NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think any editing in the movie to make certain people look bad could contribut to the next presidential voting.

Reckon it will - Who would vote for a president that allowed Osama Bin Laden's family to fly out of the USA after 9/11 happened - Especially since there was a ban on all other flights.

Hopefully The Day After Tomorrow will also contirbute to getting you Americans to elect anyone other than Bush.

Moore makes me want to NOT vote for Kerry. I can't stand Moore; he's a pompous ass, and based upon what I heard him say tonight on the Daily Show, he's a fairly stupid one too. Sigh, but I suppose that if I want to get rid of Bush, I have to vote for Kerry, no matter what kind of quality his allies are.

Moore is a very fat person (like many Americans) - But the facts in the movie speak for themselves

A bad hair day by one of the presidential contenders could have an effect on voting...so this movie most certainly will.


Hey look Ma, 2 billion people!

I doubt it'd have any effect at all.

Most people won't have their views changed at all, they've already decided to vote for either Bush or Kerry.

The rest aren't likely to have their views swayed by a movie, regardless of its leanings. And those that are swayed, it'll probably break down evenly between people who see it as a reason to vote against Bush, and those who see it as propaganda and a reason to vote for Bush.

Moore is a very fat person (like many Americans) - But the facts in the movie speak for themselves

Is that directed towards me? Pompous doesn't mean fat...

Hey Pax, are you a ressurect?

Hey Pax, are you a ressurect?

yep, died and born on the same day. Actually, I've been resurrected a couple of times.

Moore is a very fat person (like many Americans) - But the facts in the movie speak for themselves

Is that directed towards me? Pompous doesn't mean fat...

Not the fat part of that - The bit about the facts of the movie speaking for themselves was though....

Hey Pax, are you a ressurect?

yep, died and born on the same day. Actually, I've been resurrected a couple of times.

ah, that explains the 2 billion then.

The 'fact's may speak for themselves, but frankly you can turn a fact to support almost any opinion. And I don't agree with most of his opinions.

How is the fact that osama bin laden's family being on a plane out of the country when there was an air embargo an opinion?

DP

The opinion is implied by your choice of fact. You believe (according to that choice, I assume) that it was immoral to send the bin Laden family out of the country after 9/11, when only one member of that family, Osama, was involved, and the rest of the family no longer associated with him. The bin Ladens were in real danger of being attacked by people who blamed them for 9/11, of COURSE they should have been returned to Saudi Arabia ASAP. They were safer in Saudi Arabia, and they are innocent of involvement in 9/11.

There, you see? It is your opinion that I do not agree with.

The movie has been promoted as a political commentary. It should be considered nothing more than a campaign ad using no useful facts to draw a decision from (like most campaign ads). Overstatements, understatements and the ability to cut and paste comments together to mislead are par for the course from this lunatic director. The director has already said he only made it to influence the election.

Yes we know Michael Moore is biased and that the movie is propaganda for the Democrats. But don't some aspects of Bush's conduct offend or worry you.

As a Bush hater I have to say this: while a portion of this movie is true, there is also a part which is nothing but unbased propaganda - I'd only see because some of the conspiracies i've heard about in it are pretty damn funny

Yes we know Michael Moore is biased and that the movie is propaganda for the Democrats. But don't some aspects of Bush's conduct offend or worry you.How is that even relevant to this movie? If it is only a Bush-bash movie, then why even try to call it a "documentary". No one can completely agree with what anyone else does, especially in politics. However, I look at the alternatives this election cycle and I don't see a better candidate. Ralph is a great guy, but couldn't get elected in this country if he was the only candidate running. Kerry couldn't walk a straight line on a tight rope. I may not agree with everything Bush says, but at least I know that he isn't going to bounce between two diametrically opposed statements and act like there is nothing wrong.

I believe the fact that the Bin Laden's flew out of the country before the ban was lifted is disputed in both the 9/11 book and Richard Clarke's book, which was hardly pro-Bush.

Actually all commercial flights were in the air when the Bin Ladens flew out but Moore just says DAYS after 9/11, he does not clarify how many, so it could be any number and anyways Richard Clark signed on to fly them out after the questioning of the family.

Don't you find it all the least bit ironic that they quickly escorted the one group of people with blood ties to Osama out of the country. This would have been the group that had the best chance of contacting him. I suspect that it was not fear for their sfety that motivated the move. I would suspect that it was the bin laden family's ties to large oil reserves in the middle east and their long running an documented friendship with the Bush's. Friends of my enemies are no friends of mine. Bush and company gave a ticket to ride for their rich friends as usual.

As to the movie influencing my vote, no. I already new from following the four media news outlets that Bush was unworthy of my vote and for that matter the status of any leadership role. I wouldn't trust him to pick up trash on the side of the rode without finding a contract for his rich friends.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.

Moore is a very fat person (like many Americans) - But the facts in the movie speak for themselves

Why is being fat a capital crime in this country? Every time I hear someone criticize Michael Moore, they begin by mentioning that hes fat. ("Michael Moore is a big, FAT, stupid white man." Parody on Moore's "Stupid white men") I think its pathetic, If hes so overblown and wrong, what are republicans so afraid of that they need to resort to this kind of infantile tactic?

But he is fat - Like most americans - All those Burgers, French Fries and jumbo sized Hagen Daas's

But he is fat - Like most americans - All those Burgers, French Fries and jumbo sized Hagen Daas's

Exactly my point.....

Moore is a very fat person (like many Americans) - But the facts in the movie speak for themselves

Why is being fat a capital crime in this country? Every time I hear someone criticize Michael Moore, they begin by mentioning that hes fat. ("Michael Moore is a big, FAT, stupid white man." Parody on Moore's "Stupid white men") I think its pathetic, If hes so overblown and wrong, what are republicans so afraid of that they need to resort to this kind of infantile tactic?

I'll tell you why they respond this way. For his first two movies. they ignored him as a crackpot. They figured that no one would believe any of what he was saying because they were in power. Now his facts hit far to close to the truth for the powers that be not to turn loose their attack dogs(slightly hidden as PACS and FOX news). They now fear any opposing view, because they know that there is a great awakening in this country. They stole our freedoms and now they fear the backlash.

Have you guys all caught advanced previews of this movie? It is supposed to open today (25th), and unless you guys caught it last night at midnight or the coveted 8:00 AM showing I don't know how you could have seen it.

If you haven't seen it, there is no way you can talk about how the facts are presented. Bowling For Columbine was very slanted to Michael Moore's views but he also put forth a great deal of facts and ideas that at least made you think. I haven't see Fahrenheit but I figure it will be very similar.

I give as much credence to him as I give to people who do not believe we landed on the moon. You can throw as much theory as you want at an issue, but give me one solid piece of evidence that you did not "cut" around to display in your movie, and I'll consider it. If he has to slant an idea to give it any credibility, I'm not interested. The flying the Bin Laden group out of the US has been so disproved as a theory that it is ridiculous for him even to put it back out there. He's a crackpot, plain and simple. He even admits to "editing" people to make his ideas more plausible. He then has the 'nads to call it a documentary. A complete loon.

Will his movie effect the election? I don't know, might swing some undecided voters maybe.. maybe not.

I do know this much, the right must be some what worried, simple proof of that is how hard they've been trying to shut him down at every angle. If any thing in the movie was a lie, the right-wing would have him in court so fast it would make your head spin and it's not like they don't have the money to do it. So, if no one sues him, there goes the theory of him lying..

Oh and for all of you talking about the Saudi Royals and bin Laden family being flown out as disproved, the Moore film never says that they were flown out while airspace was closed, that's an assumption that is being drawn.. The movie clearly says they were flown out after Sept. 13th. That is when airspace was re-open and they were given special treatment. Out of the 140+ people on that plane only 26 were ever interviewed by the FBI and THAT is a FACT.

So, if you're going to bash some thing, at least get your facts straight, besides, you don't see the left trying to have Fox news shut down do you? I don't see much difference.

I do know this much, the right must be some what worried, simple proof of that is how hard they've been trying to shut him down at every angle. If any thing in the movie was a lie, the right-wing would have him in court so fast it would make your head spin and it's not like they don't have the money to do it. So, if no one sues him, there goes the theory of him lying..Actually, court cases are pending. As long as he admits that this was done for political reasons, he should fall under the same laws that affect political ads. So, if it is true he is doing this for political motivation like he says, he should comply to campaign ad laws. That is one of the reasons cited by Disney about not wanting to have their name endorsing it.

Oh and for all of you talking about the Saudi Royals and bin Laden family being flown out as disproved, the Moore film never says that they were flown out while airspace was closed, that's an assumption that is being drawn.. The movie clearly says they were flown out after Sept. 13th.I don't know if you have any experience with visual media presentations, however, what is visually portrayed will always be taken as having more truth than audibles. It is not what is said in a movie that is the thing that people remember, it is how the movie is visually cut to portray it. He definitely did not cut the flick as if he wanted that to be the understanding you left with.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.
Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising*. If you don't remember that middle America gave Reagan a 49-state victory, you're either too blinded by your ideology or too young to remember the real conditions as opposed to modern-day fact twisting.

* - Except 1982-1983, in which median household income in 2001 dollars shrank by a small amount, whereas in current dollars it still rose.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

political motivation like he says, he should comply to campaign ad laws

Again wrong, he clearly has stated as late as last night on Jon Stewart it's a movie, and not a political statement, sure it's his opinions, but he has no intention of his movie falling under the political ad category. So, this would be un-true.

In fact it's a right-wing Republican group who is trying to say this so he can't advertise his movie past July 31st. Not Moore.

Although I do see your point on ads, I have personally watched Bush ads about Kerry that I know for a fact were lies. They shouldn't be allowed to do that in my opinion.

Oh and for all of you talking about the Saudi Royals and bin Laden family being flown out as disproved, the Moore film never says that they were flown out while airspace was closed, that's an assumption that is being drawn.. The movie clearly says they were flown out after Sept. 13th.I don't know if you have any experience with visual media presentations, however, what is visually portrayed will always be taken as having more truth than audibles. It is not what is said in a movie that is the thing that people remember, it is how the movie is visually cut to portray it. He definitely did not cut the flick as if he wanted that to be the understanding you left with.

Hey, you may assume whatever you like, but the man never says it. That would sound like a personal problem to me and one that people who don't listen to the movie or know the history of what happened would draw, an informed person would not leave thinking that.

Edit- Sorry, kept getting my quote tags wrong..

It doesn't matter whether or not the movie is true, or the facts are true, or even if there's a court case or not. Lets say Moore loses a court case in regard to lies in the movie? So what?!? If the movie sways voters, it'll already have swayed them by then, and the election will be over by the time a judgement is passed down.

Moore has admitted to the movie being politically based. Newsweek has stated that the 3 major claims from the movie are false:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/

But will any of that matter when ignorant, poorly informed, potential voters go to the movies, watch 9/11, and think that President Bush is almost as evil as Osama Bin Laden? NO. I think Moore should be taken out to the middle of a street and shot for using a movie to misinform voters and to get Kerry elected, and I sincerely hope that it gives Kerry no ground.

If you're fed up with Bush, vote for Kerry, but if you have nothing against Bush, Kerry's campaign and message to the voters is laughable. He can't make up his mind on issues, and the only reason he's getting away with it is cause so many people dislike Bush. If any other politican said something, realized it was unpopular, then changed his opinion every time, he'd be lambasted in the media and have no chance at an election.

Yeah, so Moore's a liar, it's gonna influence the election, and people are dumb.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/.

Michael Isikoff was already caught and proved false in his assertions on a MSNBC show. I know, I watched it. Again, he jumped to conclusions and looked rather foolish I might add in the process.

Look, by your own admissions, Moore's movie is politically biased against one of the Presidential candidates. It's a political movie! The only difference between it and a political ad is length. That's it. If he wants to run it during election season, he should abide by the rules for political ads.

Look, by your own admissions, Moore's movie is politically biased against one of the Presidential candidates. It's a political movie! The only difference between it and a political ad is length. That's it. If he wants to run it during election season, he should abide by the rules for political ads.

Michael Moore is not running for office, nor is he what is known as a "527" .. so sorry, nice try by the right-wing. You're not going to stop this movie from being seen, we will all know outright that a right-wing favour was called in if they try to make this more then it is and try to shut his ads down for a movie on July 31st.

Nice try by someone who is obviously too eager to stereotype me as right-wing.... Apparently you didn't read my earlier post. I'm a Kerry supporter. I'm not saying Moore shouldn't show his movie, or that he shouldn't advertise it, but that his ads shouldn't be political. That'll probably be pretty difficult, but he might be able to manage it if he kept clips from the movie to a minimum and used mainly text. It doesn't matter that Moore is not part of a political organization. The laws weren't made to apply only to political organizations, but to any political ad regardless of its source. You shouldn't be able to get around the law just because your primary purpose is not politics (although the case could definately be made that his purpose IS political).

Of course this movie will have an effect on the election, hence, why the FEC is trying to ban it during the election year as "political speak."

The FEC won't do anything about this because, quite frankly, there's nothing to do about it. Moore isn't a political entity and he's not an advocacy group. And besides, the "group" that threatened to file the complaint backed out--there is currently no complaint before the FEC.

I'll tell you what you can expect though, assuming Kerry wins in 2008--you can expect to see a "documentary" that tries to make Kerry look like a child-sacrificing, devil-worshiping, goat rapist from Taxachussetts.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.
Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising*. If you don't remember that middle America gave Reagan a 49-state victory, you're either too blinded by your ideology or too young to remember the real conditions as opposed to modern-day fact twisting.

* - Except 1982-1983, in which median household income in 2001 dollars shrank by a small amount, whereas in current dollars it still rose.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

I strongly suggest that you check your facts. I happpened to have lived through and suffered in an economically depressed area that was a direct result of their policies. Census facts can be taken out of context. As far as grief, the Republican party has not yet begun to experience the grief they deserve for their economic and social policies. Regan at least had the moral ability to admit when his people made mistakes, i.e. Iran-Contra. The current coward is still trying to lie his way out of a profiteers war and a failed economic policy.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.
Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising*. If you don't remember that middle America gave Reagan a 49-state victory, you're either too blinded by your ideology or too young to remember the real conditions as opposed to modern-day fact twisting.

* - Except 1982-1983, in which median household income in 2001 dollars shrank by a small amount, whereas in current dollars it still rose.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

I strongly suggest that you check your facts. I happpened to have lived through and suffered in an economically depressed area that was a direct result of their policies. Census facts can be taken out of context. As far as grief, the Republican party has not yet begun to experience the grief they deserve for their economic and social policies. Regan at least had the moral ability to admit when his people made mistakes, i.e. Iran-Contra. The current coward is still trying to lie his way out of a profiteers war and a failed economic policy.
Actually, I did check my facts. Any sort of facts or statistic takes precedence over personal anecdotes because they can be verified whereas your story can't. If you actually have some facts or statistics to back your claim up that Reagan screwed over Middle America, present them, otherwise, stop saying he did.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.
Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising*. If you don't remember that middle America gave Reagan a 49-state victory, you're either too blinded by your ideology or too young to remember the real conditions as opposed to modern-day fact twisting.

* - Except 1982-1983, in which median household income in 2001 dollars shrank by a small amount, whereas in current dollars it still rose.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

I strongly suggest that you check your facts. I happpened to have lived through and suffered in an economically depressed area that was a direct result of their policies. Census facts can be taken out of context. As far as grief, the Republican party has not yet begun to experience the grief they deserve for their economic and social policies. Regan at least had the moral ability to admit when his people made mistakes, i.e. Iran-Contra. The current coward is still trying to lie his way out of a profiteers war and a failed economic policy.
Actually, I did check my facts. Any sort of facts or statistic takes precedence over personal anecdotes because they can be verified whereas your story can't. If you actually have some facts or statistics to back your claim up that Reagan screwed over Middle America, present them, otherwise, stop saying he did.

Check the condition of that average income of the middle class during Reagan by how the numbers in the class shrank. And check the condition of the economic region of the oil belt in the gulf coast states and you will see my point. If after you check on these areas from the census and still don't see my point then it is you who are locked into the worship of this man.

Thats why that set of charts I put in includes median income as well. The median income increased during all of the Reagan years after '83. That means that more people were making the move up than were making the move down. Which would suggest that, if the middle class shrank, it shrank mainly because people became upwardly mobile rather than becoming poorer.

On state-by-state examination in the Census they only had from 1969, 1979, and 1989, of course Median income Inflation adjusted. The problem there is that there was skyrocketing inflation in the last few years of the Carter administration and the spillover into the first of Reagan's, and then the immediate recession that followed. Florida and Alabama's income rose during the whole period of time, while Mississippi's, Louisiana's, and Texas's fell. If inflation was at 100% in 1982, however, it was at 68.3 in the beggining of 1979, more than 30% increase before it became more of Reagan's economy any less of Carter's. Even from January 1979 to January 1981 there was a increase of 18.7%. This alone covers the margin of decrease in both Texas and Mississippi, and actually - barely - covers Louisiana as well.

Edits : To the 1969, 1979, 1989 incomes :
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/state/state1.html

Inflation by month :
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx

Never mind, it does not include Louisiana, although it does Texas and Mississippi. I believe 1979-1982 does, but not Jan '79 - Jan '81.

Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising

While I congratulate you for considering the median (more important than the average), I don't think you can judge the impact of Reagan's legacy by looking at income alone. Reagan's tax hikes - especially the doubling of the regressive payroll tax - had a significant effect.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/060804.html
For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

Actually, I did check my facts. Any sort of facts or statistic takes precedence over personal anecdotes because they can be verified whereas your story can't.

I'd suggest the story of Reagan cutting disabled people off of social security disability rolls (http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/0302/0302ft5.html) in order to save a few bucks.

Further, It should be quite obvious that the majority of Bush's group also worked for his daddy and Reagan. If you don't remember how the middle class suffered under "trickle down" economics you either were not old enoungh to know or one of the few dishonorable ppeople who exploited everyone else with junk bonds and corporate raiding.
Spare me your grief. Every year between 1982 and 1989 both median and average and median household income was rising*. If you don't remember that middle America gave Reagan a 49-state victory, you're either too blinded by your ideology or too young to remember the real conditions as opposed to modern-day fact twisting.

* - Except 1982-1983, in which median household income in 2001 dollars shrank by a small amount, whereas in current dollars it still rose.



http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

I strongly suggest that you check your facts. I happpened to have lived through and suffered in an economically depressed area that was a direct result of their policies. Census facts can be taken out of context. As far as grief, the Republican party has not yet begun to experience the grief they deserve for their economic and social policies. Regan at least had the moral ability to admit when his people made mistakes, i.e. Iran-Contra. The current coward is still trying to lie his way out of a profiteers war and a failed economic policy.
Actually, I did check my facts. Any sort of facts or statistic takes precedence over personal anecdotes because they can be verified whereas your story can't. If you actually have some facts or statistics to back your claim up that Reagan screwed over Middle America, present them, otherwise, stop saying he did.

How about tripling the national debt.

How about tripling the national debt.
Thats has impacts far more in the future rather than in the immediate 1981-1989 Reagan years, and we're talking about that time period, not now and twenty years from now.

While I congratulate you for considering the median (more important than the average), I don't think you can judge the impact of Reagan's legacy by looking at income alone. Reagan's tax hikes - especially the doubling of the regressive payroll tax - had a significant effect.


If you look at this : http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=224
You'll see that the effective federal tax rates decreased for all quintiles from 1981 to 1989.

If you look at this : http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=224
You'll see that the effective federal tax rates decreased for all quintiles from 1981 to 1989.

That looks like a good citation from a pretty unbiased source. What I see, though, is taxes for the lowest quintile rising sharply from 1981 to 1984 - which was the really unpleasant time period that a lot of people are referring to when they talk about the economic bleakness of the Reagan years.

Tax rates for the lowest quintile decline to essentially the same point that they started at during the term - and after a massive deficit was created. So you have the increase in taxes on the least well off, gradually rolled back to where things started, and all we had to do was run up a massive debt and deregulate savings and loans.