9/11 was indeed a propaganda film, It's not like this wasn't known.
when Moore's film came out, the media was (and still is) soo overwhelmingly biased in favor of the right, that his film came off less like propaganda and more like a run down of all the other points of view out there which the press never covered. there were so many conspiracy theories in his film, that adopting them all would be contradictory. i don't agree with every theory presented in 9-11, and i doubt that Moore does either. the film succeeded in that it got those messages out and raised some eyebrows. also, there are plenty of issues that Moore got 100% right. the movie starts out with a segment on how the Supreme Court disregarded the constitution and supreme court precedent and stole the election from Gore. that argument is supported by just about every law school professor in the country.
the film succeeded because it was just one of the many elements that came together to get Bush re-elected.
and if you're going to cite lawschool professors as an authority on the election what kind of concensus do you think you'll get. They really don't get much further to the left.
If this guy has a case, then I think Kerry should sue (Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, Fox News, all right wing pundits, etc..) for saying that "Terrorism is a Nuisance". If something was ever taken out of context, that was it.
i love michael moore and hope to see a lot more of him. God bless his fat, cholesterol clogged, calculating heart. And he's so neat and professional, not anything like you would imagine a radical bombthrowing leftist to look like. He plays against all the stereotypes and thats why he's so effective at winning people over to his side.
I guess if he looked more like this you would respect him.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
Yes the papers went back and counted using numerous methods. Gore won each time. He also walked away with the national popular vote. The only vote he lost was in the supreme court.
and if you're going to cite lawschool professors as an authority on the election what kind of concensus do you think you'll get. They really don't get much further to the left.
I love conservatives disregarding experts' opinion because of so called liberal bias, like its some sort of political trump card. Aren't we talking about law? And were going to disregard the people who teach law because of their supposed political views? Its like people saying scientists are mostly godless liberals, so their opinions on global warming must be slanted. Irrelevant. These guys are the experts, and as inconvienent as their educated, informed views are to your reactionary closemindedness, im going to go with the experts. I know conservatives will usually find a way to disregard these informed opinions, usually by attacking the individual or group(see above), but hey sabadaba, if your so sure in your convictions, why not talk substance instead of just attacking people with intentionally provacative statements on message boards?
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
i'm definitely not the expert on this, but greg pallast is:
"here's how your president got elected: in the months leading up to the november balloting, florida governor jeb bush and his secretary of state, katherine harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge fifty-eight thousand voters from registries on grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in florida. as it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. the voters on this scrub list were, notably, african american (54%) and most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and hispanic democrats."
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
Yes the papers went back and counted using numerous methods. Gore won each time. He also walked away with the national popular vote. The only vote he lost was in the supreme court.
popular vote is nice but it has nothing to do with who wins the election.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
i'm definitely not the expert on this, but greg pallast is:
"here's how your president got elected: in the months leading up to the november balloting, florida governor jeb bush and his secretary of state, katherine harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge fifty-eight thousand voters from registries on grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in florida. as it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. the voters on this scrub list were, notably, african american (54%) and most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and hispanic democrats."
well he also claims Kerry won the 2004 election and his "evidence" is exit polls...so to say he has an agenda might be an understatement.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
Yes the papers went back and counted using numerous methods. Gore won each time. He also walked away with the national popular vote. The only vote he lost was in the supreme court.
popular vote is nice but it has nothing to do with who wins the election.
No, but the Electoral system is what allows elections to be manipulated. When you can be almost completely sure which way every state will vote, it creates the scenario where only 1 state needs to be affected to turn the election. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Kennedy would never have been President without some serious tampering.
The whole system is pointless. Use the popular vote and then nobody will have to worry about anything.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
Yes the papers went back and counted using numerous methods. Gore won each time. He also walked away with the national popular vote. The only vote he lost was in the supreme court.
popular vote is nice but it has nothing to do with who wins the election.
good lord every time someone brings up how Gore had the election "stolen" from him I just want to start strangling. Didn't a bunch of newspapers go back and count every ballot 100 different ways and Bush wound up winning no matter what? Gore was a soulless robot, no one to blame for that loss but him.
i'm definitely not the expert on this, but greg pallast is:
"here's how your president got elected: in the months leading up to the november balloting, florida governor jeb bush and his secretary of state, katherine harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge fifty-eight thousand voters from registries on grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in florida. as it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. the voters on this scrub list were, notably, african american (54%) and most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and hispanic democrats."
well he also claims Kerry won the 2004 election and his "evidence" is exit polls...so to say he has an agenda might be an understatement.
His (and the many other people who have been exposing vote rigging in the 2004 elections) is considerably more than exit polls. This is Palast's most recent article on the subject.
greg palast is an idiot. He claims that the iraq war initiated at the behest of bush's 'oil buddies' in order to limit oil supply and so increase oil prices whilst simulatenously claiming that the push to drill in alaska is also a bush favour to his 'oil buddies'. How can bush want to increase and decrease oil supply at the same time?
greg palast is an idiot. He claims that the iraq war initiated at the behest of bush's 'oil buddies' in order to limit oil supply and so increase oil prices whilst simulatenously claiming that the push to drill in alaska is also a bush favour to his 'oil buddies'. How can bush want to increase and decrease oil supply at the same time?
Yes, of course. Everyone who opposes Bush and his agenda are idiots, fools, lunatics etc. Yet strangely enough, while they have no real power, the country keeps getting fucked up. How's that going?
greg palast is an idiot. He claims that the iraq war initiated at the behest of bush's 'oil buddies' in order to limit oil supply and so increase oil prices whilst simulatenously claiming that the push to drill in alaska is also a bush favour to his 'oil buddies'. How can bush want to increase and decrease oil supply at the same time?
so umm, this dude greg is a conspiracy theorist. if you listen to him talk or read his work you are too. My circle of friends just trippled in size.
Weren't we talking specific facts about the election? Glad someone switched the subject. Kinda like what many do to that that fat slob Moore. I only wish I learnt more about politics in high school, and less about people in college.
Can you please explain why so many of you hat on M Moore. Ok, he made a film that is biased. But I don't belive he lied. Re-telling the 'truth' is purely subjective. If he had made a down the line, less reactionary film, would it have got half as much attention? I think his heart is in the right place. And he made a film on a subject that he cares pationately about. He tried to do something about a situation, that most people on here, are unhappy about. Maybe he went about it, in a way that, you personally, wouldn't. But then, if you would have done it differnetly, why don't you.
greg palast is an idiot. He claims that the iraq war initiated at the behest of bush's 'oil buddies' in order to limit oil supply and so increase oil prices whilst simulatenously claiming that the push to drill in alaska is also a bush favour to his 'oil buddies'. How can bush want to increase and decrease oil supply at the same time?
Damn, everything dude says is so intellectually dishonest, I can't imagine he actually believes what he says, prob just trying to provoke. And I guess I'm taking the bait.
Taking two quotes about two different issues and framing them to create the appearance of hypocrisy may work in campaign ads but come on what does that prove at all, about either issue, its smoke and mirrors straw man to avoid dealing with the realities of either issue. Im also pretty sure that (a) regardless of supply, oil companies are doing pretty good right now (b) iraq is fucked and (c) gas prices and the people that pay them are fucked. So as 16corners was saying, whats your excuse when the Democrats really dont have any power? Also I would say Alaskan drilling isn't really a viable solution to anything, just another distraction from any solutions that would actually address the real problems, even (gasp) at the expense of the oil companies, Bush's old buddies. Come on Dolo_yeung, if you actually believe any of what your saying, you'll back it up with rational thought, and not just name calling. I'd refer you to my earlier post in this thread
I know conservatives will usually find a way to disregard these informed opinions, usually by attacking the individual or group(see above)...why not talk substance instead of just attacking people with intentionally provacative statements on message boards?
Comments
the film succeeded because it was just one of the many elements that came together to get Bush re-elected.
and if you're going to cite lawschool professors as an authority on the election what kind of concensus do you think you'll get. They really don't get much further to the left.
If something was ever taken out of context, that was it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410130005
God, thats probably really true. It does come across like jay-z's takeover, mike moore thought he had him before bush came back to deliver the ether.
Bush is illmatic?
I think he considers himself to be God's Son.
GTFOHWTBS!
"I don't want a god that blesses America"
I guess if he looked more like this you would respect him.
Yes the papers went back and counted using numerous methods. Gore won each time. He also walked away with the national popular vote. The only vote he lost was in the supreme court.
I love conservatives disregarding experts' opinion because of so called liberal bias, like its some sort of political trump card. Aren't we talking about law? And were going to disregard the people who teach law because of their supposed political views? Its like people saying scientists are mostly godless liberals, so their opinions on global warming must be slanted. Irrelevant. These guys are the experts, and as inconvienent as their educated, informed views are to your reactionary closemindedness, im going to go with the experts. I know conservatives will usually find a way to disregard these informed opinions, usually by attacking the individual or group(see above), but hey sabadaba, if your so sure in your convictions, why not talk substance instead of just attacking people with intentionally provacative statements on message boards?
i'm definitely not the expert on this, but greg pallast is:
"here's how your president got elected: in the months leading up to the november balloting, florida governor jeb bush and his secretary of state, katherine harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge fifty-eight thousand voters from registries on grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in florida. as it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons. the voters on this scrub list were, notably, african american (54%) and most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and hispanic democrats."
popular vote is nice but it has nothing to do with who wins the election.
well he also claims Kerry won the 2004 election and his "evidence" is exit polls...so to say he has an agenda might be an understatement.
No, but the Electoral system is what allows elections to be manipulated.
When you can be almost completely sure which way every state will vote, it creates
the scenario where only 1 state needs to be affected to turn the election.
It's not like it hasn't been done before. Kennedy would never have been
President without some serious tampering.
The whole system is pointless. Use the popular vote and then nobody
will have to worry about anything.
His (and the many other people who have been exposing vote rigging in the 2004 elections) is considerably more than exit polls. This is Palast's most recent article on the subject.
Yes, of course. Everyone who opposes Bush and his agenda are idiots, fools, lunatics etc.
Yet strangely enough, while they have no real power, the country keeps getting fucked up. How's that going?
so umm, this dude greg is a conspiracy theorist. if you listen to him talk or read his work you are too. My circle of friends just trippled in size.
Weren't we talking specific facts about the election? Glad someone switched the subject. Kinda like what many do to that that fat slob Moore. I only wish I learnt more about politics in high school, and less about people in college.
Ok, he made a film that is biased. But I don't belive he lied. Re-telling the 'truth' is purely subjective. If he had made a down the line, less reactionary film, would it have got half as much attention?
I think his heart is in the right place. And he made a film on a subject that he cares pationately about. He tried to do something about a situation, that most people on here, are unhappy about. Maybe he went about it, in a way that, you personally, wouldn't. But then, if you would have done it differnetly, why don't you.
Damn, everything dude says is so intellectually dishonest, I can't imagine he actually believes what he says, prob just trying to provoke. And I guess I'm taking the bait.
Taking two quotes about two different issues and framing them to create the appearance of hypocrisy may work in campaign ads but come on what does that prove at all, about either issue, its smoke and mirrors straw man to avoid dealing with the realities of either issue. Im also pretty sure that (a) regardless of supply, oil companies are doing pretty good right now (b) iraq is fucked and (c) gas prices and the people that pay them are fucked. So as 16corners was saying, whats your excuse when the Democrats really dont have any power? Also I would say Alaskan drilling isn't really a viable solution to anything, just another distraction from any solutions that would actually address the real problems, even (gasp) at the expense of the oil companies, Bush's old buddies. Come on Dolo_yeung, if you actually believe any of what your saying, you'll back it up with rational thought, and not just name calling. I'd refer you to my earlier post in this thread