If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[Truth]

Originally posted by shortbun
One of the things I'd like to know more about is the attempted
blockage of the Electoral College by the Black Caucus in the last presidential election that not one Senator signed off on.
just information. Thanks.

There are several thoughts on this and they basically come down to these.

1. Gore had not ruled out a run again in 2004 yet and to allow a dispute at that point would have made his chances more difficult.

2. Gore had already at that point accepted the decision of the USSC and had said so in an announcement, so why go stand up against something Gore had already conceded on.

3. Had a Senator signed on with the Black Caucus and sent it to the house, there was not a lot of hope that the House would not have voted in bush anyway.

4. Had it goone to the house it would have appeared to give bush more credibility.

Personally it would have been nice to make everyone go record with where they stood and there was a "chance" if it went to the house. There was no chance the way it was done.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Truth
There are several thoughts on this and they basically come down to these.

1. Gore had not ruled out a run again in 2004 yet and to allow a dispute at that point would have made his chances more difficult.

2. Gore had already at that point accepted the decision of the USSC and had said so in an announcement, so why go stand up against something Gore had already conceded on.

3. Had a Senator signed on with the Black Caucus and sent it to the house, there was not a lot of hope that the House would not have voted in bush anyway.

4. Had it goone to the house it would have appeared to give bush more credibility.

Personally it would have been nice to make everyone go record with where they stood and there was a "chance" if it went to the house. There was no chance the way it was done.

The "way it was done" was in accordance with the terms of our Constitution. Would you have wanted it done some other way?

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by Nancy
I had no intentions of seeing this film, but after reading so much about it here I might have to. Just to see what everyone is talking about. I really hate the thought of giving my hard earned money to support MM's propaganda....but I also know that I can't review a movie I haven't seen.

Glad to see you are interested enough to see it.
If it helps Mike is going to contribute some of the money from F9/11 to the Vets and their families, can you think that your money went to them ?
It will be out on Video and DVD by sept. if renting it being cheaper than the early show helps.
Last if you go to a show where people are waiting outside, announce you are a conservative but willing to see the movie but don't want to pay you are likely to find someone there that will pay your way without your even asking.

 

[Patch'sD]

Why would I want to see a movie by a person who thinks all americans are stupid. I wonder why he just didn't state that if Al Gore was President he would have invented a Anti Aircraft missle and fired it at the planes. Moore has openly stated his hatred for Bush, Why would he give him any fair treatment. Moores(tupid) movie is based on his creative editing, look what he did with Charlton Heston. Having give a speach at a place he never was at. It's all a sham. the movie is released to get maximum attention before the election to move voters to Kerry. Moore and Howard Stern should be making whistle stop treks across america campaigning for Mr. Kerry.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I really hate the thought of giving my hard earned money to support MM's propaganda

That's precisely the reason I won't go see the film.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Truth
Glad to see you are interested enough to see it.
If it helps Mike is going to contribute some of the money from F9/11 to the Vets and their families, can you think that your money went to them ?

Why not give ALL the money from F9/11 to the Vets and their families?

 

[shortbun]

I've seen Moore discredit Kerry several times on TV. I think
he's more AGAINST Bush than he is FOR Kerry. jmho

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Why not give ALL the money from F9/11 to the Vets and their families?

What are you talking about? This is America!

It's all about the dollar!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Why not give ALL the money from F9/11 to the Vets and their families?

Because he doesn't give a damn about the troops and their families, except for when he wants to use them for his film.

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by bsnyder
The "way it was done" was in accordance with the terms of our Constitution. Would you have wanted it done some other way?

To side wtep whatever you meant by

" The "way it was done" was in accordance with the terms of our Constitution."

and simply answer
"Would you have wanted it done some other way?

Yes, counting all the votes. While not having much to do with who the People of America want to be President it many times seems to represent the majority of people that still think voting has something to do with who gets elected.

Or are you not aware of the long history of election rigging in America.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Because he doesn't give a damn about the troops and their families, except for when he wants to use them for his film.

I think you forgot to add that this statement was your honest
opinion and not that of Michael Moore. g'night!

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
Why would I want to see a movie by a person who thinks all americans are stupid.

You are of course welcome to post anything you wish anywhere you wish but replys here from Truth are usually for those that have seen the movie or show a willingness to see it.

Should you care to start a tread about what you think anyone hates is your choice, Truth has no use for such negative people or view points.
Your welcome to your opinion, always glad to see examples of free speech anywhere.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Yes, counting all the votes.

All of the valid votes were counted. The only ones that weren't counted were those cast by supposed adults that couldn't follow directions geared towards a second grade level.

As with all other rights, the right to vote comes with the responsibility to educate oneself on how to cast that vote correctly so that it will be counted. Those that don't follow through with that responsibility should not be surprised or angry when their invalid votes are excluded from the count.

Florida law in 2000 did not have provisions for an automatic hand recount except in a very close (I believe less than 1%) race. I would bet that the vast majority of the people whose "votes" weren't counted in 2000 had NEVER had a vote counted because they had probably NEVER followed the directions on how to cast a valid ballot. It just showed up this time because the race was so close.

1) Vote for only one candidate in each race.
2) Punch the hole all the way through the ballot.
3) Make sure there are no pieces of the ballot hanging off the back.

It's not rocket science.

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Truth
To side wtep whatever you meant by

" The "way it was done" was in accordance with the terms of our Constitution."

and simply answer
"Would you have wanted it done some other way?

Yes, counting all the votes. While not having much to do with who the People of America want to be President it many times seems to represent the majority of people that still think voting has something to do with who gets elected.

Or are you not aware of the long history of election rigging in America.

I thought when you made this statement:

Personally it would have been nice to make everyone go record with where they stood and there was a "chance" if it went to the house. There was no chance the way it was done.

that you were referring to the procedures in Congress for accepting the Electors, which are governed very precisely by the Constitution. If an objection is raised, it has to have a Congessman ANd a senator raise the objection, otherwise, it's dismissed.

Where does the "count every vote" thing come in?

 

[Patch'sD]

Based on the Constitution is how you run the race. If it was based upon popular vote, you would campaign in every state. Since it is based upon Electoral College. You pick and choose the states that can be won. If 51% or 100% of Californians vote one way the same amount of Electoral Votes are gained. Don't you think Bush would have gotten more votes if he ran harder in New York and California. But since these were buzzer locks for Gore, he didn't bother. Get off the popular vote pulpit, read the constitution and figure out how the election is held.

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by Rutt and Tuke
I think one major conclusion that he tried to get across were that Iraq was due to an almost personal vendetta of Bush's and 9/11 was used as an excuse to carry it out.... hardly a new idea. Another would be that the public was mislead repeatedly, whether about WMD or our reasons for attacking Iraq.

Thanks Rutt and Tuke,

there is such a wide rande of thinking about this film it is hard to tell what people think are common themes.

The vendetta part did not come thru for Truth and it was diappointing that Mike did not make as sharp a point about the PNAC as Dave Letterman did last night on his TV show.

Glad to see the WMD part made it to you although
it also seemed to be hurt by Mike's obcession with making the Saudi connection clear.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Rutt and Tuke
AFR:

The one that comes to mind are the ties between the Bush's and the Saudis and the bin Ladens, etc. that, according the Moore's presentation, pre-existed 9/11. Another thing is George H.W.'s serving on boards (I can't recall if he was specifically with the Carlyle Group or not) and how that might have the potential for conflict of interest.

I think these aren't investigated by the mainstream press because there's not much to them.

What would the objection be to ties to the bin Laden's, with the exception of Osama? None of the other bin Ladens have been shown to be terrorists, have they? Asking that sincerely, I honestly don't recall. Particularly ties before the Gulf War and before Osama broke off and began his terrorism career. So I'm not sure what point that makes to tie Bush to the bin Laden family.

The Carlyle Group--the bin Ladens once invested and Bush's father was an advisor or on the board or something like that? I didn't see the film so I'm not sure what was said. Something about the Carlyle Group benefitting financially from 9/11. In reality, the Carlyle Group was one of the only contractors with the system it developed canceled by the Bush administration.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Truth
You are of course welcome to post anything you wish anywhere you wish but replys here from Truth are usually for those that have seen the movie or show a willingness to see it.

Should you care to start a tread about what you think anyone hates is your choice, Truth has no use for such negative people or view points.
Your welcome to your opinion, always glad to see examples of free speech anywhere.

Hey, Truth? Were you that guy on that Seinfeld episode? Jimmy?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Hey, Truth? Were you that guy on that Seinfeld episode? Jimmy?

"Jimmy's gettin' mad!! DON'T TOUCH JIMMY!!"

 

[Truth]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I thought when you made this statement:

that you were referring to the procedures in Congress for accepting the Electors, which are governed very precisely by the Constitution. If an objection is raised, it has to have a Congessman ANd a senator raise the objection, otherwise, it's dismissed.

Where does the "count every vote" thing come in?

Corrct the statement is to convey the personal opinion that rather than the senators doing the " Pragmatic option" the preference for Truth would have been for a senator to have signed on with the CBC and make the house go on record with what was assumed to be a for gone conclusion that the House would have voted bush in after all.

There is more to this but it was thought that this would answer the basic question about why no Senator came forward to sign on with the CBC.