Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
This election hasn't been about issues anyway. It's about Bush during 9/11 or Kerry during Vietnam.
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
After all, the Swifties/Bush/Cheney have a 24 x 7 ad running. It's called Fox News.
As opposed to all of the partisan commercials, and of course, the Fair and Balanced(TM)(C)(Patent Pending) "news".
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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?
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.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
Free XBox, PS2
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
How about his sources?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
questions have been raised as to whether Moore's movie presents truth or propaganda
1
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/2004/8/2/121046/020
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.)
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.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWFlash 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.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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.
[
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".
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?
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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.
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.
Schnapple
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.
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!
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.
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.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
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.
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.
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
~~~
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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.
Let's be more specific... How many terrorist deaths in the US did Iraq fund on 9/11? That would be 0.
.. oh, you get the point.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
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.
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the 80se gime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.r
America's WMD: Air Force tests "mother of all bombs"3 0311.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq_moab0
"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"n thrax.investigation/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/12/18/a
CNN: Army confirms anthrax production in Utah
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/12/army.anthrax/
BUSH SPURNS BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BAN7 ,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,49425
"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, 905936,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239
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.