'Michael Moore Hates America' -- reviewed.

[othello]

Yes, the BBC is so biased! Americans, close your ears! ONLY LISTEN TO FOX NEWS - this foreign LIBERAL media is misleading you! Only Bill O reilly can save you -
It is all part of a LIBERAL CONSPIRACY to put a lawn gnome in the white house!

Britain HAETS FREEDUMB!!!!!!


*ahem* - I think if you wake up and take off your blinders you would see that the BBC is respected around the WORLD to be a bastion of UNBIASED and HONEST reporting. Do a little research on this one.

oh i have... i never once said i agreed with those views portrayed on that cd at all. i was simply stating that i received a cd with said label on it. i havent really looked threw it very much, as i like the BBC somewhat... they do have a slight left-leaning, but at least they're not rank with it. the guardian however... thats another story lol.

the CD could present a convincing argument, but they assume too much in their interpretation of certain article they cite. it is a pretty extensive inquiry however, so i must commend them for that. but in the end, it seems the makers of this cd resorted to a few moore-esque tactics (half-truthing, distortion and manipulation of facts, etc).

thats more than enough reason for me to dismiss it.

 

[othello]

If telling facts is hating america...

if completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence that disproves every erroneous thesis you come up with, and all the while dishonestly presenting these 'facts', coupled with manipulative wordplay, some very clever editing, 'creative' interpretation, and just flat-out lies is loving america...

 

[KidRock]

The "liberals hate America" argument is getting a bit old to tell the truth.

I dont think its getting old at all. Dirty liberals.

 

[othello]

That's an ALLEGATION. Do you know what that means? That means that Moore hasn't been convicted in anything.

Hell, did you even read the link you posted? Look at the title:



See the bold? This was a claim made by the republican party that has not bee proven, yet you accept it as total fact. And still, you whine about "hypocracy" so damn much:

of course i read the article. an allegation can be proven without a conviction. eye-witnesses, and even some of the people that actually pledged to vote for kerry onstage, have all confirmed mikey's illegal bribery. the state's GOP is the one actually 'alleging' this against mikey, but its already a well-known fact that hes doing these things.

There's hardly any proof that F9/11 is entirely false. There are about three points or so that are blatantly untrue. Everything else is quite arguable either way.

So which is more ignorant: frantically tossing the entire movie on the flames because a few sections are wrong?
Or taking the overly exaggerated points into account when weighing the pluses and minuses of the arguments presented?

I can tell you right now that it's not the latter. The movie has flaws, but they are not irredeemable flaws worth the time and effort you put into mocking anyone who respects the show.

ok, lets take it section by section. lets start at the 2000 election.

2000 election

the opening scene of F9/11 shows al gore 'celebrating' in florida. the movie implies that this is gore celebrating victory, however this 'celebration' took place in the morning, before the polls had even opened, as a sort of 'hopeful inspirational rally'. mikey never makes the distinction.

it then moves along to various shots of people calling states for gore and bush. it then shows florida being called for gore. mikey then says "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."

tom brokaw, of NBC is shown saying: "all of us networks made a mistake and projected florida in the al gore column. It was our mistake." this is moore's red herring : The networks changed their minds about gore winning florida because fox said that bush won florida.

however, all of the networks called florida for gore first, and about roughly the same time... and did so before the polls even closed in the florida panhandle (central time zone).

1)NBC called Florida for Gore at 7:49:40 p.m., Eastern Time.

2)CBS called Florida for Gore at 7:49:50

3)Fox called Florida for Gore at 7:52:00

this had a devastating effect on voter turn-out, people waiting until the end turned on their tv/radio and found that their state was already in the gore column, thus they did not vote. an investigation into this matter shows that this act alone cost bush 12,000 votes, and gore 7,000.

what moore fails to tell you is that it was actually CNN and CBS who retracted gore's florida victory, not bush. fox didnt retract gore's win until 2am, 4 hours after the other networks had already pulled it.

then at 2:16am, fox projected bush as the winner of florida. all other networks did so at the same time, with the last one being about 2:20am. sure, chronologically they 'followed fox', but to imply that fox's decision influenced the other networks decision is absurd. the investigation by CBS confirms these times.

then theres the whole john ellis issue. heres what moore said:

Now what most people don’t know is that the man who was in charge of the decision desk at Fox that night, the man who called it for Bush was none other than Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis. How does someone like Bush get away with something like this?

(cut to scene of bush laughing)

i would argue that most people have no idea who john ellis really is. moore gives the impression that this man is a pivotal character in this grand hijacking attempt of florida which, like all of moore's conspiracies, is absurd. here is the rest of the story, as best as i can tell it.

john ellis bush is indeed george w.'s first cousin. he is also a professional elections analyst. hes been an analyst for many elections over the past 23 years and in fact, prior to the 2000 election, he worked for NBC for over 10 years. he wasnt just given a quick little job at fox to call the election for his cousin, he is actually one of the most experienced elections analyst in the country.

that bring us to the VNS... Voter News Service. for over a quarter century, these guys are the single source for exit polling information that ALL of the major news outlets use. ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and yes, FOXNEWS too. VNS issues reports to all of the news channels at the same time. it is a tradition to hope to be the first to receive the returns, and report them to the public. everyone wants those bragging rights in the world of election coverage. right or wrong, it’s just a fact that this nuance of news reporting played a huge role in the events of that night in 2000. VNS has since gone out of business because of the unreliable service they delivered in 2000.

another misconception moore puts forth, is that the responsibility for calling a state in favor of a certain candidate, rests solely on the shoulders of john ellis. actually, ellis was a part of a four-person crew called the 'decision desk team'. this doesn’t mean they make any decisions about who should be president, rather they analyze the incoming reports on the “decision” itself, it the context of the cable news header : DECISION 2000. while Ellis was the director of the desk, any information that was to be passed on to anyone was to be unanimously agreed upon by his colleagues John Gorman, Arnon Mishkin and Cynthia Talkov. all of whom are respected and experienced polling and analytical experts.

now when these four experts received the returns from VNS, they would have to decide of the results were clear enough to make a recommendation to john noody, foxnews VP of news editorial. if moody then felt the recommendation was accurate he would then pass it on to the anchors for broadcast. so, as you can see, there was sufficient oversight and expertise which led to the calling of the florida for bush. it might seem a bit obnoxious to point out, but after the recounts, it would seem that VNS, ellis, his team members, and his boss all ended up making an accurate call. bush did win. fair and square.

then he makes the allegation that katherine harris was the 'vote-count woman' and that she purged black people from the voter registrar. while this is technically accurate, it is more of a statistic than anything else. from dave kopel's 59 deceits:

"Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.

as for the purging of blacks from the database, its a statistic that the majority of convicted felons were black, so why the race card mikey? florida knew about the issues with felons voting since 1998. this wasnt an overnight scam job done by harris and some bush croonies. this was a state appointed action, resulting from an incident that happened 2 years prior. the point is, these people wouldve been purged from the polls no matter who was running for office.

was the situation handled perfectly? absolutely not. the company hired was choicepoint, who produced the list of felons to be purged. i can tell you from personal experience that choicepoint is a disreputable company, as i am currently involved in a dispute with them myself. but this is just a prime example of moore taking a 'fact' and completely distorting it to mean something that just simply isnt true. a lot of things went wrong in the 2000 election, over 100,000 republican votes went missing in the midwest... im sure al gore was directly involved.

oh, and on a side note, a somewhat small percentage of these purged voters successfully appealed the states decision.

here is deceit #3 from dave kopel's excellent independent investigation:

How did Bush win Florida? "Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman." Actually Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Florida co-chair, not "the chairman") was not the "vote count woman." Vote counting in Florida is performed by the election commissioners in each of Florida's counties. The Florida Secretary of State merely certifies the reported vote. The office does not count votes.

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."

Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.

A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."[/url]

Throughout the Florida election controversy, the focus was on "undervotes"--ballots which were disqualified because the voter had not properly indicated a candidate, such as by punching out a small piece of paper on the paper ballot. The recounts attempted to discern voter intentions from improperly-marked ballots. Thus, if a ballot had a "hanging chad," a recount official might decide that the voter intended to vote for the candidate, but failed to properly punch out the chad; so the recounter would award the candidate a vote from the "spoiled" ballot. Gore was seeking additional recounts only of undervotes. The only scenario by which Gore would have won Florida would have involved recounts of "overvotes"--ballots which were spoiled because the voter voted for more than one candidate (such as by marking two names, or by punching out two chads). Most of the overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had punched out a chad (or made a check mark) and had also written the candidate's name on the write-in line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a recount of overvotes, so even if the Supreme Court had allowed a Florida recount to continue past the legal deadline, Bush still would have won the additional recount which Gore sought.

A separate study conducted by a newspaper consortium including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal found that if there had been a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, Gore would have won under seven different standards. However, 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.

A very interesting web widget published by the New York Times allows readers to crunch the data any way they want: what standards for counting ballots, whose counting system to apply, and how to treat overvotes. It's certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.

 

[othello]

continued...

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.

*additional sidenote from me*
actually the pantagraph received a letter from moore's attorneys insisting that the completely forged headline was a 'typo' and insisting that he had done nothing wrong. i think dave kopel mentions that a little later though.

The Pantagraph's attorney sent Fahrenheit's distributor a letter stating that Moore's use of the faked headline and story was "unauthorized" and "misleading" and a" misrepresentation of facts." The letter states that Moore infringed the copyright of The Pantagraph, and asks for an apology, a correction, and an explanation. The letters asks Moore to "correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film." Moore's law firm wrote back and claimed that there was nothing "misleading" about the fabricated headline.

Richard Soderlund, an Illinois State University history professor, who wrote the letter to the editor that The Pantagraph published, told the Chicago Tribune, "It's misrepresenting a document. It's at odds with history."

ah the patron saint for truth and the common man. give me a ****ing break. this is just the first 10 minutes of the movie!!! in time, i plan to break down the entire movie for the unenlightened, such as mech here, but right now i gotta go... that took almost an hour. :|...

and here's another "hypocracy": You hold Bush to a lower standard than you hold to Moore. If you put this much effort and rage into criticising Bush's Iraq policy, you might actually start agreeing with some of Moore's points. Oh, but then you'd automatically be a frighteningly ignorant hypocrite under your own definition.

Where I come from, keeping an open mind doesn't cause ignorance. It prevents it.[/url]

i have a very open-mind, at least compared to some. i have thoroughly investigated the bush administration and their tactics and actions surrounding iraq, afghanistan, and 9/11... as much as i possibly can. and im not saying that to sound arrogant, im saying that becuase i have done a shitload of research and investigation on the internet, magazines, newspapers, editorials, etc. i have arrived at my opinions quite intellectually and with a firm foundation, have you?

Are you talking about your "give me ONE good reason" thread? Because you haven't put up any irrefutable evidence of anything in there, even after we gave you at least THREE good reasons that you were physically incapable of refuting.

as i have said, if you have a legitimate reason for not wanting bush re-elected, more power to you. i didnt start my other thread to start a debate, honestly. i started it to actually see why some people dont want him re-elected. it wasnt until people like you started obstinately tossing out misinformation, that i started countering these 'reasons'.

The arguments are so 'easily debunked' that you consistently fail to debunk them!

well coming from some one with a 'case closed' attitude on the bush administration, its no suprise to hear you say that. what was all that about being closed-minded again?

I am certain that I understand Iraq more than you. I am certain that I know Constitutional Law better than you do. In fact, I am confident that most every person here does too. You still have yet to convince me or anyone otherwise.

All you do is accuse people of hypocracy and ignorance when you can hardly make a convincing point yourself.

again... coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge an opposing opinion, i expected no less. irony is just lost on you isnt it?

Look at the above quote: the guy holds THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA to a higher standard than he does to a quasi-celebrity fat man with a camera. Sensible point, right? But no, he's a hypocrite to you!

You throw that word out as an insult, yet you obviously hold a very tenuous grasp on what it means.

See? this is the type of argument you make. You insultingly accuse all liberals of something, without a single fact! And then you complain that no-one respects your opinion!

my opinion is based in facts. is the problem here that im not substantiating my rebuttals with a slew of supporting documents and evidence? do i really need to do the research for you mr. 'i understand everything better than you'? if such is the case, then so be it.

Your biggest argument against anti-Bush people is that they don't like Bush. Well, duh!

And we're not just here because we dislike Bush. I, for one, am also here because I seriously dislike you and your cocky attitude.

falling back on the strength of your convictions is one thing, indignantly masquerading your perpetual uneducation as some sort of liberal, anti-bush wisdom, is another. if knowing that i am right because i have done the research into both sides, is 'cocky' to you... then fine, im 'cocky'. i liked to think i am confident.

potatoes, potatoes apparently

 

[moppe]

Holy Hell, shut up already.
Bush is the worst president ever.

 

[seinfeldrules]

mr. 'i understand everything better than you'

That is how 95% of the anti-Bush people are on this site. Just gotta get used to how much better they are We both know how much more important they are

 

[KidRock]

Holy Hell, shut up already.
Bush is the worst president ever.

and all liberals hate america.


EDIT: I love how all the liberals say "the whole liberals hate america thing is getting old" yet they have been making fun of the way bush speaks for about 4 years now.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

and all liberals hate america.


EDIT: I love how all the liberals say "the whole liberals hate america thing is getting old" yet they have been making fun of the way bush speaks for about 4 years now.

News: Bush is not America. He's the president. He's not America.
Hating the president is not hating America because Bush is not America.

Why is this so hard to understand? Why do you think an election is the most undemocratic thing on earth?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Why is this so hard to understand? Why do you think an election is the most undemocratic thing on earth?

I dont know, why do you? I'm fine with whoever wins. Will you be fine if Bush wins? You dont seem to look in the mirror on many of these. I cant remember if you said it or not, but others have claimed that Americans will be morons for electing Bush. I never said the same about Americans electing Kerry.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

of course i read the article. an allegation can be proven without a conviction. eye-witnesses, and even some of the people that actually pledged to vote for kerry onstage, have all confirmed mikey's illegal bribery. the state's GOP is the one actually 'alleging' this against mikey, but its already a well-known fact that hes doing these things.

No, an allegation can not be proven without a conviction. That is why we have convictions. If Moore is so evil for giving a guy some noodles, why hasn't he been convicted yet? Because it's debatable. Popular opinion is not a valid reason to vilify a man.

ok, lets take it section by section. lets start at the 2000 election.

2000 election

the opening scene of F9/11 shows al gore 'celebrating' in florida. the movie implies that this is gore celebrating victory, however this 'celebration' took place in the morning, before the polls had even opened, as a sort of 'hopeful inspirational rally'. mikey never makes the distinction.

Too bad the opening scene is also a fictional dream sequence created with the stock footage. He clearly says that he dreamed that Gore won. Is the dream sequence not true? Well, it's a dream sequnence. Figure it out.

Also, look at the bold. Implying is not a lie. Infact, if that were the case, you would be a terrible liar. Moore implies that his dream should have been a reality. Oh, he's so evil.

it then moves along to various shots of people calling states for gore and bush. it then shows florida being called for gore. mikey then says "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."

tom brokaw, of NBC is shown saying: "all of us networks made a mistake and projected florida in the al gore column. It was our mistake." this is moore's red herring : The networks changed their minds about gore winning florida because fox said that bush won florida.

however, all of the networks called florida for gore first, and about roughly the same time... and did so before the polls even closed in the florida panhandle (central time zone). [...]

This is one of the less blatant ones. There is a lot of evidence either way, about who changed their minds first. Moore read the Fox version, and thought it to be co-incidental. However, he did not understand that there wasn't enough time for any other networks to switch ideas.

So, we have a one-minute sequence that is arguably a mistake.

this had a devastating effect on voter turn-out, people waiting until the end turned on their tv/radio and found that their state was already in the gore column, thus they did not vote. an investigation into this matter shows that this act alone cost bush 12,000 votes, and gore 7,000.

Moore is not a liar for excluding this fact (which is really just more of an opinion). If he had to put in every fact you wanted, it would make a 5-hour movie. I'm not going to stop and make a link to the Bush campaign here, now am I?

what moore fails to tell you is that it was actually CNN and CBS who retracted gore's florida victory, not bush. fox didnt retract gore's win until 2am, 4 hours after the other networks had already pulled it.

Moore never alleges that Fox didn't retract it. He alleges (incorrectly) that Fox called it for Bush. You have just accused Moore of lying about something he never said.

then at 2:16am, fox projected bush as the winner of florida. all other networks did so at the same time, with the last one being about 2:20am. sure, chronologically they 'followed fox', but to imply that fox's decision influenced the other networks decision is absurd. the investigation by CBS confirms these times.

Yes, this is true. But did Moore know enough about how quickly the media works to know he was lying? He certainly made a mistake here, but misatkes do not equal intent. It's certainly is not proof that he is a liar.

then theres the whole john ellis issue. heres what moore said:

i would argue that most people have no idea who john ellis really is. moore gives the impression that this man is a pivotal character in this grand hijacking attempt of florida which, like all of moore's conspiracies, is absurd. here is the rest of the story, as best as i can tell it.

Well, you would argue that. Let's see how that argument stacks up:

john ellis bush is indeed george w.'s first cousin. he is also a professional elections analyst. hes been an analyst for many elections over the past 23 years and in fact, prior to the 2000 election, he worked for NBC for over 10 years. he wasnt just given a quick little job at fox to call the election for his cousin, he is actually one of the most experienced elections analyst in the country.

Soory, Moore does not say John Ellis is unprofessional or bad at his job. He says that it's odd that the man who counts the polls is also Bush's brother.
He says it looks like a conflict of intrest, and it certainly does. They're relatives.
So, again, this is not a lie because Moore never said it.

that bring us to the VNS... Voter News Service. for over a quarter century, these guys are the single source for exit polling information that ALL of the major news outlets use. ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and yes, FOXNEWS too. VNS issues reports to all of the news channels at the same time. it is a tradition to hope to be the first to receive the returns, and report them to the public. everyone wants those bragging rights in the world of election coverage. right or wrong, it’s just a fact that this nuance of news reporting played a huge role in the events of that night in 2000. VNS has since gone out of business because of the unreliable service they delivered in 2000.

Okay, so you blame VNS. Moore does not. Just because your theory isn't on the screen, that does not make Moore a liar.

another misconception moore puts forth, is that the responsibility for calling a state in favor of a certain candidate, rests solely on the shoulders of john ellis. actually, ellis was a part of a four-person crew called the 'decision desk team'. this doesn’t mean they make any decisions about who should be president, rather they analyze the incoming reports on the “decision” itself, it the context of the cable news header : DECISION 2000. while Ellis was the director of the desk, any information that was to be passed on to anyone was to be unanimously agreed upon by his colleagues John Gorman, Arnon Mishkin and Cynthia Talkov. all of whom are respected and experienced polling and analytical experts.

Moore does not claim that John Ellis had any impact on the proceedings. He says that having a Bush count Bush's votes is probably a conflict of intrest. How much of a conflict is left up to the audience to decide. Again, this is not a lie.

now when these four experts received the returns from VNS, they would have to decide of the results were clear enough to make a recommendation to john noody, foxnews VP of news editorial. if moody then felt the recommendation was accurate he would then pass it on to the anchors for broadcast. so, as you can see, there was sufficient oversight and expertise which led to the calling of the florida for bush. it might seem a bit obnoxious to point out, but after the recounts, it would seem that VNS, ellis, his team members, and his boss all ended up making an accurate call. bush did win. fair and square.

On what do you base that statement? There is evidence either way, and very few people feel confident enough to jump to a conclusion like you just did. By not including the other viewpoint's evidence, you are a liar under the standards you set up for Moore.

then he makes the allegation that katherine harris was the 'vote-count woman' and that she purged black people from the voter registrar. while this is technically accurate, it is more of a statistic than anything else.

from dave kopel's 59 deceits:

So, this 'lie' is technically accurate? It's not a lie then!

as for the purging of blacks from the database, its a statistic that the majority of convicted felons were black, so why the race card mikey? florida knew about the issues with felons voting

Black people tend to ovewhelmingly vote liberal. That's why Moore "plays the race card". Almost all the people whose votes were excluded were probably liberal. Moore finds that suspicious, and he has every right to.

since 1998. this wasnt an overnight scam job done by harris and some bush croonies. this was a state appointed action, resulting from an incident that happened 2 years prior. the point is, these people wouldve been purged from the polls no matter who was running for office.

"With Bush winning Florida and the presidency by a scant 537 votes over Democrat Al Gore, these voters -- some wrongly identified as felons, and many more wrongly turned away based on felony convictions in other states -- could have swayed the election had they been allowed to vote.

And while the state's attempt to police the voter rolls victimized scores of legitimate voters, it still failed to prevent thousands of felons from casting their ballots. In Florida, felons are banned for life from voting unless granted clemency."

"Civil rights groups saw it as a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise black voters: Blacks accounted for 44 percent of those removed from the rolls, though they make up only about 11 percent of Florida's voters."


...that's from your link presented above. Obviously there is no clear-cut way to judge this as you allege there is. that is why this is a controversy. Moore calls it wrong, and he could very well be right. You can argue that, but you can't call him a liar.

was the situation handled perfectly? absolutely not. the company hired was choicepoint, who produced the list of felons to be purged. i can tell you from personal experience that choicepoint is a disreputable company, as i am currently involved in a dispute with them myself. but this is just a prime example of moore taking a 'fact' and completely distorting it to mean something that just simply isnt true. a lot of things went wrong in the 2000 election, over 100,000 republican votes went missing in the midwest... im sure al gore was directly involved.

Again, Moore's point is that Gore probably should have won. He says that these errors are unacceptable. They are, by your own admission. However, it is not a lie to say so just because a different opinion exists. Conclusion: not a lie.

here is deceit #3 from dave kopel's excellent independent investigation:

[cut repeated point]
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."

Fahrenheit shows only a snippet of Toobin's remarks on CNN. What Fahrenheit does not show is that Toobin admitted on CNN that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved a type of recount which Gore had never requested in his lawsuits, and which would have been in violation of Florida law. Toobin's theory likewise depends on re-assigning votes which are plainly marked for one candidate (Pat Buchanan) to Gore, although there are no provisions in Florida law to guess at who a voter "really" meant to vote for and to re-assign the vote.

Ah, the 59 deciets. The most effortless way to vilify Moore.

Moore's point is that those recounts that would have Gore win are the correct ones. It's a matter of opinion. Not a lie. Next:

A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:

"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

Moore does not claim that Gore won under every scenario. He implies that Gore should have won. Not a lie.

"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."

"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."

Three out of four. Two say Gore wins. In other words, it's debatable. Not a lie.

[...]Gore would have won under seven different standards. However, if there had been partial recounts under any of the various recounts sought by Gore or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have won under every scenario.

And Moore says that was wrong. Not a lie, because it's a debatable opinion. See a trend here?

[...] It's certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.

Okay, and Moore is steadfast in his opinion that Gore should have won. As long as that possibility exists, he is not a liar. Optimistic? Maybe. Liar? No.

So, so far, we have about one minute of footage that is unequivocably wrong. However, whether Moore meant to decieve anyone with this error is purely speculation, since you can't possibly do anything other than assume where his motives are concerned.

And Moore's point that the Election was shifty still stands. He sees an apparent conflict of intrest that might have influence an already messed-up system. He expresses his disapproval. However, that is not in any way a lie.

In other words, we have one small bit that might be a lie. Not much to show from such a huge post.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Why is this so hard to understand? Why do you think an election is the most undemocratic thing on earth?

I dont know, why do you? I'm fine with whoever wins. Will you be fine if Bush wins? You dont seem to look in the mirror on many of these. I cant remember if you said it or not, but others have claimed that Americans will be morons for electing Bush. I never said the same about Americans electing Kerry.

What in hell are you on about? When have I ever said that electing anyone is undemocratic or unpatriotic? I'm not calling Bush supporters unamerican jerks who hate america like Kidrock just did.

I express my opinion when it is valid. I list the many, many failures of the Bush administration, and put forward my opinion that I can't understand why people would vote for him with that evidence. That's not an insult. And if you take it as such, then you are far too easilly insulted.

If Bush wins, I will consider it a failure of the system, and I will feel sorry for America. Will I hate America just because he has support? No, that would be childish.

Kidrock's insult is not valid, not backed up by anything other than his prejudice against liberals. All he does is say " all liberals hate America" which is a lie.

He doesn't give any pro-Bush points. he doesn't disprove Kerry supporters. He just sits there and spouts crap.

 

[othello]

Holy Hell, shut up already.
Bush is the worst president ever.

you're right, you are much better off basking in your ignorance.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Moore definitely meant to deceive with this clip of film. You see CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC all showing Gore as the winner. You never see FOX call Gore the winner (which they did). Moore clearly is painting the picture that FOX jumped in and changed the results. "Then something called the FOXNEWs channel called the election in favor of the other guy". You never see the other stations changing their stances mere seconds after FOX did.

If Bush wins, I will consider it a failure of the system

There we go, thats the answer I was expecting from you. It seems liberals cant take anything without whining. If Bush wins it definitely wasnt the people's fault, it was a massive Rightwing Conspiracy. Will it be a failure of the system if Kerry wins? I cannot believe how incredibly biased some of you are. I admit to being biased as well, but you guys just take it a step above. It is really kind of scary.

 

[nicrd]

I fail to understand how after thinking someone can say that Micheal Moore hates america. Obviously, I must be pretty ignorant and stupid, so can anyone give me a reason why he hates America?

(being a liar or hating the president is not a reason to hate america)

 

[HunterSeeker]

you're right, you are much better off basking in your ignorance.

It is not ignorance, many(maybe most) swedes agree, as shown in this picture.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

you're right, you are much better off basking in your ignorance.

Get a new word.

 

[othello]

Get a new word.

Entry: ignorance
Function: noun
Definition: unintelligence
Synonyms: benightedness, bewilderment, blindness, callowness, creeping meatballism, crudeness, denseness, disregard, dumbness, empty-headedness, fog, greenness, half-knowledge, illiteracy, incapacity, incomprehension, innocence, inscience, insensitivity, mental incapacity, naïveté, nescience, oblivion, obtuseness, philistinism, rawness, sciolism, shallowness, simplicity, unawareness, unconsciousness, uncouthness, unenlightenment, unfamiliarity, unscholarliness, vagueness

Entry: innocence
Function: noun
Definition: naivete
Synonyms: artlessness, candidness, chastity, credulousness, forthrightness, frankness, freshness, guilelessness, gullibility, harmlessness, ignorance, inexperience, ingenuousness, innocuousness, innoxiousness, inoffensiveness, lack, nescience, plainness, purity, simplicity, sincerity, unaffectedness, unawareness, unfamiliarity, unknowingness, unsophistication, unworldliness, virginity, virtue

it all means the same. you are either void of the knowledge, or too stupid to comprehend it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Moore definitely meant to deceive with this clip of film. You see CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC all showing Gore as the winner. You never see FOX call Gore the winner (which they did). Moore clearly is painting the picture that FOX jumped in and changed the results. "Then something called the FOXNEWs channel called the election in favor of the other guy". You never see the other stations changing their stances mere seconds after FOX did.

Obviously you didn't read my point. Moore could have made an error just as likely as he could have lied. Do you have proof that his boisterous opinion was intentionally wrong? No, you don't.

There we go, thats the answer I was expecting from you. It seems liberals cant take anything without whining. If Bush wins it definitely wasnt the people's fault, it was a massive Rightwing Conspiracy. Will it be a failure of the system if Kerry wins? I cannot believe how incredibly biased some of you are. I admit to being biased as well, but you guys just take it a step above. It is really kind of scary.

It would be a failure of a system, because man I see as a war criminal, a threat to my country, and almost an oppressor, will be voted back.

I'm not calling it a "massive right-wing conspiracy." Never have.

The failure of the system will be squarely on the heads of the voters who see nothing wrong in Iraq, the voters who want to merge church and state, who would discriminate in the constitution. Basically, if Bush is elected, you only have yourselves to blame. And I will blame you.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The failure of the system will be squarely on the heads of the voters who see nothing wrong in Iraq, the voters who want to merge church and state, who would discriminate in the constitution. Basically, if Bush is elected, you only have yourselves to blame. And I will blame you.

Again, the danger of being biased to the point of insanity.

Obviously you didn't read my point. Moore could have made an error just as likely as he could have lied. Do you have proof that his boisterous opinion was intentionally wrong? No, you don't.

Well if he had checked his facts, he would have seen what times the other networks called the results. They are clearly not based off each other.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

it all means the same. you are either void of the knowledge, or too stupid to comprehend it.

Great, now that you've found all those words, you can shove them.

Stop being so petulant as to accuse everyone of being stupid just for disagreeing with you. It's childish and does not make you look intelligent.

I know you have at least some smarts. Stop putting them to waste by being so pompous and "holier than thou".

 

[seinfeldrules]

After watching the first scene a little more I do like how Moore included the video of Bush directly after 9/11. You can almost feel the anger that he is feeling inside. It is the most moving scene I have ever seen of a President.

Stop being so petulant as to accuse everyone of being stupid just for disagreeing with you.

How about you with everyone who will vote Bush?
How about you calling othello a 'cocky ass' in the other topic for being incorrect on one portion of his post?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Again, the danger of being biased to the point of insanity.

You obviously don't think I'm insane. I take that as an insult.

If the American public elects a man that I have a vailid reason to hate, I will not be happy. That's not insane.

Well if he had checked his facts, he would have seen what times the other networks called the results. They are clearly not based off each other.

Okay, so Moore did bad fact-checking in one short part. Not a lie, a mistake.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh and missed this earlier

It would be a failure of a system, because man I see as a war criminal

You are referring to John Kerry right.

I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre 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 you should consider Kerry a threat to your country, especially since his party is the one proposing a draft. Imagine all the wackos you'll have coming up to Canada to live with you now.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

 

[Mechagodzilla]

After watching the first scene a little more I do like how Moore included the video of Bush directly after 9/11. You can almost feel the anger that he is feeling inside. It is the most moving scene I have ever seen of a President.


How about you with everyone who will vote Bush?
How about you calling othello a 'cocky ass' in the other topic for being incorrect on one portion of his post?

I called him cocky because he started boasting and insulting me saying that I had no logic because he was absolutely certain he was right.

I then proved him wrong and told him to stop being so cocky, because he was. He was overconfident to the point of being obnoxious. I never called him stupid or made a baseless claim. It had a base in the facts I presented.

He insulted me for 'being wrong'. I proved myself right.

Oh and missed this earlier

It would be a failure of a system, because man I see as a war criminal,I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre 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 you should consider Kerry a threat to your country, especially since his party is the one proposing a draft. Imagine all the wackos you'll have coming up to Canada to live with you now.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Kerry was given orders, and apologised for following them. Unlike many vets, he tried to set things straight. 30 years ago.

Bush, on the other hand, GAVE the orders, and adamantly refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of a mistake. And that's happening oday.

Great defense, by the way. "Bush is a war criminal, but so's kerry, therefore it's okay."

And we're setting up a memorial for draft dodgers here, remember We are a society that values peace.

Anyone who opposes the Iraq war is welcome in my town.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You obviously don't think I'm insane. I take that as an insult.

If the American public elects a man that I have a vailid reason to hate, I will not be happy. That's not insane.

If you blame the result as a breakdown of the system rather than the will of the American system then I am calling you insane. I have valid reasons to disagree, even hate, John Kerry. Doesnt mean I will think any less of his supporters, nor does it mean I wont give his Administration a chance. It surely doesnt mean I will blame the result on the system and whine about it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Okay, so Moore did bad fact-checking in one short part. Not a lie, a mistake.

How did he do bad fact checking? He obviously checked them in order to come to his conclusion, it is a blatant attempt to distort the truth. Not quite lying, but damn close.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If you blame the result as a breakdown of the system rather than the will of the American system then I am calling you insane. I have valid reasons to disagree, even hate, John Kerry. Doesnt mean I will think any less of his supporters, nor does it mean I wont give his Administration a chance. It surely doesnt mean I will blame the result on the system and whine about it.

I'm not going to whine about it. Where did I say that? I will simply not feel bad for you when your country complains. If Bush is re-elected, and he does some other terrible thing, I am not going to blame Bush. I am going to blame the people who keep giving him power.

So, if not liking Bush is grounds for insanity, then hand me a straight jacket.*


*so I can smack you with it.

How did he do bad fact checking? He obviously checked them in order to come to his conclusion, it is a blatant attempt to distort the truth. Not quite lying, but damn close.

Remember you saying this:

Well if he had checked his facts

I did not mention bad fact-checking. You did.

And even then, a mistake is not at all close to a lie.

That is like saying that if someone trips on their shoelace and falls off a bridge, it is no different than if they jumped.

Either way, you're calling him a suicidal jerk who hates himself.

 

[seinfeldrules]

See you misquoted me, just like Moore does. I said

Well if he had checked his facts, he would have seen what times the other networks called the results.

He clearly had the facts available, he just chose not to use the ones that didnt fit his argument.

I'm not going to whine about it. Where did I say that?

You said you would blame it on the system. You wouldnt take the results without putting a little asterik next to them.

So, if not liking Bush is grounds for insanity, then hand me a straight jacket.*


*so I can smack you with it.

Do you feel like a bigger man now sitting at your computer typing this? I hope it relieved some tension for you.

I am going to blame the people who keep giving him power.

Blame us all you want. Its not your country.

 

[figge]

How did he do bad fact checking? He obviously checked them in order to come to his conclusion, it is a blatant attempt to distort the truth. Not quite lying, but damn close.

Like Bush said: Iraq got Weapons of Mass destruction!
(yes they had, if you counted Saddams farts) :bonce:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Like Bush said: Iraq got Weapons of Mass destruction!

Bush did. He went to the foremost expert on such matters across the word. The MI5, CIA, and Russian Intelligence Agency (really need to find their acronym) all said he had it. George Tenet called the evidence a "slam dunk".

(yes they had, if you counted Saddams farts)

*Lights a match behind Saddam's ass

 

[figge]

Bush did. He went to the foremost expert on such matters across the word. The MI5, CIA, and Russian Intelligence Agency (really need to find their acronym) all said he had it. George Tenet called the evidence a "slam dunk".



*Lights a match behind Saddam's ass

So you don't think that bush really thought:

He tried to kill my daddy so i'm going after him?

 

[Neutrino]

Bush did. He went to the foremost expert on such matters across the word. The MI5, CIA, and Russian Intelligence Agency (really need to find their acronym) all said he had it. George Tenet called the evidence a "slam dunk".



*Lights a match behind Saddam's ass

The evidence was no where near as conclusive as you seem to imply.

I also find it somewhat ironic that you are more than willing to listen to other countries when information supports the war, but not when they are against the war.

 

[Jakeic]

does anyone here know who karl rove is?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

See you misquoted me, just like Moore does. I said
He clearly had the facts available, he just chose not to use the ones that didnt fit his argument.

Oh, so you're not saying mistakes are bad. You're calling Moore liar again, with your only basis being that it would be 'impossible' for him to make a mistake.

You said you would blame it on the system. You wouldnt take the results without putting a little asterik next to them.

Yes, and I think the single biggest detriment to the system is the fact that a huge chunk of the voting population is massively under-informed. If you think that the system has nothing to do with the voters, then maybe I'm not the insane one.

See? It's easy to call someone insane. It's tough to put forwards a strong point.

Do you feel like a bigger man now sitting at your computer typing this? I hope it relieved some tension for you.

Yes, I was about to murder someone, because I was so fraught with rage. Only making a joke about the guy who insulted me stopped the outburst.

You have too much faith in your ability to hurt my feelings.

Blame us all you want. Its not your country.

I swear I will blame you if an Iraqi terrorist attacks my country in revenge against the west because of the War in Iraq.

That's not an unreasonable fear either. 60% of canadians are afraid that war in Iraq is putting Canada at greater risk.

Believe it or not, Bush's policy has affected the world. And I can tell you it's not a good effect. We have fear now, where none was before.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

does anyone here know who karl rove is?

yes, i do.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

[Bush] went to the foremost expert on such matters across the word. The MI5, CIA, and Russian Intelligence Agency (really need to find their acronym) all said he had it. George Tenet called the evidence a "slam dunk".

Oh boy, not the 'slam dunk' argument again.

I know for a fact that you have no clue what he is referring to.
What evidence is he calling a 'slam dunk'? He must be referring to something.

You don't happen to know what that something is, do you?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Seriously. Liberals are just as American as anybody. Its ridiculous that conservatives try to allege otherwise. Somewhere they got the idea that not supporting the current administration is unpatriotic.

Oh sure, lets play a game of tid-for-tad. I'm a conservative, and I believe Liberals are just as American as anybody. But hold, just because im conservative, im automatically viewed as a brainless warmonger, simply because of what I say as my allignment.

Its really a three edged sword, and people like poking each other. Ohwell, you guys actually listen on the forums and care.

 

[Jakeic]

yes, i do.

he's a fun guy, no?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I swear I will blame you if an Iraqi terrorist attacks my country in revenge against the west because of the War in Iraq.

That's not an unreasonable fear either. 60% of canadians are afraid that war in Iraq is putting Canada at greater risk.

Believe it or not, Bush's policy has affected the world. And I can tell you it's not a good effect. We have fear now, where none was before.

What a way to misplace your fear. It was declared long before Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Huessein, that if Westerners lead another crusade like attack in the middle east, Jihad would be waged against...WESTERN civilization.

That includes you. Infact, many terrorists dont disclude any countries, even their own out of this ability. Canada was always in danger. But im glad she has'nt been attacked.

Live your fullest Mecha.