and defended some OTHER words -- NOT the ones I quoted. I pointed this out. You responded by talking about parent posts or some other inanity.

And the funny thing is, you're STILL DOING IT!

Quote (that means "stuff you said"):

"Any person directly or indirectly shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'."

WRONG.

"Any person affiliated with any of the organizations shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'. "

WRONG

"And since an election is a matter of national interest, any citizen who thinks this film can negatively influence his life or his country probably has standing, too"

RIGHT. Oh wait, my mistake: WRONG AGAIN

The really funny thing about this is that, in less than half the time you just spent blowing smoke, you could have simply Googled to find the American legal definition of standing. I don't want to make it too easy for you, but I'll give you a little hint: It was THE VERY FIRST RESULT FOR THE VERY FIRST SEARCH I TRIED.

In any case, I'm no longer inclined to waste my time with your sophomoric nonsense. But I'm sure the rest of the students will be mighty impressed with your "points of view."

- Alaska Jack

PS Actually, if your "points of view" thesis is correct, perhaps *you* can sue Moore! Simply explain to the court your "point of view" on the legal definition of "standing"! Let me know what they say.

Re:Yadda, yadda, yadda

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can quit. The guy fired you.

Re:Yadda, yadda, yadda

[jhamm]

Actually, I did follow the links and Rui del-Negro is correct! You replied to this quote:

So anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him

Check for yourself. Click "Parent" on your post and you'll see that Rui del-Negro was right. You owe him and the rest of Slashdot's users an apology.

Hello, Mr. Coward

[Rui del-Negro]

Get real...

Why don't you follow your own advice and stop posting as an anonymous coward?

Today I asked 15 preschoolers what 1+1 is they ALL said 3.

I think you are lying. I think you are a liar, besides being a coward.

RMN
~~~

Re:bite me asshat.

[macdaddy]

Yeah, hateful little bastards like Miller turn my stomach. I've got to tell you though, I can think of one person that one-ups Miller. That would be Ann Coulter. How can I put it politely... Bitch? Political whore? I can think of a few worse things but frankly I think that gives you my general impression of the wench. Granted, she's not bad looking. Nice ass for sure. Slim like I like 'em. Still I'd rather sleep with Hillary or the bible-thumping holier-than-though Tipper than Coulter and that's not meant to compliment Coulter or the other women who I personally do not like. I've read he rants. I've heard her speak. I don't know what it is that makes people keep listening to her. Sexual attraction is the only thing I can think of. This site sums it up nicely. Biatch with a capital S.

bullshit

[Scudsucker]

At least Bush has the stones to do something about it. If Gore were voted in, we'd be acting like the wounded child... the only problem is that there is no parent around to protect us.

WTF do you guys get this idea from? WTF do you think a guy who didn't get a real job until he was forty, and skipped out on his Air Guard commitements, be more qualified than someone who spent 30+ years in public service, and served in Vietnam, although in a non-combat role? Nevermind the fact that with the exception of Nixon and Vietnam, every serious conflict in the 20th centruy was resolved by a Democratic president? No, the first Gulf War doesn't count since the kill ratio was something on the order of 1,000 to 1.

Go watch the "my pet goat" video. Even if Bush didn't have a god damn clue what to do, he could pick up the phone and call his Vice President, a former Secretary of Defense. Or call Rumsfield, a two time SOD. Or call his Secreatry of State, Collin Powel, who has just a few years of military experience. That fact that he didn't is inexcusable, and proof that you are full of shit on who needs "parenting".

Speaking of controversial documentaries...

[ewe2]

...is there a chance that Americans are seeing this anywhere?

According to my TV guide it was pulled in 1996 due to sensitivities during that year's election. It's another side of W. people might want to pay attention to.

Re:Speaking of controversial documentaries...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to watch this... Before the election.

Let me cut you off before you even begin..

[coronaride]

I am in no way condoning violence as a means to get what you want - either in 'terrorism', 'police actions', or WAR. THESE ARE ATROCITIES OF HUMANITY! They have always happened and they WILL always happen. It is a sad, horrible thing that thousands of people lost their lives on 9/11. It is also a horrible thing that children are being killed in Iraq by American bombs. It is a horrible thing that there is family strife, divorce, child abuse, bankruptcy, debt, taxes, death, pain, famine, disease, etc.. We live in an imperfect world. So please, don't think that I'm saying that using violence to get what you want is a good thing. There is precious little good in the world and killing people for any reason is certainly not one of them.

Secondly, don't think that I want the US to fall or that I'm ungrateful. I do like it here and, while I haven't been to every place on the globe, I don't imagine there are very many other countries where I would choose to take up residence. There is always room for improvement, however.

One of the cliches that I hear/see that absolutely makes my blood boil is "America: Love it or Leave It". I always see this bumper sticker on the back of some chevy suburban right next to the sticker of Calvin peeing on a Dallas Cowboy's helmet or something, but I digress - anyhow, it should be AMERICA LOVE IT OR CHANGE IT!

ok, my rant is over..

Re:bite me asshat.

[merdark]

So Bill Clinton, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln should never have been President?

My point being that you would rather have a "Commander and Chief" (implying you are referring to war duties I suppose) with no battle experience and therefore little concept of the true inpact of war, than a man with battle experience in one of the worst executed wars the US has been involved in.

Sure, he was involved in some crimes that he regrets. But battle can do bad things to peoples sanity. I'd say that Kerry's experience gives him a better understanding of the horrors that are involved in wars, and also of the types of things that can go wrong, such as soldiers committing atrocities.

You also seem to make quite light of the situation in that prison under US control. There were people there who were saying that it was worse under US control than under Saddam. At least with Saddam they knew what to expect. What the US soldiers did was pychological torture.

You also exaggerate the corruption in Saddam's regiem.

30,000 people killed per year?

Too bad they only found 5,000 bodies as of July 14th. I guess you got your information from the incredbily unbias source known as the current government?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,1295 6, 1263901,00.html

Re:bite me asshat.

[bcboy]

It is from Winter Soldier, though the sources you site seem to be conflating evidence against Lane's book with evidence against Winter Soldier.

Is there evidence to discredit William F. Crandell, the leader of VVAW, and a veteran? Crandell agrees that Lane's book is bogus, but he still stands by the Winter Soldier testimony.

Re:bite me asshat.

[merdark]

I bet you did not expect me to read the stuff on that site. I did not find the evidence which you claim. I did however find this relavant paragraph:

"The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons."

The evidence you provided confirmed the general notion held by the rest of the world: Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11, and Bin Laden did not like Saddam Hussein.

A naderhead comes out of the bag!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you guys get dubya elected AGAIN you betta be prepared to wipe the shit this time.

America is hated around the world today. You hear me? How effective do you think your ideologies are gonna spread?

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[cruachan]

Well of course europeans have an extreme right wing too, no disagreement there. You'll notice however that I didn't call Bush a fascist as he's simply an extreme right-wing conservative and doesn't have the totalitarian characteristics required by that brand of politics, although has to be said the some of the laws passed recently by congress in the 'war on terror' do give cause for concern.

However, the pertinent point is not Bush, but Kerry and the Democrats. By any non-USA standard this is also a conservative party running a conservative candidate for election. Really the kindest description you could possibly make of the Democrats on a good day is that they are a centre-right party.

Which leaves a big gaping political hole where the left wing should be. There is no socialist, social-democratic or similarly aligned party in the states.

So assume slashdot is say 50% american and 50% rest of the world, with political bias of it's readers distributed on a normal curve for each. As the usa curve is centred well to the right of the rest you'd expect, as observed, that from an American point of view comment moderation would display a mild left-wing bias.

The nice thing about this explanation of the perceived left'ish bias of /. is that it assumes that /. readers are a normal sampling of the general population. The alternative explanation would have to be that somehow an interest in technology is associated with a tendency to left-wing politics. Possible of course, but not the simplest explanation.

My Favorite

[mosb1000]

"In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. "

So let me get this right, a dead guy that once headed a company that was bought by the company that bungled the voter rolls in Florida once donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. This somehow proves that Bush bought the election? That seems a little flimsy to me. So do all the other points. Nothing really seems to be a firm connection, it's all very circumstantial and unspectacular.

This kind of smoke and mirrors is what really upsets me about Moore. He stats things in his movies in such a way that a less careful person would assume that they are definitely true, but but if you listen carefully to the words he says, he's not really saying anything at all. He IMPLIES lots of stuff, but he doesn't really say anything.

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yaafm9.html

[junk]

http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yaafm9.html

'Nuff said.

Re:Hell yeah

[junk]

I'm agnostic
I make a very meager wage
Haven't had a chance to turn on the TV in weeks
Doesn't Moore count as media? I don't believe a word out of his mouth.

Guess who I'm voting for?

Punk rock, giant holes in my ears, pierced eyebrow, snowboard, wakeboard, skateboard, ride a bicycle to work, wear shorts and a t-shirt on the job, live in Silicon Valley.

I'm voting Bush. Why? Because I'm not retarded. I may not like him, but I hate Kerry. And kids, there's no "Anyone but Bush" box on the ballot. I wish there was though, so you could all just throw away your votes. If you're not voting _for_ someone, you shouldn't vote at all.

Wrong lizard alert!

[Vintermann]

"He was a Naderite in 2000, he helped elect Bush. " If everyone in the USA voted with their hearts instead of "rationally" fearing that the wrong lizard may win, there might actually be real change. Blaming a guy for doing the right thing instead of the "smart" thing, that stinks.

Switch to Condorcet voting today!

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Anonymous Coward]

ah but in this argument for adjusting the oil price you are forgetting one important variable.
Yukos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5 62 55-2004Sep2.html

Argument Is Flawed

[geordie_loz]

There's a flaw in your argument. If they'd heard that Gore had won, and still that all their lovely republican votes, then they'd be rushing out there to try and change it.. not simply giving up because the TV said they'd lost.

How could they, knowing they still had their vote and time to place it, believe that the voting was over?

It's the same as an initial poll coming in earlier in the day saying the guy I don't want to win has the lead, or is a shoe in, I'd be straight out with my vote against them..

The one possible argument you could make is that the votes were swung Gore's way, so people who would have voted Gore went apathetic and figured they needn't bother voting.

funny

[N3wsByt3]

We must have completely different standards of what is proper behaviour, then. I suppose you will tell me that his behaviour on the golfcourse was fully normal too, and a shallow joke was just the thing needed to get morale up.

Aparently, excuses can always be found, and it seems it's all in the eye of the beholder. Whatever Moore showed, your bias will change it in something palatable, no doubt. Let me guess: the WMD WERE found, because they found some decade-old granate with a detoriated gas inside burried in the sand somewhere? Or no, WMD were never the real reason to go to war! (Though everyone objective can easily see it was the main argument used at the time, if only because they knew making iraq into an imminent thread for the USA was going to rally enough public support). Or was it because iraq had links to the regime...o, wait, they don't. Though a BBC-documentary showed clearly that Soedan is actively supporting terroristcamps; but hey, that didn't merrit an invasion; iraq was more interesting.

"The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception."

False. First of all, your argument why saudi's could be flown off, while all the rest was grounded is spurious. As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack. Ah, well, you may have a point, and one can only wonder why?

But following your reasoning, they had nothing to do with it, so it seems strange you preclude only them. What? ALL the rest was prone to attacks, accept them? What a strange claim. And if not, it clearly demonstrates the weirdness that they were exempted while none else was, apparently based on their cosy tit-for-tat friendship with bush.

And that they were going to be targeted as reparation is a mere excuse. I mean what, you think the USA is a banana-republic where mobs can linch people hold for interrogation, just like that? You think it's impossible to get the familymembers to an unknown to the public, secure location?

And secondly, as another poster already made aparent: many of the saudi's had, at least financially, supported bin laden, at least up to the 9/11 attack (and even afterwards he still had connections with some family members). And you don't think that warrants even the slightest interrogation? And even worse; at least two of the saudi's that were flown away were ALREADY under investigation by the FBI for terrorist involvement.

But you find that all very reasonable, and a correct way of handling? It's all 'irrelevant'? Geez.

"It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York."

'Something'? Dude, it was not about a car-accident we're talking about here. They didn't say to Bush 'something is happening'. One of the first things Bush heard was 'America is under attack'...and you SERIOUSLY content that just sitting there and not reacting at all for 7 minutes is not only the right, but even an aplaudable 'action'? Are you really that daft? You don't think asking for more information would be a more proper reaction? You don't think that moving into a more secure envirronment, when a head of state clearly could be targeted too, was a more sane thing to do? You really have weird standards for what constitutes an intelligent reaction.

All your argumentation is silly anyhow, because ultimately, he DID interrupt the reading (when other, more intelligent people made it clear it was unwise to stay there), albeit after sitting there for 7 minutes. If your argumentation were true, and it was so wise to go on, why didn't he go on untill his PR-tour actually finished? None of your so-called arguments (if one were to accept their validity) change after 7 minutes, now, do they?

Re:funny

[RobNich]

First of all, regardless of whether flying the Saudi royal family out of the US was well justified, it was authorized by Richard Clark, not the President (as you already saw fit to ignore). THAT is why it is irrelevant when speaking about Bush.

As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack.
They were the only group able to charter their own plane that were certainly not going to be used as a terrorist's target.

Again, you can attack the reasons for letting them leave the country all you want. Richard Clarke, without approval from the President, authorized their evacuation. If you don't want to believe me, do a simple Google search. For instance, Slate has an article where they mention that Clarke said it.

As to Bush's reaction in the school, he is being told where and when to go places by his staff. He is briefed by his Chief of Staff when the data comes in. He is protected by a team of Secret Service agents, who control where he is at all times. The President letting the children leave the room and then waiting was more than likely because he was told to wait. If there was really a threat to him, they would need time to secure the route to his waiting vehicles, probably a different route than originally intended. The Secret Service needed to secure the route to the airport so that they could get back safely. I don't think it's unreasonable that he would sit quietly and do his job while his staff does their job. That is what a good leader does. Ask anybody involved in business what they would prefer in their boss or the president of their company.

By reading other things into this, you are either being disingenuous or stupid. Looking at this incident, I see a chance that it did in fact take place as Moore tries to make it look--Bush not acting while others told him to do something, anything. And though there's a chance it's true, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans. His actions in this one case don't necessarily reflect upon his character, whether his actions were good or bad. Everyone has experiences that are exceptions in their lives and in those cases one is apt to respond exceptionally.

To top it off, you are applying your own experiences to what is being done by a President, who obviously has his own mode of operation--signals that his Chief of Staff would give him when he needs to give him more information, the Secret Service telling him where to go and when, etc.

I tire of this. The fact is, this guy doesn't want to be President because it pays well. I'm sure he has an enormous burden in making decisions that affect the entire country, including his parents, his siblings, and even himself. Keep in mind, once he is no longer President, he will have to abide by the laws that he has approved. He will be subject to the same inconveniences as everyone else.

On 9/11/01, a coleague of mine walked into my office and said, "Come here, quick." We went to the break room, and watched the burning building on TV. A large crowd had gathered in the room. We all sat quietly and watched. I saw the second plane flying toward the scene, and I watched a ball of fire erupt. I remember thinking that there were might be hundreds or even thousands of people dying right at that moment. I hoped that they had already evacuated. I sat and watched quietly for more than an hour, as the second tower hit crumpled, followed by the first tower. Everyone in the room sat and watched quietly. There was nothing that we could do.

I don't think that the situation was any different for the President, except that he was in a room full of children who were waiting to listen to a story. I find his ability to remain composed quite heartening. I'm sure if the President had been Bill Clinton, you'd have felt the same.

Re:bite me asshat.

[TyrranzzX]

Why should I care about what a leader did 30 years ago, when he isn't addressing what he'll do when he gets into power, and how he'll work to fix the war, taxation, poverty, and problems in america?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Thomas Miconi]

Except that from what I know, those Chechnian rebels are also Islamic fundamentalists.

Reality check:

The first war of Chechnya was essentially secular. And the Chechens actually won it. At some point the Russians realised that Grozny was simply not worth dying for, so they gave virtual independence to the Chechens and got back home - although with deep resentment, bitterness, and a deep desire for revenge in some of those who lost friends or relatives in this war.

Then, in the few years of Chechen independence, the Cult of fundamentalists (Al Qaeda and co) essentially invaded whole parts of the country and used it as a base for perpetrating vicious attacks (mostly agaisnt unarmed people) in the region. Their "aim", if it can be said that these people still have enough of a brain to have aims, was to "liberate" all caucasian moslems from Russian rule. Of course, the caucasian moslems had never asked for anything like that - but do you think the Cult would care for this detail ? So they kidnapped and killed as much as they could. The (democratically elected) Chechen government was powerless to stop them, either by weakness or by sheer incompetence or corruption.

This wave of terror implanted by foreign terrorists culminated in the bombing of three buildings in Russia, killing 100. At that point it was almost too easy for Putin to say "look, you see that those Chechens are bandits and murderers, we can't trust them, let's go back there !"

So the Russian soldiers went back to Chechnya, waging the dirtiest war on the European continent since WWII. But this time the local, secular resistance was "complemented" by the fundamentalists, local and foreign. The Russian's brutality pushed many people into the resistance, many of which followed the fundamentalists. And this was the second war of Chechnya, which is still going on right now.

There is a good op-ed about it in today's Herald Tribune.

Now look at what I just wrote. Replace "Putin" by "Bush" and "Caucasus" by "Middle East". And "Russia" with, essentially the whole damn world.

See the picture ?

Please, please, get us rid of Bush !

Thomas Miconi

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[808140]

I think the issue here is with majority/minority parties. Le Front National did get 20% (note, not over 30%) of the French vote, but that was widely seen as a "protest" vote (which is an unfortunate phenomenon exacerbated by the french IRV-like system). Jacques Chirac won in a land-slide in the next round.

Anyway, getting back to the point, the GP's point wasn't that reactionary parties don't exist in Europe, just that the "mean" is much further to the left that ours is in the US.

Viewed from this perspective, everyone in the US seems "right wing". Technically, we do have left wing parties -- the Greens, the Communists, etc -- but they don't typically get much attention come Election day.

Essentially, if you take the two most majorly supported parties in any European nation today, they will both be considered "leftist" from a US perspective, while local Europeans might consider one to the left and one to the right. By the same token, they see it in reverse: our two most major parties, from their perspective, both appear to be rather far on the right.

It's really not a way of slamming the US; it's just an observation (and a good one, I think) that because most non-US countries are further to the left politically than the US is, and because Slashdot is read by lots of non-Americans, Americans seem to see rather "leftist" views emphasized on Slashdot as non-American mods mod up views politically consistant with the ones they're comfortable with.

It's always funny ....

[Vintermann]

... when someone gets their political definitions by playing Civilisation.

Democracy = rule by the people. That's all. There doesn't have to be an electorate, there doesn't have to be a constitution (although usually there is both). There is nothing inherently unstable with it, and it's not in any way incompatible with a ...
Republic = A form of government where there is no king. That's all there is to it. China is a republic, France is a republic, Chile under Pinochet was a republic etc. etc

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Young Master Ploppy]

I almost had to pay $2.00 a gallon for regular unleaded in Texas

Wow, $2 a gallon is absurd? You poor, poor, hard-done-by serf.... in England, we're currently paying just over 80 pence a LITRE - xe.com tells me that's 1.42637 US dollars

lemme see, google says that 1 US gallon = 3.7854118 litres, so that translates to a price of .....
drum roll
.....

$5.39 a gallon!

...maybe that's one reason why the US are still so hooked on their huge fuel-guzzling SUVs, while in Britain, a 2-litre engine is considered "huge", and I, along with most of my friends, are quite happy pootling around in our 1-litre runabouts.

Re:bite me asshat.

[dave420]

That's very true - I've not seen Kerry wearing his whatever for a while now. I think we're on to something...

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[GnarlyNome]

You'll notice however that I didn't call Bush a fascist as he's simply an extreme right-wing conservative and doesn't have the totalitarian characteristics required by that brand of politics,
Of course not since Fascism is another left wing form of control Remember the Nazi party was the "National Socialist Party" The Left side of the Equation has been responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last 100 years. So pardon me if I don't miss them.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proving, once again, that The Simpsons it the source of all true knowledge.

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[rpillala]

Most of the nation is already set in stone as to who they will vote for. The only votes left up for grabs are the precious, the few, the "swing votes."

There are also a lot of people who currently don't intend to vote, but they do intend to watch movies. It may be that the influence is meant to get them to the polls.

Ravi

Re:Slahdot Biased?

[cruachan]

Hardly. While it's true that Totalitarianism can be nominally both left and right wing, to think that the Nazi party was a left wing party just because it had the word 'Socialist' in it's name is, to say the least, somewhat niave.

After all, just because North Korea is officially the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" doesn't make Democratic, or much of a People's Republic either now does it?

Any Fascist party is by definition right wing. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist . A good clue in the case of the Nazis is the enthusiasm they showed for putting communists, trade unionist and others of similar mind into labour and later death camps.

However, as is usual, bringing up the Nazis just confuses the issue. The point I was arguing, which you appear to have implicity accepted, is that /. has natural leftish moderation bias as seen from the states because you don't have any significant political party of the left or centre-left.

USA arrogance

[N3wsByt3]

"One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations."

This is SO arrogant, it almost defies imagination. It's exactly this sort of crap that makes me puke and think about the USA as some dangerously arrogant and self-centered behemot that not only walses over sovereign states and international law, but even thinks, nay, is convinced they have the RIGHT to do so.

I can't believe you actually say it as it's a given and that it's only normal. Are you THAT daft and blindly arrogant?

The USA does NOT have the right to invade countries because their corporations have 'invested' (more correctly; exploited people and resources) in foreign countries. In fact, many of this things are not even of the USA, though they like to think they can claim it. I bet you think the oil in Iraq is of the US too, because some american oilcompagnies got contracts?

Get real.

What you are advocating is, no more or less, imperialism.

Tell you what: you just keep trying to do that; consider all resources of the world to be yours, and try to withold the rights of the indiginous people to THEIR rescources and right to decide themselves what they want to do with it... see how far that will get you.

Re:USA arrogance

[DerWulf]

Unlike all european powers, the united states never had colonies, a vital precursor to imperalism. You should get the fuck real and realize that the problems of this world do not stem from american companies or even the military, but solely from idealist demagogues that, over millions of dead bodies, try to errect their special version of paradise, be that an islamic theocracy or socialism: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolinie, Francesco, Pol Pot, Che Guevara/Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Hussein, Kim Il Sung and Mao are just a few examples. Not to mentions the long list of middle east mullas and the countless african socialist dictators. But hey, at least the 'resources' in africa are not in the hands of the evil multinationals but in the hands of the native people (even if they are few).

many channels would want fahrenheit 911

[ncstockguy]

Considering the documentary Fahrenheit 911 has taken in more than 119-million dollars in ticket sales so far, more than many Hollywood "entertainment" movies, there would be no shortage of takers for the movie on television. Right offhand, many cable channels would bid for it. Plus, it's likely CBS would be interested. ABC, owned by Disney, hmmm let me see... ah, probably not, eh? Box office numbers are here: http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wk nd=36a&p=.htm

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[TheCaptain]

And with links to commondreams and the world socialist website, and indymedia you know that just stinks of credibility.

If I'd have to try to explain why that is, there is really no point in arguing with you. Mr. Anonymous Coward - you aren't a rational human being.

Bush WILL win, as Kerry flip flops like a fish

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ion/polls/2004-09-08-poll.htm
Its over dude.
Start getting used to four more years of strong, principled, no-nonsense from Euro-nuts, rule for a strong American leader, George W Bush!

Re:bite me asshat.

[Theaetetus]

I sez: "He came back to say "this war and the policies behind it are wrong, it was started on a false premise, and criminal policies are being handed down as 'orders'."

You sez: "Here is the excerpt from what Kerry said on Meet the Press April 18, 1971.
"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."
He didn't say that he was told, or he saw, he said he did it."

Isn't that what I said? He came back, admitted that he and his fellow soldiers committed war crimes, and said that they did them because they were ordered to, in policies that came from the highest levels of the administration.

I don't disagree that Kerry committed war crimes. That's the point - he was ordered to do so, he did, and at the first opportunity he came back and confessed and exposed the whole thing.

-T

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Charcharodon]

Actually they've done that for every president that was up for reelection for the past forty or so years. Ol' Billy Bob Clinton enjoyed the same election season price drop as President Bush will most likely recieve, so has Bush Sr, Reagon, Carter and others. The Saudis see the concept of 4 more years as a stabilizing factor so they don't have to adjust to the new policies of a new president. There is no grand conspiracy other than the Saudis trying influence our politics to their long term advantage.

Re:Gas

[curtoid]

Yes, but how far can you possibly be commuting to work? I used to think that the gas price was insane in your neck of the woods, but then I realized you don't really need to go anywhere...

I live in the upper midwest and could drive for DAYS in a straight line and not leave the USA.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rs79]

How can I put it politely... Bitch? Political whore?

"Lying cunt" seems to roll off the toungue rather nicely.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

Great. Which facts have you relayed to me? You have shown me NONE of those things I asked for.

Kerry admitted machine-gunning civilians? Could you point me to a transcript of such an admission? And if the "real reason" SBVFT don't like Kerry is his comments about the war, fine. But what we hear isn't "Kerry's a liar, we didn't do that stuff he said back 30 years ago", we hear, "Kerry's a liar, and so is the official US Navy record, and all those people he claimed to have saved - he didn't earn those medals" There's a credibility gap here.

Show me

1) evidence that Kerry's medals were unjustified.
2) evidence that POWs wouldn't have been tortured if Kerry hadn't given his interview.
3) evidence about Bush's military service.
4) evidence that My Lai was an isolated incident. That Kerry made up those stories he relayed to Congress. EVIDENCE, not flat denials.

I'm perfectly willing to accept web links to reputable sites.

Those are the things that I asked for facts about in my previous post, and you responded "I have. You choose to ignore the facts and the truth". But you haven't. You've given me rhetoric.

"I have. You ignore the facts, then tell everyone to state the facts like you are some intellectual superior. Got any? HELLO?" No, sir. You've offered your opinions as fact, with no support whatsoever. If I have to describe to you the difference between a fact and an opinion, then it would appear that being your intellectual superior is no great distinction.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

"Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts"

I'll certainly agree with the part about poorly-checked facts. I'm not sure that associating with radical anti-war groups is a bad thing. It certainly seems to have chuffed off a lot of people around here, though!

Thanks for the rationality in your response, BTW.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

Yes, I know that Osama hated Saddam. Osama was really pissed when he went to the Saudis and offered to make Jihad on Saddam and was turned down in favor of the United States. still both would use each other in a second to further their causes, different though they may be. The thing I said was they got documents from Iraq. I still stand by that I was surprised, well not that surprised, that it was not in the report. If I gave you the link I trusted you would read it. Too often many people who ask for proof don't read it and would rather not know. I have even been told by some people that despite facts that show I am right the fact that majority rules means the facts don't matter. I could easily say to you show me documents that say they did not get documents from Iraq. There are plenty of Google links that point to what I said. The only facts I wanted to point out are the ones Moore did not want us to know, that the Clinton administration did as little to stop Bin Laden as the Bush administration did.

As I told another poster, catch what I think is the definitive documentary on the subject, they show it on the National Geographic channel. The documentary features people from around the world who are in the know about the subject including Osamas relatives. I have seen Moores movie and it reads like political ad compared to the National Geographic documentary.

Again let me say I am not supporting Bush. Bush and Clinton both blew it......badly.

Now that was clueless.

[khasim]

"Well it certainly seems like you are getting your definition of terrorism from either Fox News or President Bush."

Hardly. And neither do I subscribe to YOUR definition of "terrorism" that includes any and all acts of violence.

"As mentioned in a previous reply to my original post, not all terrorism is specifically flying a plane into a building, exploding a bomb in a truck, or high-jacking a bus full of kids - not to say that these aren't acts of terrorism, but that's not what its limited to."

So, you've included acts which we both agree are terrorism. Yet you failed to include any acts that you believe are "terrorism" but that I would NOT call terrorism. All you've done is to say that such acts exist. Go ahead, specify them.

"That's right, it is my perogative, but you are fooling yourself if you think that the United States is going to stand till the end of time."

Why don't you post a link to where I said that? Hmmmmm? Go ahead. Any reference to where I said that the USofA would stand till the end of time.

"WE ARE F*CKING INFANTS compared to other countries around and we have the ability to lose our supremecy JUST as fast as we got it."

Yep, but IF we lose it, it will NOT be because of terrorists. It will be because we VOTED and ALLOWED it to happen.

"Where did I say anything remotely close to that?"

Here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12103 2&cid=101 92291
"The fact of the matter is that, eventually, the United States WILL fall and we may very well refer to the means of that as 'terrorism'."

"What I was saying was that terrorism is one way for people to try to get what they want..especially when someone is REALLY desparate for it."

Emphasis on the "try".
What I'm saying is that they can try all they want, but Osama will never be elected President of the USofA.

"The bottom line is that things are BOUND to change and there will be many reasons for it in this country; terrorism, whether you like it or not, has affected us and has altered the decisions to be made..."

Again, Osama will never be elected President ....

"For example, say that because of the Patriot Act, formed ever so intrepidly by our fearless leaders, gets out of control in the future and becomes more and more invasive."

Again, Osama will never be elected President ...
If we decline, it will be because we voted for it and allowed it to happen.

The Patriot Act can still be repealed. If we vote to do so. The people we voted to elect have voted to pass it.

Vote, vote, voted, vote, voted....

Osama will never be voted in as President of the USofA.

The US government will not be replaced by an Islamic theocracy.

"That said..people like you piss me off."

Too bad, soo sad. Maybe if you learned to read it would help?

"You think that you live in a bubble and that as long as you salute the bald eagle, vote republican/democrate, pay your taxes, and watch Sunday football that life is always going to be hunky dorey."

You really seem to have a problem with reading and comprehension. You also seem to be supplying my half of this discussion in your head.

"Do you realize how long our country has had these luxuries for? Not that damned long...so why do you think it's going to keep on being this way?"

Less than 100 years.

"You really need to get a clue.."

Like I said, you seem to be handling both side of this discussion in your head and disregarding (or are unable to comprehend) what I have posted. Given that, it would seem to be you that needs the clue.

"Who says that Osama wants to take over the USA or be elected???"

If we keep our freedoms and our government, then terrorism has a net zero effect. You seem to be arguing that terrorism is a threat to the USofA. I'm saying it is not.

"He just doesn't want us to be in power or, more specifically, for us to be mucking

Ummm, theocracy is not democracy.

[khasim]

"If they choose a Theocracy, then we will have to live with it."

Okay, so far. But then ...

"Anything that is democratic is better than the former system."

A theocracy is NOT a democracy. In fact, a theocracy can be worse than a secular totalitarian socialist state (the old Iraq).

"Very seldom do you see wars between two governments when the peoples of both countries have equal representation."

It won't be equal because there is a clear MAJORITY of one religion.

Re:Hell yeah

[blueskies]

In my longer post i say, "I'm just extremely sceptical that anyone, in good faith, can support the current state of the republican party, unless they don't keep themselves intelligently informed."

Maybe you aren't well informed? I should have added that one to the tic points.

Who cares about Moore? Even if he is misleading with his _facts_, he doesn't lie like O'reilly and Hannity. Even if he did, who cares? He's not the one hiding under the guise of a newscaster like O'reilly. Did he ever say fair and balanced? Did you feel tricked or something between seeing the trailers to F911 and seeing the movie?

Why would you hate kerry and not hate bush? Did Kerry send your friends and family into a useless war to die? Did Kerry pull strings to stay out of armed conflict and stay drunk off his ass? Did Kerry waste all of the goodwill our country was receiving from the rest of the world after 9/11 so he could grandstand? Did Kerry smear the ever living shit out of his detractors like Bush (even ones trying to correct the situation like richard clark)? Making mistakes is one thing; never admitting them and covering them up is another.

You and all the other uninformed people are the reason the rest of us have to suffer under someone with such a lack of credentials like GW. The only point you could come up with is that you hate kerry? Remember all of Bush's rhetoric about the US should not be in the buisness of nation building? Of course you can't, but for the rest of us, isn't that a GIANT flip-flop from our current situation?

Lather, rinse, repeat

[Rui del-Negro]

That's a lovely explanation about the supposed origins of the "expression" but:

a) I already knew all that (I think it's pretty much common knowledge).
b) I was obviously not talking about kings, emperors or rulers; I was talking about the public.
c) I never wrote "kill the messenger"; I wrote "shoot the messenger", which should give you a clue that I wasn't exactly talking about the middle ages.

So why not try to ignore the "origins of the expression" and look for its actual, direct, meaning? You know, ignore the subtext and look at the... er... text?

Perhaps Moore "wrote the message", in the sense that he gave it physical shape (like someone putting together a book of quotes, selecting the ones he likes best), but he's certainly not the author of the message's actual contents. Unless, again, you're suggesting some bizarre conspiracy in which Moore writes the speeches and policies of the Bush administration.

I case you completely missed the point of the film, the "message" is that there are some pretty shady relationships both within the USA's power structure (supreme court, election committee, state governors, candidates) and between some elements of that power structure and certain foreign rich families. The message of the film is also that the USA reacted to an attack carried out by people from that country (Saudi Arabia) by bombing a different country, and then invading a third country, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians in the process. And so on. The "message" isn't Moore's commentary, it's everything else (most of which was common knowledge - though not inside the USA, apparently).

And, instead of addressing these facts, some people prefer to attack Moore. As if he was somehow responsible for them. That's not only petty and stupid, it also reveals a huge lack of intellectual courage (because it tries to avoid even addressing the issues themselves).

It's irrelevant who Moore is, or what his opinion is, or how many other facts he left out of his movie. What is relevant is that the things shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 did happen (and were said by members of the current US administration). And no matter how much they say and do besides that, they still have to answer for that.

And the people supporting them (unless they are complete moral and intellectual invertebrates - and I suspect most are) need to stop dodging those issues and either support those actions or condemn them. When someone points out that you've done something wrong and you react by pointing out the mistakes of thers (instead of justifying or taking responsibility for yours), you continue to be incompetent, but you also become a coward.

As to "what I would have done" if I were president of a country, and someone had told me my country was under attack (or even that there had "just" been a really big accident), is what I think 90% of people (and 100% of presidents, except GWB) would have done.

And that is stop reading "My pet goat", say an urgent matter required my full attention, and immediately move to a safe location where I could monitor the situation and direct the reaction, with my staff. I'm pretty sure that's what Rudy Giuliani (for example) did.

What Bush did wasn't "being cool" and "decision making", it was precisely the opposite. It was being so stupid he was unable to make a decision. No-one told him what to do, so he didn't do anything. He sat there, for seven minutes, reading a book written for 4 year olds, while his house was on fire.

The simple fact that you're trying to defend this shows that you have thrown any kind of logical reasoning out the door.

RMN
~~~

Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have no idea how much the Bin Ladens love you dumbass americans"

Listen creep, as compared to Europe or the Arab world or wherever the hell you come from, Americans are vastly superior in any way that matterss, to any of you pathetic lot!

After all it was you nasty Europeans who voted in Hitler to be the leader of Germany, unleashing a terrible war on the world, resulting in over 70 million dead, including millions of Americans that gave their blood to save your sorry, smelly Euro-hides!

In the same vein, you Euro-nasties not only slaughtered 6 million Jews in gas chambers, the "nice, cuddly" Europs also carried out another genocide in the Congo, when tiny little Belgium carried out the first holocaust of the 20th century by slaghtering over 6 million black Africans in the Congo, IN COLD BLOOD!

You also seem to forget that it was the sleazy French and Germans who signed oil contrcats worth to the tune of $70 Billion with the evil butcher Saddam Hussein, even while Saddam was slaughtering 300,000 innocent people and putting them in mass graves that were discovered when Amercan troops liberated Iraq!
You wanna talk about oil? Maybe you better start off with the French and Germans, Europeans all, who aided and abbeted Saddam and scarified the lives of 300,000 innocent Iraquis so they can get cheap oil for France and Germany.
If I were you, I wouldn't even go there, dude!

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

wow! shake the cage and watch the rats scurry out!

Its hilarious to see this fool compare me to Hitler when in the previous sentance he claims that americans are superior in every way that matters. Who here is the real racist bastard? ... certainly not me, I'm pointing out that you are every bit as worthless as the enemies you've created and now feel you must destroy.

big words from an anonymous coward too, who can't stand behind what he says with his own name.

Totally out of touch too. I have no idea how you could think my message had anything to do with europe and their dirty nazi history in any way.

No one is debating the history of hussein. Yes indeed, he did take the AMERICAN WMD technology, that he was given by AMERICANS, and used it to kill his own people instead of the Iranians who were the target the AMERICANS had in mind when THEY GAVE hussein the WMD technology. hmm can you connect the dots here? was that obvious enough?

The argument is that Bush attacked Iraq purely to support his goal of destabilizing the oil market, increasing the price, at the expense of 1000 americans who thought they were fighting for the freedom of Iraqi's, and at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that at least had some stability before the war.

Bush LIED to his own citizens and to the world, sending his own citizens to their deaths in Iraq when there was never any proof of WMD's, when there was never any link to terrorists, and despite successfully keeping Hussein boxed in and neutralized for the previous 10 years.

How can you believe anything Bush says on any topic when he so eagerly threw your sons and daughters to their deaths based on a lie? ... while meanwhile he's only put forth a half-assed effort to catch Osama Bin Laden, the real cause of 911.

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[Anonymous Coward]

"big words from an anonymous coward too, who can't stand behind what he says with his own name"

I don't see why I should join slashdot just so I can put in a couple of posts.
Another thing, I'd back my courage against yours any day, dude. After all I am NOT French!
We in this country are not in the habit of surrendering when German jackboots come down marching our streets like you guys do in France. That's a whole nice specialty of yours!

"Yes indeed, he did take the AMERICAN WMD technology"

Wrong again!
Saddam took GERMAN , and FRENCH and RUSSIAN WMB technology. You Euro-nuts armed old Saddam all by yourselves, and according to a newly released book, you Euros continued to arm Saddam even during our last war with him.
In fact Israel had to destroy a French built Iraqi nuclear facility back in 1981 , as Saddam was busy using it to try and produce nuclear weapons!
With "allies" like you creeps, who needs enemies?

"The argument is that Bush attacked Iraq purely to support his goal of destabilizing the oil market, increasing the price, at the expense of 1000 americans who thought they were fighting for the freedom of Iraqi's, and at the expense of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that at least had some stability before the war."

That is just plain stupid, even for a Euro-nut!
The loony left conspiracy Euro-psychos are alive and still spewing out vicious hate, as usual.
Yeah right! Its like Bush needs a high oil and gas prices to get re-elected, right?
This in America, a country that has the highest car ownership on the planet, and whose citizens are more affected by increases in gas prices than anyone else.
Try and make some sense, will you?

"Bush LIED to his own citizens and to the world, sending his own citizens to their deaths in Iraq when there was never any proof of WMD's, when there was never any link to terrorists, and despite successfully keeping Hussein boxed in and neutralized for the previous 10 years."

Repeat after me, creep :" President Bush did NOT lie to anybody"
The evidence for Saddam being in possession of WMD's was confirmed not just by the CIA, it was confirmed by French Intelligence, German intelligence, British intelligence , Russian intelligence and the UN.
Members of the intelligence committees of the United States Senate AND House of Reps saw exactly the same intelligence President Bush saw, AND the United Stated Senate VOTED by 97 to 3 to AUTHORIZE war against Iraq, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION!
Get it?
That is democracy at work, moron!
Something that you Euro-creeps could do with a healthy dose of!!

"How can you believe anything Bush says on any topic when he so eagerly threw your sons and daughters to their deaths based on a lie? ... while meanwhile he's only put forth a half-assed effort to catch Osama Bin Laden, the real cause of 911. "

I will believe President Bush over slimy, slithery, frog-eating Euro-creeps like you a billion times out of a billion, anytime of the day, week, month or year!
President Bush has more honesty in his little finger than ALL the sleazy leaders of Europe AND the Middle East combined!
You guys wouldn't know the truth if it hit you right between your eyes!!

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[DerWulf]

you are just ignorant. Stability is no merit. Ausschwitz was also stable: thousands killed everyday. The comparison is not far fetched, whatever moore showed you, this is was not the face of pre war iraq. Hussein is a butcher but that wasn't the worst of it. The whole party was a collection of butchers, one more psychopathic than the other. Life was not good in iraq before the war. And it is better now, as Iraqis do admit in a number of polls.

Iraq had WMDs. Iraq was obliged to get rid of them, documenting the process thoroughly, by the post gulf war peace accords of the UN. It didn't document anything. The logical assumption is that Iraq hadn't, in fact, dispossed of them. It's not like Hussein didn't want the world thinking he still had them.

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

So, you went to war, killed at least 11,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (so far), who had nothing to do with supporting Hussein, and sent 1000+ of your own citizens to their deaths on the ASSUMPTION that because some paperwork hadn't been filed, there must be WMD's.

You americans ignore UN regulations constantly, how many years was it where you wouldn't even pay your UN dues? The Dubya administration has broken more international treaties and trade agreements than any other presidency! Yet you expect other countries to follow the rules absolutely? Get over yourselves! You aren't so special! .... Lets see, its been about a year and a half later since the ASSSUMPTION was made, and the invasion happened, 150,000+ of your people, including something like 9,000 trained specifically for looking for WMD's have failed to find ANYTHING except for some scraps that had already been put out of commision in the first gulf war and its aftermath 10 years before.

And shall I remind you that the WMD technology was put in Hussein's hands covertly by YOUR DAMN COUNTRY! to use against the Iranians, because Hussein was your glorious friend at the time!

And shall I remind you that when Hussein was killing his own people, it was in an attempt to overthrow Hussein as encouraged by Bush Senior ... who promised support, but then looked the other way!

I suppose you think it would be just fine to kill people on american soil who were violently trying to overthrow your own government, despite the OBVIOUS contradiction of it being wrong for Hussein to have done so.

Damn!

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Ya you have it dead on.

Every single person in Canada is French.

Damn I wish you Americans would learn some geography and history. ... Here's the history part, the Iran-Contra scandal, remember that? THE WEAPONS WENT COVERTLY FROM YOU TO IRAQ TO USE AGAINST IRAN!!!

Bush himself has publicly stated that NO WMD's have been found, he has publicly stated that there was never evidence for a link between Hussein and 911.

Bush needs high oil to fill his pockets, not to get re-elected. Have you also forgotten he and his saudi friends are all OIL tycoons.

He needs you to keep being scared over imaginary threats to get re-elected.

Follow this link to read about the other dictators / terrorists / enemies that your government created, armed, financed, supported, and has since decided must be destroyed ...

http://www.geocities.com/famousdog/USSUPPORT.HTM

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

The american constitution .. oh ya, thats that scrap of paper you wipe your ass with every time the Patriot Act is invoked to illegally search 'terror suspects' without a warrent (breaks the 4th amendment), and when you hold foreigners on your soil indefinately without charge and without representation (Your constitution guarentees the same basic rights for any person on your soil). Of course these rules are also ignored by you keeping the 'armed combatants' in Cuba, pretending that your constitution doesn't apply there when they are still totally in your care.

And its the same piece of tissue that was ignored blatantly during the last election when bush protestors were forced to gather away from bush's rally's, breaking the first amendment.

And its the paper that gets shot full of holes everytime some american jackass incorrectly states that he has the right to bare arms, when that clause was written to allow the individual states to form armed militias, not to guarentee the individual the right to carry an UZI (as is possible as of today).... I assume that was in case Canada decided to come down and burn down your white house a SECOND time.

Re:Oh no! Another Euro-Nazi sleezoid!

[DerWulf]

care to name a number of significant treaties the US has violated?

And shall I remind you that the WMD technology was put in Hussein's hands covertly by YOUR DAMN COUNTRY! to use against the Iranians, because Hussein was your glorious friend at the time!

This is plainly false. During the Iran-Irak war, Irak (the agressor) received millitary support from the soviet union and france, Iran meanwhile was supplied by the US and the rest of western europe. The US even restricted the sales of so called dual-use chemicals (you could use them to make fertilizer or chem weapons) after heavy orders by Irak. Only latter, as it appeared that the iranian might even win, the US decided it wouldn't be wise to let the iranian, fundamental islamists, gain too much power in the region. Basically, when two assholes fight, you best furnish them both with baseball bats. The charge that biological or chemical weapons (or knowledge for manufacturing them) have been given to Iraq with the government knowing of it was never substantiated. In terms of numbers and quality, by far the most millitary equipment was delievered by the russians and the french though. Its quite easy to add 1 and 1, isnt it.

So, you went to war, killed at least 11,000 innocent Iraqi civilians (so far), who had nothing to do with supporting Hussein, and sent 1000+ of your own citizens to their deaths on the ASSUMPTION that because some paperwork hadn't been filed, there must be WMD's.

Saddam Hussein was among the most brutal dictators in history. Under his yoke millions died. 11.000 thousand isn't even a number for him when speaking of killing people. How can you be so sure that the intervention in fact hasn't saved 100.000 lives?
The proof that all weapons of mass destruction where distroyed is not mere paperwork. Especially if the country and leader in question has already used them and dreams the sweet dream of pan-arabic domination.

And shall I remind you that when Hussein was killing his own people, it was in an attempt to overthrow Hussein as encouraged by Bush Senior ... who promised support, but then looked the other way!

Yes this was a bad move. Nobody says the US has acted always in the best possible way. This doesn't equate them with genocital dictators though.

I suppose you think it would be just fine to kill people on american soil who were violently trying to overthrow your own government, despite the OBVIOUS contradiction of it being wrong for Hussein to have done so.

Well, eventhough I am not an american, I think that seperatism (a 'unit' (county, province etc) splitting up from the federation) is a way to hold the government in check. The biggest failure of the consitution is that it doesn't provide the legal support for it. But, even in the united states of today, only those people that were actually violating the law (even if unjust) would be brought to justice. This hugly differs from just killing them and all else that are related through ethnicality.

KERRY'S ENDLESS FLIP FLOPS ON IRAQ- MUST VIEW!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

This man is more slithery than a snake, has more changes of positions on Iraq than a chameleon, and is harder to pin down on any issue than keeping Houddini in chains!
View the video, pass it on to as many people as you can, and whatever you do, DO NOT, repeat DO NOT vote for Mr "My Christmas in Cambodia is seared, seared seared in my memory" John Kerry!
(Turns out old John Kerry was actually NEVER in Cambodia. He made it all up so he could smear his fellow Vietnam vets.)

Re:Screw the political process- this will hurt Dem

[Xeger]

Good point. And, given that voting turnouts in this country are abysmal, there are more indifferent minds out there waiting to be swayed than indecisive minds.

The Dems must be hoping the movie does its job (incite the apathetic masses to use their rights, for once) without eroding their current base of support by too much. The numbers are certainly on their side.

Do I need to define the word "is", too?

[Rui del-Negro]

Apparently you don't know what "factual" or "non-fiction" means, either. Buy yourself a dictionary or use Google, read the definition, and then see how any documentary (including the ones that expose facts you find uncomfortable) fits in.

RMN
~~~

Re:bite me asshat.

[jayp00001]

That's the problem with these war crimes, you cannot (at least in the US military) be ordered to commit crimes. If Kerry decided that they were crimes, then he shouldn't have done them or he should have reported them to his superiors. Instead, at a time when other soldiers were being tortured in order to get them to admit to crimes they didn't commit, John Kerry went to the media and the public rather than the chain of command. This is how he turned his back on his fellow soldiers, if he actually told the truth (which is a whole separate debate). There is a reason that Kerry's got a place in the Vietnam war museum, and it's not because of his "war crimes".

Here's an idea

[MasTRE]

How about this: You and I already know who we're gonna vote for. Some/most of us here, the /. grand elitists, know a fair amount about these candidates, what they represent, what they've done (and I'm really saying that we know what one of them represents, has done, etc. and we either want more of it or not).

Now, if you're anything like me, you too do not watch a lot of TV. Why get your news, of all things, thru a read-only, non-interactive medium, instead of being able to custom-tailor what you're interested in on the Internet (take that, decapitalization bastards!).

On to my point: the people that watch TV are either part of an older generation that is not compatible with the Internet way of doing things, or dumb beasts that stuff their pie holes with potato chips and watch mindless programs aired between advertisements that instill in their tiny brains what's hot, what's not, and so on. They don't know many facts about the candidates (again, mostly about the incumbent), as they prefer watching staged "wrestling" to C-SPAN. So, seeing this movie can give them a glimpse of some of the things our current non-elected president has done during his current tenure as our leader - in easy to swallow format, sort of like the movie version of the cliff notes. This will either make them curse at Moore and get in their dualie truck and attempt to run me off the road by changing lanes w/o looking where they're going, or contemplate voting for Kerry. Heck, maybe even contemplate voting, period - voting is not the forté of the potato chip-eating crowd.

Re:Someone already aired Fahrenheit 911

[808140]

Sometimes, I really wonder if people like you bother to think for themselves or just accept whatever ridiculous claims they are spoon fed. It amazes me that you can repeat this sort of mindless propaganda.

I've been to Cuba, and it is nothing like what you describe. While it is true that their government is considerably more authoritarian than the US's has classically been, Cubans arguably have the best overall standards of living, health care, education, etc, of all of Latin America. Their infant mortality rate is lower than the US. While their economic, social and political policies are at odds with the United States', they are by no means the hell hole they are frequently made out to be by the US media.

I think you should read more about Fidel Castro, the man. The Wikipedia entry is a good place to start; it gives a rather balanced viewpoint. As with all Wikipedia articles, read the Talk page too, to see what sorts of debates are going on (especially since the content on the page will most likely have changed by the time you read it).

I'm not a huge Castro fan but frankly I think the man has done a damn site better for his people than the capitalist-but-nonetheless-sadistic puppet dictatorships we Americans have set up throughout Central and South America to further our own trade interests.

The way you talk, it sounds like you're one of those Cuban republicans living in Florida that's still sore about Fidel coming to power in the 50s and nationalizing the industries that made your family wealthy, while the average Cuban starved.

Re:bite me asshat.

[merdark]

I have not seen Moore's film, but I have seen at least parts of the documentary which you mention.

Moore may be biased and sensationalist, but then so is the Republican party (and Democrat party). If people allow Republican sensationalism on TV and elsewhere, then they should also allow moore's sensationalism.

Sadly, facts do not speak to some people. For these people, we can only hope that there are equal amounts of sensationalist material from both sides.

My only quarrel with your statement was that you claimed it was well known about the passports. I had never heard of it until your post, and a quick google search did not turn up the hundreds of links you would expect for something that is "well known".

Obviously...

[jotaeleemeese]

... you, or whoever wrote this, can play Moore's same game (as you would see it).

Just one example:

"39. Moore say Saddams Iraq had never murdered a single American citizen. In fact, Saddam paid for terrorist bombers in Israel who murdered Americans, along with people of other nationalities. Saddam also sheltered the American-killing terrorist Abu Nidal, and the bomb-maker for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings."

I think I understand Moore's statement in the sense that Hussein did not explicitly ordered US poeple to be murdered. What you say seems to indicate an incidental happening, and you try to stretch for all what it is worth, which is exactly what you are intending to criticize.

The fact is that the US was never attacked by Hussein's regime, in spite of the dictator having multiple motives to do so.

As the one above you stretch many of your points to a point where you are not credible at all.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Elwood P Dowd]

None of Kerry's testimony was false or misleading.

His statement about Kerry being full of shit implies that something is inaccurate about his testimony.

If that's not what the poster meant, then I don't understand his complaint.

Entertainers and Pundits get more speech rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's time to learn to juggle!

Wrong? Completely?

[LaCosaNostradamus]

You are so uneducated about the US military command and control that I hardly know where to begin with your asinine postings that attempt to excuse GWB's criminal failure to defend the US.

Each President is a Commander in Chief (CINC) of all the US military forces, from the first second after he takes his oath of office. This isn't something with any uncertainty attached to it. This is a well-defined role that has surrounded by redundant and reliable communications links for decades. Ever heard of the "football"? It's the comm package that must always be nearby the President in case has to issue launch or cancel orders for nuclear military forces. It was at Bush's inauguration, and it has never been very far from him since.

Just by being an educated US citizen, GWB knew that the WTC was attacked by Islamic extremists in 1993. He knew also that Bin Laden was on active assault status for years, at least taking credit for attacks in 1998. GWB must have been briefed before and after the inauguration about further details on all such threats. GWB also was well briefed on the possible use of jetliners to effectively "bomb" targets in the US. Just on these irrefutable facts alone, GWB cannot be excused for his lack of urgency on the morning of 911. Planes were not scrambled into affected airspaces for a long time.

A President has the authority and the means to order any military action by using the always accompanying command and control links. These were with Bush on the morning of 911. You show outrageous ignorance or shameful complacency when you say "it was only seven minutes", but 7 minutes is a long time in military command. Bush could have had planes scambled on his own authority over Washington DC, NYC and Boston within 3 minutes, probably, since hundreds of planes are always waiting on the flightlines at bases around the US for just this purpose. After all, he knew everything I said above. He knew it was possible an attack was taking place. And as CINC, it was his duty to understand and respond as quickly as possible. A "possible" attack must be treated like a "real" attack. But he didn't respond. He dawdled. He effectively sat on his hands. He failed to do his duty. Whether or not it was by incompetence or deceit, his lack of action was criminal.

These are the facts. The US Congress should have immediately impeached him on those facts alone. But, the American people isn't willing to deal with these issues. People want to pretend something entirely farcical is actually true. But don't try to pass off your ignorance or complacency as factual reality. On Slashdot, this is not the utterly controlled enviroment of Fox News -- we can call your bullshit with facts.

Re:bite me asshat.

[macdaddy]

Hmm... -----_----..... You're right. I believe you're right! By george I think he's got it! ;-)

It's a shame Moore won't show both sides.

[CaptRespect]

It's a shame that Moore doesn't try a un-bias documentary. I've seen Columbine and F9/11 and they are very entertaining movies. If he would just be fair and actually try to do a documentary without trying to push his agenda they would probably be very good movies.

Why he has to twist the truth and only show one side is beyond me. He could probably still make a case for his "media-is-just-trying-to-scare-you" and "the-war-is-only-to-keep-the-black-man-down" conspiracy theory's without making up newspaper headlines and and telling half truths.

Of course if he did that, he might just end up changing his own mind about things.

Salt is essential

[Rui del-Negro]

Define nonfiction.

Based on real people or real events. Video clips from news networks, quotes from official documents and newspaper articles or interviews are pretty obvious examples.

How about telling half truths?

There is no such thing as "half truths". It's never possible to show the "whole" truth, especially in the limited duration of a film (and, IMO, Fahrenheit 9/11 is too long as it is). If you were making a documentary, you might decide to include some things that I consider irrelevant, and vice-versa. It's Moore's film and he decided to include the elements that (in his opinion) strengthened his point of view. Don't extrapolate and you won't be "deceived".

I'll have to learn to take all future "documentaries" with a grain of salt.

Of course, you always should have. And, nowadays, that extends to a lot of "news" and "reporting". Especially the kind that feels the need to label itself as "fair and balanced" (just as China and Congo feel the need to call themselves "The People's Republic").

He's made an AWFUL lot of money, and he's never been quite honest with the public about it. I want to hear more about his extravagant hotel lifestyle.

As far as I know, all his money was made legally. And personally, I couldn't care less about Moore's private life. If I was into spying celebrities I'd probably go more for Paris Hilton.

But if you think Moore would make an interesting subject for a documentary, by all means make one. I suspect you won't have any problems getting interviews or permission to film him - he loves being in the spotlight (but take a pretty big spotlight, and a wide angle lens).

RMN
~~~

Re:bite me asshat.

[rspress]

Actually a Google search will turn up both facts for and against the fact they used passports. I guess which site you believe depends on whether you would believe they would do it or not, I think they would. I will concede this fact as I am sure I cannot find a link that would make everyone happy.

I have always said, it least in most of my posts, the neither party can claim they did the right thing with either Osama or Saddam. I have no problems with Moores movie being on TV. If people want to bitch about it being on TV, well, that is their right. I hate censorship no matter which party does it....and they both do in their own ways. I think they should show the national geographic special right after Moores movie at least to give voters all the facts. Moore is no dummy, at least I don't think he is, and he knew what to leave out of his movie to make his party look good. Both parties blew it, both should take the blame.

Kerry military records are still locked away.

[LightSail]

Bush released his military records.

Kerry still refuses to release the full record of his military service.

We cannot evaluate the records fairly if one party fails to allow us access.

Releasing the records would end the swift boat vet issue, one way or the other.

Who wrote "The New Soldier"?

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

but that there is no terrorist threat to the United States of America.

Tell that to the former occupants of the twin towers, god rest their souls. On the other hand, you're right about Orwell.

Re:Discussions about Michael Moore are a distracti

[Nixoloco]

.. don't forget what keery said in his acceptance speech..
"I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family"
They might not have been to happy about that.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Theaetetus]

That's the problem with these war crimes, you cannot (at least in the US military) be ordered to commit crimes. If Kerry decided that they were crimes, then he shouldn't have done them or he should have reported them to his superiors.

If his superiors are the ones ordering them, he has the option of disobeying orders (which, if it's an unjust order, he can do) or performing a war crime. If the former, he faces definite imprisonment and a courts-martial, during which he might be exonerated. However, during war time, that might take a year to come to trial, and he's imprisoned the whole time.
Did you see A Few Good Men? They followed orders and committed a murder, and thought they were doing right because they followed orders. Can we, as armchair quarterbacks, claim that we would be nobler, and stand up to our commanding officer? I think not.

Instead, at a time when other soldiers were being tortured in order to get them to admit to crimes they didn't commit, John Kerry went to the media and the public rather than the chain of command.

Oh, come on... Who was torturing the soldiers? The Viet Cong. Let's not even pretend to compare being tortured by the enemy to going to the press, congress, or the CO. I'm ashamed you even brought that up.

This is how he turned his back on his fellow soldiers, if he actually told the truth (which is a whole separate debate). There is a reason that Kerry's got a place in the Vietnam war museum, and it's not because of his "war crimes".

And I still don't see where he 'turned his back on his fellow soldiers'. Is it because he told the truth about what was going on? Should he have stayed tight-lipped? Don't cross the thin blue line, etc.? By the same token, any Police Department Internal Affairs division is "turning it's back on their fellow officers", any ethics committe is "turning it's back on their colleagues", etc. If you believe it's preferable to stay silent when there are crimes being committed, rather than step forward to protect the innocent, then that's just sad.

-T

The same mistakes

[Rui del-Negro]

Reality does not exist in abstract. Outside of mathematics, everything depends on the point of view. If you want "unfiltered" information, you'll have to go dig it up yourself, straight from the source (and even then, you'll just be seeing your point of view).

And there is no such thing as "Moore's facts" (there's "Moore's law", but that's a different thing). Michael Moore makes films based on real facts, real events and real people (documentaries). Which facts, events and people he decides to show or not show or emphasise or downplay is entirely up to him. But the facts don't stop being facts just because Moore exposes them (or not).

Specifically, the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 were all known long before Moore made his film. Most of the clips and documents had been shown in several international news networks (ex., BBC), and similar interviews (with Richard Clarke, several congressmen, etc.) had already been shown on TV and included in other documentaries (ex., "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"). There really isn't much new stuff in Fahrenheit 9/11. The only difference was that (finally) those things were shown inside the USA.

And, although most americans probably knew about them already (just as they knew about what went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib), they pretended they hadn't happened. But it's a lot harder to keep pretending when the images are right in front of you.

Trying to somehow blame Moore for the facts exposed in Fahrenheit 9/11 (or deny the images in front of your eyes and claim they are lies) is like trying to blame CNN or the BBC for the torture and sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib - if anything, by exposing the problems, they helped put an end to it. A true patriot is not someone who blindly supports his or her government - it's someone who doesn't hesitate to go against that government to protect his country, its image, and its most noble ideals.

RMN
~~~

DVD rip already avalible

[Anonymous Coward]

The dvd rip is already avalible.. here is the torrent

Re:bite me asshat.

[div_2n]

No, it doesn't. The main reason is that my primary concern are US interests when it comes to the war on terror. There are other reasons but they would only ensue a flame war.

Re:bite me asshat.

[falsified]

Correlation is not causation. I didn't date any Hispanic girls in between September 11th and today. Did the woeful lack of Hispanic girls in my neighborhood prevent terrorism? Nope. Also note that while the number of terrorist acts in the United States has dropped (Has NOT disappeared...Remember Israel's national airline getting shot up at LAX? Probably not because it received no coverage), international incidences have become more numerous, including Western targets.

The War on Terror(ISM!) is bullshit. You can't have a war on personal ideology, especially when people have successfully perverted a religion in order to justify it. Unless, of course, we stop so strongly supporting Israel and withdraw from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia...and we can't do that...can we?...

F911 = false premise

[DigiShaman]

Fact = Cowboy Neal did NOT suck dick in the past 7 days.

Fact = You take drugs, but your usage of them are not illigal.

Fact = Your IQ is questionable

Yes, these are all facts. But it is how they are stated that sets a false primise to the topics at hand.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you don't get it, she said that because she thinks you're a dick.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What we have is mostly educated IT related people representing a cross section.

How is being in "IT" a cross section and why haven't you noticed a talent for CS often accompanies a bewilderment for everything else?

Re:Hell yeah

[Crazy Eight]

If you're not voting _for_ someone, you shouldn't vote at all.

Then why are you voting for Bush since you dislike him? Either drop the "kids" shit since you posture yourself as a 22 year old X-treame sports guy, drop the notion that a vote against is a vote wasted, or drop the belief that you aren't retarded.

Re:Hell yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Southern California is home to some of the most rabid conservatives in America.

Re:Hell yeah

[Crazy Eight]

Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.

Then why does business seem as shitty as it did in January of 2002? And why are we supposed to be enamoured of the conservative fiscal policy of the President if it makes no difference?

right

[N3wsByt3]

They don't call it colonies anymore, they call it "area's of influence", they don't call it "conquering" but "liberating", they don't have 'strongholds' in other countries anymore, but "bases", etc.

By any other name, a rose would smell as sweet?

And you'd better check up on history; it's not by lack of trying that the USA doesn't have 'colonies'. Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out.

BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism). In fact, all your other examples are communistic in nature, not socialistic.

Re:right

[DerWulf]

only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:

You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them. If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?

Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out

Oh please, the only example would be texas which was stolen from the mexicans. This is clearly not what you had in mind when calling the 'modern' united states imperalistic.

BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism). Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us. Yes, Hitlers Germany had as an attribute 'facist' which only means: Instead of pretenting that the people work for the good of the people ('common good'), which just ends up as the people working for the good of the ruling elite, we go straightly there and equate the states good with the 'common good' and so requiring from everyone to sacrifice all that is asked for the state. If you don't believe me, read up on the socio economic teachings inside the NSDAP and writs by NSDAP members. DAP btw stands for German Workers Party.
What scares the lefties is this: Nazi germany was the most efficient and by a standard most sucessful implementation of socialism yet. Instead of being slowed down by having to maintain a nice, humain facade, the nazis fought their opponents with open violence on the streets and gained influence by all out popularism in elections. They broke alliances, had no respect for life whatsoever and promised 'the people' an epoche of unequaled peace and prosperity. They were in the purest form: hungry for power, opportunistic, millitant and manipulative. This is what it takes to make people completely surrender their lifes into collectivism.

Some points from the NSDAP party program that are clearly socialistic, the rest (which is not quoted) is mostly the nationalistic agenda:

7. Wir fordern, daß sich der Staat verpflichtet, in erster Linie für die Erwerbs- und Lebensmöglichkeit der Bürger zu sorgen. Wenn es nicht möglich ist, die Gesamtbevölkerung des Staates zu ernähren, so sind die Angehörigen fremden Nationen (Nicht-Staatsbürger) aus dem Reiche auszuweisen.

We demand that the state be required to formost care for the income [and life-possibility] of its citizens. If it is not possible to feed all inhabitants of the state, foreigners shall be expelled from the 'Reich'.

10. Erste Pflicht jeden Staatsbürgers muß sein, geistig oder körperlich zu schaffen. Die Tätigkeit des Einzelnen darf nicht gegen die Interessen der Allgemeinheit verstoßen, sondern muß im Rahmen des gesamten und zum Nutzen aller erfolgen.

The duty of every citizen must be to work, with the mind or with the body. The activities of the indiviual must not go contrary to the interest of the public but must be pursued within the whole and to the benefit of all.

11. Abschaffung des arbeits- und mühelosen Einkommens.

[We demand] the abolishment of the work and toil free income [read: income from capital ie. interest

13. Wir fordern die Verstaatlichung aller (bisher) bereits vergesellschaftete

Re:right

[N3wsByt3]

"only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:"

LOL. Funny how USA-dudes always think that critique on their system, or saying the USA has imperialistic tendancies iveriably makes someone a socialist. "Only a socialist" my ass. Typical smallmindness so people like you can shrug it off without any problems by saying it 'can only come from a pinko'. In reality, YOU don't have a clue about what really constitutes a socialist, liberal, communist or liberal. If you are a USA-citizen, your ignorance on that matter is no surprise and even understandable, if your an european you should KNOW the difference.

Your argumentation that something is socialist (or whatever) because different political and ideological currents have points in common is ridiculous. I guess you are one of those guys that equal the islamic religiousness with islamic fundamentalism, because the ideology of the extremists show similarities and are both based on the Koran.

It's rather funny to be called a socialist (I've been called that many times, especially by USA-dudes) when, in fact, I'm a liberal. But then again, I think the US thinks liberals in europe ARE socialists. They'll be in for a surprise, if they really encounter european socialists.

"You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them."

Right, that's why I say the wordchoice changed (by the USA themselves, ofcours- duh), but the ideology that lies behind it has remained the same. Ask Iraquees if they feel ruled by the americans, or merely influenced.

"If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?"

An invasion and occupation of a sovereign state by a foreign armed force.

The fact that the country was ruled by a dictator does not change the above. And apart from that, it's a showcase of hypocrisy: the USA don't seem to be bothered one bit with dealing and actively supporting (and even toppling democratic elected leaders to install dictators that are more favorable to the US), as long as it suits them. Trying to excuse the invasion by claiming the higher moral ground is ludicrous and hypcritical.

"Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us."

Is it? Then why should I care? I'm not a socialist.

Fact is, while Nazism claimed to have socialist roots, they were merely, as you indicate yourself, a populist, nationalistic party using some socialist slogans to become popular, not to implement it. For instance, you conveniently left out that the nazi's forbid unions and seriously reduced a lot of socialistic endeavours...something a true socialistic party, obviously, would not do.

Personnally, I don't give much about socialism as an ideology, but that don't mean I can't recognise that they have done some good too, and that the facts are the facts; and equalling fascism with socialism is ludicrous.

In fact, fascism really has far more similarities with 'corporatisation', whereby big companies have a gigantic influence on politics, instead of the people. In this respect, and following your own reasoning, the capitalistic vision should be equalled with fascism. I, However, am far to reasonable to equate nazism or fascism with being liberal, something you have no problem with aparently, if it is about socialism.

Re:right

[DerWulf]

LOL. Funny how USA-dudes always think that critique on their system, or saying the USA has imperialistic tendancies iveriably makes someone a socialist. "Only a socialist" my ass. Typical smallmindness so people like you can shrug it off without any problems by saying it 'can only come from a pinko'. In reality, YOU don't have a clue about what really constitutes a socialist, liberal, communist or liberal. If you are a USA-citizen, your ignorance on that matter is no surprise and even understandable, if your an european you should KNOW the difference.

Well, the fact that I translated the Nazi Party program from german could have given you a hint where I am really from ;)

I'm not shrugging it of. Certainly not. For that, I despise 'pinko' ideology far too much. I'm always going to get into an argument with them (you, I don't know). Of course I thought you where one of them, this is clear from the text. The rational behind what I said still stands though, even if I adressed the wrong person (sorry): It has been general left tactics to destroy concepts by renaming them. Exhibition a) 'slavery'- the meaning of slavery is as clear as an english word can be. It means bound into servitute, forced labour etc. Now the logic goes like this 'slavery = hard work under harsh conditions' (which doesn't capture the essence, that you are not volunteering) and 'wage labor = hard work under harsh conditions' so 'wage labor = slavery' and if slavery is immoral, wage labor is as well. The concept of 'voluntary exchange' that is absent from the slavery and present in wage labor is utterly destroyed. For me, your equating imperalism with what the US does seemed like this Imperalism requires Invasion, the Americans invaded Iraq therefor Americans are imperalistic. This is utterly wrong. Imperalism doesn't much refer to the how it got that way ('hostile' army inside country) but what followed afterwards: complete oppression, forcibly changing peoples lives, trying to 'civilise' them, forced labour, exploitation of property of 3rd parties without consent etc.. This is the essence of imperialism. None of this has the states dones.

Fact is, while Nazism claimed to have socialist roots, they were merely, as you indicate yourself, a populist, nationalistic party using some socialist slogans to become popular, not to implement it. For instance, you conveniently left out that the nazi's forbid unions and seriously reduced a lot of socialistic endeavours...something a true socialistic party, obviously, would not do.

Think about it for a while. Stop reading and think about 'why would a socialist gov. forbid unions'?

Well a) the class struggle is over, we have won. We are the true path and anyone not giving it all up for the collective is clearly leading a counter revolution. They have been subverted by their capitalist masters, kinda like the stockholm syndrom. Every socialist/communist government has forbidden unions. Besides the fact that this follows logically from the doctrine, they are b) just a nussiance, especially if the workers see how socialism doesn't make them be better off.

They implemented it all. How can you be so ignorant? How can you even begin to claim that the facism is a variant of capitalism. Thats bullshit. Facism implemented a command economy. Mostly because it is lead by socialistic principles. The nazis send SS officers to over see every major manufacturing joint. Please read. Educate yourself. Become smart, like the big boys. A command economy is the polar opposite of what capitalism embodies. Yet a command economy is where every socialist utopia is headed. This in inevitable. And btw. 'the corps' telling the government what to do is called 'mercantilism'. True advocates of capitalism despise mercantilism only a tiny bit less than facism/socialism.

Re:right

[N3wsByt3]

You seem to have a rather simplistic interpretation of what constitutes socialism, fascism, communism, etc.

While it is true socialism has broadend and even misued certain terms so it would fit what they needed, this can hardly be called a distinctive feature of socialism. In fact, I think every party and every country in the world (see the examples I gave of the USA) does exactly the same: they use and change terminology and concepts, just to suit their neds, and to make it more palatable for those that might opose. Calling something 'liberating' is a prime example of that. The day that any country will call it "invade and conquer another country" still has to come.

"How can you be so ignorant? How can you even begin to claim that the facism is a variant of capitalism. Thats bullshit."

Indeed, and that was my point. But you don't seem to have any trouble with claiming equal bullshit. The only thing preventing from seeying that, is your own bias against socialism.

I however, can see the benefits as well as the drawbacks of socialism. I find liberalism more suited and practical in an economoic perspective, and for sure 'pinko's' can be damn annoying with their braindead slogans, but that doesn't mean I do not recognise the value they have brought neither. (It just means we should keep them in check).

After all, raw capitalism like it was rampant in the 19th century was far from ideal for most of the people (exept the rich); the inequality and abuse of the ecomoically weaker was grotesk. It was liberalism in it's basic form, and I despise that as much as a state-ruled government under one doctrine, frankly.

I think socialism and liberalism keeps eachother in check (but apart that, I prefer a multi-party system, because with only two choices one limits the abilities of the voter too much).

Actually, if there was a true libertarian party, I would probably vote for them, because currently, I can't find myself fully in any of the current parties, be it liberal, ultra-right-wing, socialists or greens. Liberals are just less bad then most.

Re:right

[DerWulf]

After all, raw capitalism like it was rampant in the 19th century was far from ideal for most of the people (exept the rich); the inequality and abuse of the ecomoically weaker was grotesk. You mean the rampant growth in population size, 10 fold increase in a space of 2 generations. The increase in life expectancy of 10 years and the fall of child death rates from the high 50s to the low 20 coupled with the seed of women emancipation(the didn't have to wait for someone to marry them, the could be independent and work for themselves) and the highest living standard, on average hereto experienced. Yeah, it sure was hell, especially if you compare it to what it was like before the industrial revolution: no one needed to do hard labour, play nd fun all abund ;)

Re:right

[N3wsByt3]

You're argumentation is sophistic in nature; the fact that life was ameliorating due to medical and other scientific advances, does not diminish in any way what I said: that the form of capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century was an exess that wasn't to the benefit of the majority of people.

All what you describe above as benefits would have been possible too, if capitalism hadn't been so extreme and raw. Fact is, our current situation (in europe, at least) shows this exactly, with the added benefit that now, it counts for a lot more of people, not merely the wealthy and rich. (Or do you think women were 'financially independend' in *poor* workingfamilies?)

You seem to see the world in black and white. I didn't say 'capitalism is bad' (otherwise, I wouldn't vote for lberals ;-), nor that it didn't lead to beneficial advances, but I did say that the raw capitalism of the 19th century was far from being optimal, if you regard the wellfare of the majority of people in a country as a goal for optimisation. In that respect, the social laws that tempered that raw capitalistic system and provided a much more equal distribution of wellfare, health, etc. was a good thing, and we mainly have to thank the socialistic movement for it.

So, once again it is shown that both systems have their uses.

Re:right

[DerWulf]

Todays social 'regulation' would have killed the industrialisation on the spot. The forbidding of child labour in the 19th century already had serve adverse effects. Ditto for the corn laws that where the real cause for much of the suffering remembered from that time. The 19th century capitalism wasn't optimal, even from my point of view. The capitalistic elements though, the factories and mass production (inadverntantly) caused a rise in wealth, for everybody, unprecendented in history. I don't know how this could not benifit the majority. The textile factories sure weren't churning out clothes for the 'rich' as they usually prefer tailor made over mass produces.

All what you describe above as benefits would have been possible too, if capitalism hadn't been so extreme and raw. Fact is, our current situation (in europe, at least) shows this exactly, with the added benefit that now, it counts for a lot more of people, not merely the wealthy and rich.

The so called social meassures continue to impoverish europe, thats how I see it. The rise in wealth (a constant in an unhampered market economy) has all but stopped due to shady redistribution shemes. The unemployed get instilled with a sense of entitlement that is sickening. Just today a guy tried to set of a bomb in a berlin social court because he wasn't getting some or other medical procedure payed. Meanwhile the middle class (what had been the working class ;) is fighting through its unions for every higher wages and even claiming that this would create jobs. However, every union victroy has forced others out of work because the rules of econonic calculations are strict and the law of supply and demand even hold true for labour. The government now dictates the use of over 50% of national income and uses it to stimulate economic growth that only is not happening because the government takes so much out of the economy in the first place. A national minimum wage is considered, again driving people out of employment (and those where the worst of anyways) because an employer will just not pay more than he can, from an economic standpoint. Regulations of the workplace, ranging from special protection for women and the elderly to the correct height of a computer monitor affect exactly the group of people negativly that they tried to protect. If you force a company to pay for a womens pregnancy, this company will consider women to be a higher risk and prefer males. If you force it to keep older people over young ones, you just gave them reason to not employ them anymore. If, for the firing of employers, you make the company do it according to social criteria, you will prompt the company to not hire people in hardship.

Healthcare: this is the worst of it. The equalitarian health system is so ineffective that a normal employee in germany (me) pays 4 times (!) as much for about half the benefits my privatly insured father who is 20 years older and has an income of 5 times larger than mine.

Re:bite me asshat.

[jayp00001]

If his superiors are the ones ordering them, he has the option of disobeying orders (which, if it's an unjust order, he can do) or performing a war crime. If the former, he faces definite imprisonment and a courts-martial, during which he might be exonerated. However, during war time, that might take a year to come to trial, and he's imprisoned the whole time. Did you see A Few Good Men? They followed orders and committed a murder, and thought they were doing right because they followed orders. Can we, as armchair quarterbacks, claim that we would be nobler, and stand up to our commanding officer? I think not.

In case you were unaware, a few good men was made up. It doesn't work that way. In a nutshell if you disobeyed an unjust order it would be reviewed by the superior to the one that gave the order. You might be confined but since Kerry was an officer, it is unlikely. In any event in a few good men they were convicted because they DID follow an illegal order.

Oh, come on... Who was torturing the soldiers? The Viet Cong. Let's not even pretend to compare being tortured by the enemy to going to the press, congress, or the CO. I'm ashamed you even brought that up.

Yes the Viet Cong were torturing soldiers. I am not comparing torture to going to the press, what I am saying is that going to the press while stating things that the enemy is torturing soldiers to say, is turning your back on those soldiers.

And I still don't see where he 'turned his back on his fellow soldiers'. Is it because he told the truth about what was going on? Should he have stayed tight-lipped? Don't cross the thin blue line, etc.? By the same token, any Police Department Internal Affairs division is "turning it's back on their fellow officers", any ethics committe is "turning it's back on their colleagues", etc. If you believe it's preferable to stay silent when there are crimes being committed, rather than step forward to protect the innocent, then that's just sad.

I am not saying anything of the sort. Kerry didn't report anyone; he didn't charge anyone with a crime (as was his duty). He went to the press. While that's not keeping silent, it's also not the way to report crimes. It's the same as if one police officer saw another officer beating someone in the streets, watched him for a while, walked over, kicked the guy a few times, and then called a reporter lamenting the brutality of the police.

Go to http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

[Anonymous Coward]

and see Michael Moore taken apart ..yet again..for the millionth time!!

Re:Hell yeah

[Pharmboy]

Then why does business seem as shitty as it did in January of 2002?

Not sure, our business is up. Unit volume is up, dollar volume is up, and gross margins up a few points to boot. Personal income is almost double, from '02 numbers. Most of my friends are in the same position. A few are even from 02. Fewer are worse off. Perhaps your problems are not related to the President.

And why are we supposed to be enamoured of the conservative fiscal policy of the President if it makes no difference?

I am not enamoured by any Presidents policies. I don't think that the ONE person in office is the most important factor in my personal success. I have always believed the person who has the most control over my personal success is ME. Granted, its not very convenient for laying blame, but since I take personal responsibility, I find I don't need to blame anyone anyway.

I prefer a fiscal conservative, but unfortunately, there isn't one running for President this year. W is the closest thing to a fiscal conservative, so he gets my vote. The last fiscal conservative we had as President was Reagan. It will be a while until we see someone like him again.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Impotent_Emperor]

It sounds like you are shifting the burden of proof on some of those. The burden of proof should be on the claimant not on the defendant(?).

For instance, John Kerry claimed that U.S. troops committed atrocities, so it is up to him to prove it. (I'm not actually familar with the hearings, so I can't really comment about them.)

Someone claims that Bush didn't meet his National Guard service requirements. It is up those claimants to prove that Bush didn't meet the requirements.

It's similar to asking "prove you didn't rob that store." It is up to the prosecuters to prove that you did rob a store. You are not required to prove something to their satisfaction.

It would be just as unfair to demand Kerry prove his medals are justified. Kerry's not required to prove the medals are justified. The SwiftVets are the ones who must prove they are unjustified because they made the claim (I think, I really haven't paid much attention to every detail of current political topics).

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is prepared to make pre-emptive strikes on "terrorist bases" anywhere in the world, the Interfax news agency cited the country's chief of staff as saying.

Or in the US!!! Remember that the anthrax guy was probably here; and that the guys who flew a plane into 9/11 learned how to use that device (flying school) in Florida. I would hope Russia goes through the UN before attempting to take out any of those places.

Re:bite me asshat.

[rco3]

To a certain extent, you are correct. Some of those things will be difficult to prove in any way. However, the A/C I was conversing with continues to claim all of those things as facts. Hence, my requests for evidence.

I'd like to address the Kerry comments, too. My understanding is that Kerry claims to have been relating stories told him by other soldiers. In that case, it would not be Kerry's task to prove that those stories were true (IMHO), but to show that he had accurately relayed stories as told to him. And besides, we already KNOW My Lai happened.

Of course, there's no way to prove whether US POWs would or would not have been tortured had Kerry not testified to Congress as he did. However, the A/C's assertion that Kerry's testimony made the torture more intense, or worse, or whatever, simply doesn't ring true with me. He also appears have suggested that the motivation for the Swifties is that they were tortured while listening to Kerry's testimony - except that they are claiming that Kerry didn't earn his medals, not that he somehow was responsible for their torture, which to me undermines the credibility of those people. So, again, this is why I call for evidence and not rhetoric.

There may be more than one A/C working here, so I apologize if I've attributed one A/C's claims to another.

And really, the basic question is how Kerry's testimony to Congress makes him unsuitable for President. That was the assertion of the original A/C, and I continue to ask him to support that assertion. If he wishes to offer opinions, I'm interested in the background for those opinions. If he offers purported facts which seem to me to be incorrect, I ask for factual support.

Basically, sir, you are right. To me, the worst part is that I've been making requests for support that I KNOW the A/C cannot provide. That's really not fair, especially to someone who cannot separate opinion from fact. Mea culpa.

Re:bite me asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, the men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan enlisted in the armed forces knowing that along with their job comes the possibly of laying down their lives.

So what about the 12000+ dead civilians in Iraq who did not enlist and did not have jobs which came with the possiblity of laying down their lives?

Re:bite me asshat.

[cartervt2k]

How about the number of people killed, mutilated, and gassed by Saddam? You want to look at those numbers?

Re: Missed the point

[Lord Bitman]

The point is, "You can send other people's kids to Iraq, but would you send your own kids?"

Micheal Moore didnt go to Iraq himself? Guess what: He is AGAINST THE WAR. Would he send someone ELSE to do it for him? No, he used footage which already existed. He didnt send anyone to die for his purpose. The real issue about that scene isnt that Micheal Moore didnt go himself, it's that he's being a complete douche. Sortof like you.

I fear

[N3wsByt3]

Your view is skewed and overly-optimistic about the beneficial influence a totally free and unrestricted capitalistic system would have and maintain, at least for the majority of people. You seem to forget that socialism started as a reaction to this raw capitailism, and thus, if people would not feel a certain need and necessecity to temper this system (and according to your rosy picture they shouldn't and wouldn't), it would not have started, nor have remained active for so long.

Also, you keep arguing things that are on itself true, but have little argumental validity in establishing the use of either political system. Take your example of healthcare; even when I would take your argument as being true, it surpasses the fact that, while the health system may be inefficient (and I'm all for making it more efficient), one HAS an adequate health system for everyone (at least in my country). Certainly, private healthcare could be far more effective....for those that can afford it.

A prime example is in the USA, where you mainly have two sorts of healthcare; the private sector, which is very good and eficient and all that, as you say, and the public one, which is total crap, in the USA, because they don't have the health system that we have here in europe. Now, no doubt that the more wealthy can afford the private clinics and are treated very well and efficient there, but to the detriment of those that are not so wealthy. To be poor in the USA, directly threatens ones' ability to recover from sickness, and, unless you think good health is just necessary for the more wealthy, that just stinks.

I do not share your viewpoint in how wonderful capitalism is, especially when unbridled and unrestricted. It seems to me that it is rather a self-serving viewpoint. I'm sure in the 19th century, almost all of the rich and wealthy thought the system was wonderfull too, and it was, for THEM. But then again, I'm sure LouisIV thought absolute monarchy was the best way to run a country too.

I, as a liberal, have rather little of such selfserving viewpoints in this regard (I should claim the same things you do, otherwise), but I'm objective enough to see that extremistic viewpoints on either side (raw capitalism / communism) are both recipes for failure.

Re:I fear

[DerWulf]

Your view is skewed and overly-optimistic about the beneficial influence a totally free and unrestricted capitalistic system would have and maintain, at least for the majority of people. You seem to forget that socialism started as a reaction to this raw capitailism, and thus, if people would not feel a certain need and necessecity to temper this system (and according to your rosy picture they shouldn't and wouldn't), it would not have started, nor have remained active for so long.

This is raw positivism. Its like saying 'the law allowing me to hold slaves is just because otherwise it wouldn't be law'. Marx exploited the fact that the 'unwashed' masses don't have political long term memory. They don't care for trends over centuries and they hardly care to remember what life was like 50 years earlier. Like I said, I know that life wasn't all peachy during the industrialisation but the trend pointed upward and that quite extremely. Marx just rewrote history so the trend would disappear, though the majority of historians don't agree. He dreamed his little dream of 'subsidence' that had no connection with reality at all. And if you doubt that people focus mainly on their 'hardship', listen to the workers when they complain that they are so poor they can only afford a jetta and not an 's-class'. Poverty is only ever perceived in relation. If you told them that 50 years ago all workers had s-classes (like marx did with the subsidence) they will be enraged. Of course, the truth is that car ownership and quality has only increased in those years. In addition, Marx playes on greed which is a good thing, if it is kept in a civilized manner. Marx told the majority that they could have everything and also needn't work so hard anymore. Seems familiar? look how many people fell for the nigerian scam.

Also, you keep arguing things that are on itself true, but have little argumental validity in establishing the use of either political system. Take your example of healthcare; even when I would take your argument as being true, it surpasses the fact that, while the health system may be inefficient (and I'm all for making it more efficient), one HAS an adequate health system for everyone (at least in my country). Certainly, private healthcare could be far more effective....for those that can afford it.

Maybe you missed the part where I showed you that private health care is way more affordable for anyone working. My 2000 euros are nothing. This is way below the average income, meaning that for the majority of people private would be cheaper and better. If you look at any example, you'll see that reality works like this:
Private products become more accessible (cheaper) and in higher quality given time. Government products are the opposite. The become ever more expensive and the quality just goes down the shitter. This conclusion can be drawn from just looking a second at the real world. Also, it can be reached by pure logic but this would just take to long. Look at cars at shortly after they where invented. We would be argueing about the socialized car manufacturing. You'd say: well it might be a shity car and the process is highly inefficient but at least everyone gets one. First, the 'everyone' part doesn't even hold true since with time it will get so prohibitivly expensive that the government has to decide who is to have one. The reason for this is that people crash their cars left and right because they don't care, they'll get a new one anyways. They won't have it inspected because when it breakes its not their problem. This is whats happening in socialized medizine quite literally. People go to see a doctor everytime they sneeze. Though because it inconviniences them, they don't go to the dentist until it hurts. By then, it's too goddamn late. The amount of money that could, in theory, be wasted this way is infinitly high.

Second up are productivity increases. Why should they happen in a socialized system? Everyone is too concerned with keeping the c

as some wise dude said:

[N3wsByt3]

"How can mixing food with poison yield desireable results?"

EVERYTHING is poisonous, it just depends on the quantity.

Wich is why I said the extremes won't work and are, indeed, poisonous for society. However, any of those political currents in moderate will do fine.

"My 2000 euros are nothing. This is way below the average income..."

2000 euro's is below the average income? I think you would be surprised how many families would have to live from much less then that, every month.

Your general statements about the benefits capitalism brings is to a high degree true, this is why I think capitalism has its merrit, indeed, and on itself, that merrit is greater then a pure socialist system would be (which would be communism). Communism failed miserably, and only die-hard pinko's would claim different. Yet, for all it's benefits, it has some drawbacks too, but it is difficult to make this clear if your premisse is different.

Capitalism is, in a way, based an darwinian principles, a sort economic struggle for life. While this results in economical optimalisation, I do not believe humans should be treated, nor seen as merely economic units. Humans are also social beings, and as such, deserve general basic rights, such as healthcare (IMHO), equal oportumities for education, etc. In systems where you don't have this extended social mechanisms, you see that in these area's, a large portion of the people is off far worse then the relatively small elite who can afford it.

You may say that all those other people are non-working, lazy bums, but I don't believe that, and even if it were true, it would mean people that have no jobs, or even ARE bums, don't deserve proper medical treatement or education, etc.? I'm not of that opinion, sorry.

Your belief that somehow, capitalism, even in its raw form, is self-correcting, is misguided IMHO. While there will always be rich and poor people, and the latter will always have better treatement, and it's quite known that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (I think there was a research done about that) - there IS a difference in the amount of discrepency between the two groups.

Whatever one may say about the shortfallings of the european system, at least here, the divide between rich and poor has been tempered. One may not see that as a good thing, but I think it is. If the discrepancy continues to rise, as in the USA, at some point, it will have it's breakingpoint. If your 'capitalism makes it good for everybody' were true, then that immer more growing divide would not happen. Yes, it makes it better in many area's, but only to a certain extent.

What would happen in a society where 10% are enormously wealthy, and the rest was poor and getting more poor by the day? Do you think such a society would remain stable for long? The ideologies you detest so much, like fascism and communism, had for a large part their succes to thank to the miserable circumstances the people lived in. If allmost all people live reasonably well, and don't feel exploited too much, you don't have a seedingground for such extreme ideologies.

Extremism thrives where there is poverty and discontent.