Celsius 41.11

[Korgoth]

liberals on these boards (actualy.. every board) seem like such :asshats:

Since when was hate seen as caring Neutriono?

And its funny how neut is always in the political threads.. same with all you other guys... right away, it's all of you. (Mech, Neut, Kabuki (who registered just to say shit about me ), Sai, and Stern.)

Dem points.

mech, you can ruin a movie by reading what its about.

Its only when you haven't a leg to stand on with your argument that you resort to name calling, stereotyping, and baseless insults. And is it not also funny how you, seinfelrules, gh0st, are always in the same political threads as well? That point is useless.

What if I were to say "every conservative on this board, and ever board for that matter, are jerks because they always resort to name calling"... Now see how rediculous that sounds.

And to everyone who hates michael moore so much, all i ask is why? Why do you hate him, what has he done to you personally. What has his movies actually done to influence your lives in a negative manner. Did his movie cause you to lose jobs, healthcare? Did his movies send the deficit skyrocketing and the unemployment levels through the roof? Did his movies lie to you and send you or a loved one to fight a useless war and potentialyl die for profit for the wealthy insiders? Did Moores movie ever stonewall the 9/11 comission only to slow the process and eventually let up due to political pressure? Did F9/11 promise no child left behind then cut education spending? Did bowling for columbine tell you it was strong on national defense and would keep you safe, only after the worst attack on American soil happened during its watch? Did Moore take extending vacations and ignore his counter terrorism chief, not even allowing him ONE single counter terrorism meeting pre-9/11. Did Moore promise to capture the one responsible for said attack, only to under fund the mission and send less troops than there are police in new york because he was to busy focusing on iraq? Did Moore tell you we must invade iraq because they are an immediate threat to our safety due to WMD, then once no WMD was fouind tell you that we did it to get rid of a dictator, then once you realised there are far worse dictators and dangers currently in power did he tell you that we did it for the people of iraq, then when death terror and destruction started over taking the iraqi people did he claim we did it so we could fight the terrorsits there instead of here at home even though he just told you he did it for the iraqi people? Does michael moore have disasterous enviromental policies, does michael moore promise sweeping tax breaks during an economic depression but only deliver the most benefit to the wealthiest percent of the people. Does michael moore lie in the pocket of drug companies and manufacturers and base his policies to benifet them? Does Moore claim to be tough of terror and strong for safety but open our borders drastically changing immigration laws/rules?

I didn't think so...

 

[seinfeldrules]

how convienent that they just happen to coincide with when you're losing a debate



that is a sorry excuse; cant say I'm surprised you threw in Neutrino's name in an attempt at justifying your ignorance surrounding the movie ..."well if Neurtino did it so should I".

You still dont have a leg to stand on because you are taking each scene out of context. It's exactly like when those religious nutjobs that were burning Beatles albums in the 60's after John Lennon said "we're bigger than jesus". They took what he said out of context and used it as a propaganda piece against the "evils" of rock and roll. Looking back now that argument looks rather silly dosent it? ...much in the same way your justifying what you say based on little snippets from the movie and articles written by blattering right wingers. There's no balance to your argument.


edit: merc stay out these debates unless you have some facts to back up your idiotical statement: "MM is a piece of shit"

Why didnt I respond last night? I was playing poker with my friends from 6: 15 to 10: 15. For the past few months I havent been able to respond on weekends because I was going to Maine to work. If you believe that it only cooresponds to 'losing' then so be it. I know that isnt true and so do many others who have other activities to perform in their lives.

I mentioned Neut because he commented on Bush's comments by seeing a clip of the speech, not him or his arguments as a whole. Your Beatles analogy is wrong. I could compare you to the insane hippies of the 1960s as well, but I dont.

 

[CptStern]

Why didnt I respond last night? I was playing poker with my friends from 6: 15 to 10: 15. For the past few months I havent been able to respond on weekends because I was going to Maine to work. If you believe that it only cooresponds to 'losing' then so be it. I know that isnt true and so do many others who have other activities to perform in their lives.

look we all have lives ...you just seem to disappear every time you're losing a debate ..it's funny how you'll stay up all night debating when you dont have any of the heavies in these forums shredding your arguments but as soon as you're called on your evidence you disappear only to resurface later hoping people will have forgotten ..look at Neutrino as an example ...he will answer every statement directed at him even if it's days after they were made. You on the other hand dance around every issue every piece of evidence

Your Beatles analogy is wrong. I could compare you to the insane hippies of the 1960s as well, but I dont.

no my beatles analogy is right: it happened, it was taken out of context and people burned beatles albums ..it's valid because every last one of you that are for the war in iraq/against moore etc use this tactic ..it's the equivelant of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nahnahnahnah" to drown out what people are saying.

Your "insane hippy" statement is idiotic ...what are you basing this on? facts? figures? ..show me where the stats support that the majority of hippies (people with long hair) were insane ..I want clinical proof not ignorant speculation

 

[seinfeldrules]

Aight, just so you know my schedule, I wont be able to respond until later tonight.

 

[CptStern]

I await your reply ...not literally ..I have a lot of work to do today

 

[Neutrino]

I mentioned Neut because he commented on Bush's comments by seeing a clip of the speech, not him or his arguments as a whole. Your Beatles analogy is wrong. I could compare you to the insane hippies of the 1960s as well, but I dont.

That's pretty ridiculous.

Did you not even read my response to that? Here it is:

Heh, I don't think that was a very good example to use. I said that in direct response to someone talking about Kerry being contridictory and then used that comment to say that both presidents make slipups in the media, but that niether of them is dumb. So I was hardly even judging that quote by Bush one way or the other.

But yes your right had I been judging that I should have read the full speech to make sure I got the right context. I usually do try to look up the transcripts of speeches I comment on.

Oh and even if I had been really commenting on that quote did I condemn the whole speech from it? No, of course not. That's the point. You don't judge an entire political speech, tv program, or movie without having seen it. To do so is not rational in my opinion.

For example, yes I have used some of Bush's speeches in the past to prove a point that was against him. To do this yes I read a speech and quoted certain parts that I thought were negative. But does this mean I think the whole speech was worthless or that every part was bad? No. There were some good parts and some bad parts.

So don't try to use me as some sort of excuse.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I dont judge the entire movie. I judge the parts I know to be false (the Congressman scene) from there I can come to the conclusion that I wouldnt like the movie. Why? Because it isnt like he wouldnt do other scenes very misleading and similar to that. How do I know? I have read conclusive evidence that this is the case.

 

[Neutrino]

I dont judge the entire movie.

I can come to the conclusion that I wouldnt like the movie. Why? Because it isnt like he wouldnt do other scenes very misleading and similar to that. How do I know? I have read conclusive evidence that this is the case.

There's seems to be a bit of a contridiction here.

And liking the movie has nothing to do with it's accuracy or lack of accuracy.

 

[seinfeldrules]

.it's funny how you'll stay up all night debating when you dont have any of the heavies in these forums shredding your arguments but as soon as you're called on your evidence you disappear only to resurface later hoping people will have forgotten

Untrue. I have argued against you and Neutrino more than anyone else on this forum (except Mech possibly). Obviously I would have to leave more often with you guys, because I debate more often with you. Its all proportions.

he will answer every statement directed at him even if it's days after they were made. You on the other hand dance around every issue every piece of evidence

I think that is a waste of time. I would rather jump into current discussions rather than respond to responses which have probably been answered by others.

You on the other hand dance around every issue every piece of evidence

Again, untrue. Excuse me for calling into question links from progressiveliberal.com or whatever it is. I wont respond to 'evidence' like that seriously. And dont tell me that I wont admit I am wrong. When you posted credible evidence disproving the Lynch story I backed off and admitted I was wrong about her.

 

[seinfeldrules]

There's seems to be a bit of a contridiction here.

And liking the movie has nothing to do with it's accuracy or lack of accuracy.

Yeah it came out wrong. I meant that I shouldnt comment on the entire movie, but I can comment on the scenes that are documented to be false that I have seen (many). It is well documented, with credible evidence, that many scenes were misleading and false.

 

[Neutrino]

I meant that I shouldnt comment on the entire movie

This I can agree with.

but I can comment on the scenes that are documented to be false that I have seen (many). It is well documented, with credible evidence, that many scenes were misleading and false.

It just seems like you extend your judgement of a few scenes to include the whole movie and judge it to be worthless. That's what I have a problem with.

In my opinion, if someone wants to argue about a movie they should go and see it. Period.

And misleading I can agree with. It is after all meant as a persuasive movie so of course you can't take everything at face value. However, I have never scene "credible" evidence that shows most or much of the movie to be false. There are arguments from both sides. But I'd hardly call anything "conclusive", which is why I'm saying a person needs to see it in order to have any basis for judging reviews.

Oh, just thought I'd throw in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11

Nice non-biased place to read about it I think.

 

[seinfeldrules]

It just seems like you extend your judgement of a few scenes to include the whole movie and judge it to be worthless. That's what I have a problem with.

Heck, look at the link I posted awhile back. Why would I see a propoganda piece aimed at the canidate I support? I already know what Moore stands for and his viewpoints, I dont need to sit through a 3 hour film to get them shoved down my throat again. I think, no I know, I would get to angry to finish the film.

 

[hasan]

you guys realize that none will change his opinion by watching a movie? you realize that none watches F911 unless he's somewaht anti bush, and none will watch this celsius 41.11 unless they are somewhat pro bush.
and even if they wern't, they will program thier mind to refuse any bs in both movies b4 they even see it?

It's not about being open minded or not, watching a 2 hour movie with sad music and soft voice is like surrendering yourself to brainwashing really.

I watched F911 (cuz I'm anti bush ofcourse), I skipped all the bullshit aobut the saudis and jumped to the part about Iraq.
I watched the saudi part later, but I think it's pure bs.

If you really wanna see how much person X is open or close minded, go in a debate with him.

 

[OCybrManO]

Right now, only about 10% (maybe less) of the population is close enough to the middle ground to be persuaded by any arguments. I don't care if I can't influence the people I am debating with. I just want to keep the undecided people that are watching this from seeing only one side of the debate. I also try to do it without resorting to mud slinging, because virulent arguments/speeches (like the speech by that crazy old coot, Zell Miller, at the RNC and his subsequent appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews) are only effective at cementing voters that already agree with you... by triggering emotional responses.

Also, I want everyone here to bookmark FactCheck.org (and their Archive):

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation.

They have some ammunition for both sides.

 

[Neutrino]

Heck, look at the link I posted awhile back. Why would I see a propoganda piece aimed at the canidate I support? I already know what Moore stands for and his viewpoints, I dont need to sit through a 3 hour film to get them shoved down my throat again. I think, no I know, I would get to angry to finish the film.

Look, I'm not trying to get you to go see the movie. If you don't want to see it that's fine. I'm not arguing that anyone should go see it. My only point is that if you want to argue about it, then you should see it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

My only point is that if you want to argue about it, then you should see it.

Then should we be arguing John Kerry's Vietnam service because we werent there?

(like the speech by that crazy old coot, Zell Miller, at the RNC and his subsequent appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews) are only effective at cementing voters that already agree with you... by triggering emotional responses.

I thought Zell Miller had the funniest appearance on Hardball after that speech. If you cant find the humor in that then God help you. Of course he wasnt being completely comedic, but it got its point across. I think CBS has further helped to prove the Anti-Bush bias in the media and Zell was merely expressing his anger at having to deal with it. And thats nothing against Matthews, I think he is a great journalist/interviewer, probably better than O'Reilly in some areas.

 

[Korgoth]

Then should we be arguing John Kerry's Vietnam service because we werent there?

Nope, and neither should the swiftvets, because they weren't either. (read serving with him, yes they were in the same war.)

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nope, and neither should the swiftvets, because they weren't either.

Ah, but some of them were (served on the same boat as him, treated his wounds). And if it isnt fair for us to argue this point, is it fair for him to use it? What will politics become if this is the case. Nobody can argue Bush's Guard service, his decisions on Iraq (because they dont know what he saw) or millions of other points.

 

[Korgoth]

ok but the difference between this and the topic at hand are, some of us have seen the movie, and we discuss our points taken from it, where as you have not seen the movie yet argue against it...

And I'm sorry, but a movie and a war are about as opposite of one another as you can get. The war affects me/family/friends, so i'll argue my opinions about it for as long as I wish. The movie, doesn't do anything to me/friends/family so I could care less... See what I mean?

 

[seinfeldrules]

ok but the difference between this and the topic at hand are, some of us have seen the movie, and we discuss our points taken from it, where as you have not seen the movie yet argue against it...

Well the topic at hand is actually Celsius 41.11, not F 9/11. As mentioned, I have seen scenes which are blatantly false and misleading so I have every right to dispute the movie. When was the last time you watched a 'documentary' that was purposely misleading and false? Meh, maybe the Discovery Channel had it wrong all along.

And I'm sorry, but a movie and a war are about as opposite of one another as you can get. The war affects me/family/friends, so i'll argue my opinions about it for as long as I wish. The movie, doesn't do anything to me/friends/family so I could care less... See what I mean?

The election will effect my family, friends, and myself as well. F 9/11 has an impact on this election. Secondly, Kerry's war service will as well, as will Bush's Guard service. If we cannot discuss such things, then what can we. If I make an incorrect reference from F 9/11, then correct me. Unless I am mistaken, that is not currently the case.

 

[Neutrino]

Then should we be arguing John Kerry's Vietnam service because we werent there?

This would be where some good old fashion common sense comes in. Can I go back in time and serve in the war? No. Can I go see a movie? Yes.

 

[Korgoth]

well, leaving for work so not much time to debate here, but i'll add this. I've seen the entire f9/11, I enjoyed the movie as a movie, and most every point made in the film I already knew. I've heard/read it all before. The fact still stands that if Moore's film was filled with innacuracies and lies then he'd be knee deep in litigation right now, which he isn't. I'd also add that the parts of the movie you haven't seen are filled with actual video evidence and eye witness testimony by former cia/fbi, administration/pentagon officials. Officials which HAVE been there and DO know what they are talking about so I tend to lend them the credibility they deserve, and since they were repeating what was already known and public knowledge, I really can't see what we are disputing here. As I've said before, I went into the film with the knowledge that Moore wasn't a huge Bush fan, and obviously wanted to sling a little mud of his own. His opinions, and the facts displayed in the film are easily identifiable, and are dealt with much comic relief. The movie isn't just about Bush, it is actually an eye opening film to what war is really like, what the soldiers and their families go through during war time, and what the average people feel is happening in the country right now. With that in mind, I'll say this. Moore may not be the most unbiased source of information, and his opinions, though just that, opinions, may not always be correct. But just because he expresses himself in his art (films) doesn't make him any less credible than bill oreilly or joe scarborough who do the same thing, day in and day out. Please, if you care to debate the film, just watch it. I garuntee you'll hate it, because you won't agree with it. But at least it will make your arguements that much stronger. See ya around.

 

[seinfeldrules]

This would be where some good old fashion common sense comes in. Can I go back in time and serve in the war? No. Can I go see a movie? Yes.

Nah, my point remains. If you are unwilling to budge on one topic, you cannot on another. Again, if my argument about the scenes in F 9/11 is somehow flawed, correct me. Nobody has yet, because my argument is correct.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

 

[OCybrManO]

There is a new documentary about Kerry's Vietnam service and some parts of his life before & after Vietnam as well. Anyway, I listened to a live radio interview with the guy that made it. He said that, when he interviewed the people that actually fought on a swift boat with Kerry at the time of the events in question, their stories matched each other (not to the extent seen in "The Manchurian Candidate") but not the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Here's a related excerpt from that web site:

Q: You?ve seen the commercials the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have put out. They tell a very different story than your film. What do you think accounts for the discrepancies?
A: I ran into John O'Neill on the fringes of the anti-antiwar movement back in 1971 at the Dick Cavett shows with John Kerry. The fact of the matter is that Richard Nixon, John O'Neill, Charles Colson, Ehrlichman, Haldeman and the whole White House were dying to get Kerry in those days. The bottom line for me is that if the Nixon White House with Jay Edgar Hoover and the FBI and the CIA at their disposal could not bring John Kerry down (and as you remember in my film, Colson said, "We couldn't find anything on John Kerry"), it seems rather extraordinary that 35 years later, suddenly John O'Neill and his swift boat unit has "discovered" that John Kerry was actually lying about his entire experience in Vietnam. The New York Times and other responsible members of the media have laid out a pretty clear series of facts that contradict what John O'Neill is saying. And as I understand it, and I haven't yet read his book, but it's reportedly riddled with errors of fact, which seems strange for a high-powered lawyer from Houston, Texas, who had clerked for a Chief Justice.

Q: There's been a lot of footage and a lot of interviews that have been seen on a number of different news outlets. What footage do you have, or how does this film shed any new light on the swift boat controversy?
A: I would say that at least 60% of my film has not been seen on television before, which is quite a high percentage, when you're dealing with history. It's hard to get an exact figure because I haven't seen every television program that's appeared, but I think there's a convincing amount of evidence in my film that is original. Perhaps more important than that, we really deal with Vietnam in some depth, and we deal with the peace movement in a great deal of depth. It certainly is the most well-informed 90-minute film out there.

Q: Do you think this film will lead to the rebuttal of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
A: I didn't make this movie as a rebuttal. However, I think anyone who sees this film is going to notice several things. Here John Kerry's swift boat veterans talk about him in very direct ways, and it's very hard to question their interviews because they're sincere and they're giving a coherent point of view on all the incidents that occurred in Vietnam. It's very impressive to me that an officer's crew is willing to speak up for him after 35 years. By interviewing as many swift boat veterans from Vietnam as I have, I have noticed that the stories stick together very well indeed.

EDIT: Fixed minor fomatting errors that occured after copying and pasting that from the documentary's official site.

 

[Neutrino]

Nah, my point remains. If you are unwilling to budge on one topic, you cannot on another.

I'm not "budging" on one topic. I'm merely stating reality. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Again, if my argument about the scenes in F 9/11 is somehow flawed, correct me. Nobody has yet, because my argument is correct.

http://www.workingpsychology.com/download_folder/Propaganda_And_Fahrenheit.pdf

What argument? That Moore uses persuasive techniques to try to make a point? That he had a point to make in his movie and that he used facts in it to try to strength that argument? That not everything in the movie can be taken at face value? Sure I agree with that.

That the movie was false? That it was full of lies? That because there might have been some misleading statments that the movie is not worth seeing? No, I do not agree with that.

What exactly is your argument really?

If it's the first one I listed than I can agree with that to a point. If it's the second one, then it seems Moore himself has pretty much covered everything about how factual his content is:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think the Swift Boat for Truth's hatred largely comes from the hateful things John Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam. If you completed your tour of duty honorably, would you appreciate John Kerry calling you a war criminal in front of the US Congress? I dont really care what John Kerry did in Vietnam, it is what he did afterwards that is utterly disgraceful.

 

[seinfeldrules]

That Moore uses persuasive techniques to try to make a point?

You mean misleading techniques. AKA cutting and pasting speeches to mold them into soundbit and effect he desires.

That he had a point to make in his movie and that he used facts in it to try to strength that argument?

Again, if he had the facts, why did he need to edit out responses from Congressmen to make his case stronger?

What exactly is your argument really?

This movie is not as cut and dry as people make it. It is more full of holes then a slice of swiss cheese. It is complete propoganda and should not be taken for anything above that. The term documentary sickens me when used in reference to this movie. The lengths that Moore went to deceive the public are outrageous.

That because there might have been some misleading statments that the movie is not worth seeing?

Some? How about many.

Here is another link that documents many of Moore's lies and misleading footage/commentary.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Not exactly CNN, but he cites his sources so it works for me.

An example of an excerpt.

The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy….All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"



We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."



Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.



In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.



About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida--even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television's Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

Again, I havent seen the movie, but can you argue this point?

 

[OCybrManO]

I think the Swift Boat for Truth's hatred largely comes from the hateful things John Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam. If you completed your tour of duty honorably, would you appreciate John Kerry calling you a war criminal in front of the US Congress? I dont really care what John Kerry did in Vietnam, it is what he did afterwards that is utterly disgraceful.

If what Kerry said in his report to Congress was true, then "war crimes" is the appropriate term for what went on... and people that commit "crimes" are called "criminals" (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember, from reading a transcript, him actually referring to the people as "war criminals"). Now, I can't say for sure that what he said was or wasn't true, but I do know this much: Going before Congress and admitting that you were involved in "war crimes" takes a lot of guts... especially if you plan on having a political career (as things like that will be brought up by your opponents). There's just not a good reason to lie to Congress about something like that (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

War is a terrible thing. John Kerry, and many others (some of which later formed "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" in the late sixties), experienced the terrible events of the Vietnam War first-hand. They, more than anyone that avoided service, had the right to come back and voice their disgust with the war itself and the crimes that went on during the war.

Here are a couple of points regarding the SBVfT claims that I'm stuck on:

If what Kerry said pissed them off so much why would no one speak up about it until 2004? Why did those people support his early political campaigns and then turn on him when he ran for President? Some of them stood beside him while he was giving speeches. Others actually gave speeches in support of him. What happened since then?

Also, why would a doctor remember something he described with measurements that make it about as big as a splinter during one of the worst wars we have ever been involved in? He was only with him long enough to pull a tiny fragment out with forceps (saying that it only went in 2 or 3mm) and put a band-aid on it... but somehow that stuck in his mind for about 35 years amidst the serious wounds and death going on around him at the time... along with an image of the the patient's face and his name?

Anyway, I'm out for the day...

 

[CptStern]

Here is another link that documents many of Moore's lies and misleading footage/commentary.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Not exactly CNN, but he cites his sources so it works for me.

An example of an excerpt. ...<snip>



Again, I havent seen the movie, but can you argue this point?

this seems to support moores claim ....it's somewhere in the middle :E


“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."

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."

here's early returns from election night





___

 

[seinfeldrules]

In fact, the networks which called Florida for Gore did so early in the evening—before polls had even closed in the Florida panhandle, which is part of the Central Time Zone. NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time. This was 10 minutes before polls closed in the Florida panhandle. Thirty seconds later, CBS called Florida for Gore. And at 7:52 p.m., Fox called Florida for Gore. Moore never lets the audience know that Fox was among the networks which made the error of calling Florida for Gore prematurely. Then at 8:02 p.m., ABC called Florida for Gore. Only ABC had waited until the Florida polls were closed.

ajasdfas

 

[CptStern]

ajasdfas

provide Kobel's sources to prove your quote is correct ...here are mine:

PBS election night

this confirms it

 

[seinfeldrules]

Both sites cannot be found.

 

[CptStern]

hmmm I'll look it up later when i get a chance

 

[Gunner]

You mean misleading techniques. AKA cutting and pasting speeches to mold them into soundbit and effect he desires.


Again, if he had the facts, why did he need to edit out responses from Congressmen to make his case stronger?

Wow! He must be the first person to manipulate the media to get his message across! No politician would ever do that! No sir!...

Welcome to reality.

 

[seinfeldrules]

He must be the first person to manipulate the media to get his message across!

He is the media (filmaker)...

He takes it above and beyond the 'call of duty' if you will.

 

[OCybrManO]

He is the media (filmaker)...

He takes it above and beyond the 'call of duty' if you will.

I mean what nerve Michael Moore has... calling Fahrenheit 9/11 "an op-ed piece" ¹ (which means he admits that part of it is just his opinion). It's much better if they just masquerade as a "fair and balanced" news network, isn't it?

There are loons on both sides.

¹ Link 1 & Link 2

 

[seinfeldrules]

It's much better if they just masquerade as a "fair and balanced" news network, isn't it?

Are you saying foxnews cuts clips and misleads like MM? Oh really.

 

[hasan]

Are you saying foxnews cuts clips and misleads like MM? Oh really.

:O

are you saying Fox is a trustable and reliable news source?

 

[seinfeldrules]

are you saying Fox is a trustable and reliable news source?

I trust and rely on them personally, but I know many others dont. I think people get a little upset when they dont see their liberal spin thrown on everything (NYT, CBS) so when something more towards the center/right comes out they think the sky is falling. Moore and other liberals hate FOXNEWs to the point of extreme obsession and jump on every minor mistake they make. I dont see Moore making a documentary on Cant Brodcast Serious News and their attempt to throw the Presidential election.

 

[CptStern]

Are you saying foxnews cuts clips and misleads like MM? Oh really.

yes