So, have YOU seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

[JohnT]

michael moore was on 60 minutes tonite.

Who wants to bet they ripped him a new *******, like in the old times?

Not I.

[Verto]

I'll see if there's an online transcript for it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto
Here's another interesting bit from spinsanity regarding Stupid White Men.

Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals.

The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.

and once again, this weak Moore critique fails to understand that the $2,000 limit if for individual candidates... not the entire party. Next?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava did you even read the quoted part? If 52.6 of the total is from individuals then it would be impossible for 700 people to give 2/3rds of the campaign chest, even if ONE person gave 48.4 percent.

700 people * $2000/per person = $1,400,000.

$190 m * 48.4% = $91.96 m

It'd be lucky to be half.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava
and once again, this weak Moore critique fails to understand that the $2,000 limit if for individual candidates... not the entire party. Next?

And you fail to realize the article Moore was referencing to actually stated that 739 people gave 2/3 of the money raised by the Republican Party, which was used for all GOP candidates and other Republican activities. Moore lies and tries to pretend this money was used solely by Bush.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have 0 Gmail invites left. When this sig tells you I have more than 0 PM me your name and current email address. First come, first served.

Just saw this sig. Brilliant!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto


And you fail to realize the article Moore was referencing to actually stated that 739 people gave 2/3 of the money raised by the Republican Party, which was used for all GOP candidates and other Republican activities. Moore lies and tries to pretend this money was used solely by Bush.

Yeah, Sava!

of course, does this trully invalidate Moore's overall point, if under 1000 people give 2/3 of all money raised by this one political party?

[Verto]

So, you can forgive Moore his lies and indiscrepancies so long as the point he's trying to make is one you agree with?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto
So, you can forgive Moore his lies and indiscrepancies so long as the point he's trying to make is one you agree with?

Forgive? Why wopuld I need to forgive? I don;t get my news from Moore, but at the same time, for someone with his viewpoint, pointing out its not Bush;s campaing that is dominated financially by 700 something people vs. the Entire republican party is, well, not a very grand reposte.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Verto
And you fail to realize the article Moore was referencing to actually stated that 739 people gave 2/3 of the money raised by the Republican Party, which was used for all GOP candidates and other Republican activities.

That really doesn't help your case. What it means is that those 739 people not only own the Prez, but Republican Representitives, Sentators, govenors, etc. All it means is Moore understated the RP's corruption by putting it on one man instead of the whole party.

[Verto]

What it says about the Republican Party's base is irrelevant, unless you are conceding that Moore has made statements that are not factually accurate; if that's the case, rag on the GOP as long as you like, I don't care.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Having just seen the movie in a packed house, I find that USA Today and all the other counterclaims pretty weak and pathetic.

Did I like the movie? Did I find it powerful? Not much. I find the links he tries to make facile and old-old as in yes, I have seen these links made over and over, and yet I know the truth not to be so simplistic, so no, I don't think it very powerful. NO, this war was not about money or oil, and neither was afghanistan.

MOst of the stuff seen was not new to me- a few things were: this is the only movie out there that shows footage form Iraq as raw as what we saw from Vietnam-no where else do you really see the counsequences of the war besides a few short second after any attack- youo certainly don;t see the amputees or injured soldiers. The video of the public beheading in SA was shocking, though it isn't too graphic. Interestingly, what he shows right at the start about the eletion of 2000, like the vehemence of the protests as Bush was inagurated was new to me-I had never seen that the president's limo was pelted with eggs that day.

Certainly he uses editing to its fullest, and he does make members of the admin. look like fools, which is no shock as many of them are. None of his sequences with the Saudis did much for me- of course anyone heavily invested in the oil industry will be in bed with the Saudis. The Grath revelation was interesting thought.

Maybe I am too cynical, maybe I am too tired of the same old juvenile anti-war arguements that miss the real and important anti-war arguements, the powerful, valid ones, not the facile easy to make but lacking evidence ones to look too deeply into his treatment of the war- but only one thing in the movie had real power for me, Mrs. Lipscomb. Her story, and what she goes through, and specially what happens in DC and the encouter with the pro-Bush woman-that was what hit me. Because for me, that is the great sin of Bush and this war: he used people like her, their patriotism, their faith and trust in our government, and manipulated them into thinking a war of choice was a war of necessity. And it scikens me to this day that some people are still trying to sell me this war as a war of necessity, and that so much of the public is either still fooled, or unwilling to look.

Surprising, Dr Jekyll must be back

A few questions/comments:

Now that you've seen it, do you consider it money 'well spent'? It doesnt appear that you'd give it a thumbs-up.

miss the real and important anti-war arguements,"

That are? (I believe I know what you are refering to but wish to refresh my memory as to your opinion).

the great sin of Bush and this war: he used people like her, their patriotism, their faith and trust in our government,"

Thats not true if Bush sincerely believed what he was saying, and I think he did.

[Evil Knevil]

I'm 25% towards seeing it

[Caligastia]

I hear MM ripped off the idea of having a couple of minutes of sounds recorded during 9/11 being played back with a blank screen from some other 9/11 documentary.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH

A few questions/comments:
Now that you've seen it, do you consider it money 'well spent'? It doesnt appear that you'd give it a thumbs-up.

Yes, for one I can now discuss it wihout waiting for third party hearsay. 2, the movie does have funny parts and emotional times, plus pictures from this war you don't see normally.

That are? (I believe I know what you are refering to but wish to refresh my memory as to your opinion).

That this is a war of choice, not need. Making it seem like a war of need, the accrimony with allies, the incomplete post-war planning, all of that has made the rgion less stable and more dangerous than it might be otherwise. In terms of final outomces, succedding in Iraq is best possible outcome, not having done anything comes second, failing comes far third-and would make our problems far worse. And the poor handling of this by the admin. makes the worse possible outcome sadly too likely.

Thats not true if Bush sincerely believed what he was saying, and I think he did.

Bush is not the same as the amdin. His reasons might not be Rummy's, Dick's or Wolfie's, and they are as resp[onsible for this war as Dubya.