Fahrenheit 9/11

[DiznieB]

We just got back from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 ... all I can say is WOW. What an impact. I cried so many times throughout that documentrary that my throat started to hurt.

Has anyone else seen it?

[karaokeguy]

I haven't seen it yet. I hope to make it in the next couple weeks. Everything I've read sounds like it's really good. Plus, I generally love Michael Moore's work. I've been watching his stuff since "Roger & Me"

[Humdinger]

I have heard it will totally change your mind on who to vote for. Did it change your mind Diz?

[karaokeguy]

I'm doubtful it'll change my mind....since I haven't decided yet...

[DiznieB]

I don't vote. However IF I did - yes - it WOULD have changed my mind. It most definately changed my opinion on some things. It is VERY powerful.

[Michele]

Hmmm let's see. An opportunist who takes every chance he can to prey on the agony, suffering and exploitation of others. Ummm....no I won't be watching (and GOD NO will I be giving any money to) this man. He is biased and most of his "findings" are questionable at best. To read the other side of the story I suggest going to http://www.mooreexposed.com/. He IS that which he condemns.

[GracieMae]

I wouldn't walk across the street to see it!

[Mabel]

I have heard it will totally change your mind on who to vote for. Did it change your mind Diz?

See, THIS scares me. That people would go see a MOVIE that Michael Moore admittedly took creative license with, that he admits is HIS feelings and thoughts, and use it to base their vote for President of the USA. Please please PLEASE if you do plan on voting, do NOT use this movie as your guide, do true research on the facts.

[Echo2]

What scares me is that supposedly educated people will avoid seeing the film simply on the word of a politicised (sp) media review.

A couple people previously in this thread have already determined that this movie is biased without even seeing it themselves.

A closed mind shows the mentality of it's owner.

Michelle - "Hmmm let's see. An opportunist who takes every chance he can to prey on the agony, suffering and exploitation of others." - So you have been watching george bush and sized him up properly. Kudo's.

[GracieMae]

Echo, I am not a fan of Michael Moore so it makes sense that I have no desire to see this film.

[kingclick]

Echo,
Mike Moore has been suspect since before he even started filming this movie. Therefore on his REPUTATION some people have decided not to see the movie.

It wont effect my vote if I see this movie or not. However I may choose to see the movie just because it is a topical spectacle.

But should anyone be shamed into seeing this movie by false accusations of closed mindedness? I would hope not.

[GracieMae]

Echo,
Mike Moore has been suspect since before he even started filming this movie. Therefore on his REPUTATION some people have decided not to see the movie.

It wont effect my vote if I see this movie or not. However I may choose to see the movie just because it is a topical spectacle.

But should anyone be shamed into seeing this movie by false accusations of closed mindedness? I would hope not.

I agree 100%! I still won't be seing the film however.

Hey KL, mark this date on your calander :D

[Echo2]

This movie wont effect my vote and I have no intention of seeing it either. But not because of the political upheaval. I want see it because I'm too cheap to pay $9.00 to see a movie I can wait six months and see on vidio for 99 cents. I only see movies in theaters if they have lots of special effects and would loose the vision impact on the small screen.

I have no problem with people not wanting to see a movie becaue they don't like the producer of actors or even the storyline. But to see something on the grounds of what some politically motivated reviewer says is silly. I tend to ignore movie reviewers as a whole because my tastes are eclectic. And I would definately ignore a reviewer who I thought had an alterior motive.

Does that explain better what I was trying to say?

[kingclick]

Does that explain better what I was trying to say?
Yes. But I do wish to point out something I found funny.


And I would definately ignore a reviewer who I thought had an alterior motive.

Change the word "reviewer" to the term "documentary maker".

And a bunch of people feel that way about Mike Moore.

[Echo2]

All films are the interpretation of a story by the producer. They all have an alterior motive - that is to tell the story the way they see it.

My take on this film is that obviously Michael Moore has a political agenda. He is one of the millions that feel very strongly that this administration is dangerous. But he is not going to change anyones mind with this film. I believe that 95% of the American public has decided that bush is either a lieing, incompetant baffoon or he is gods gift to America and they will vote accordingly no matter what. It is the 5% undecided that it may have an impact on, but I doubt it. Americans are not as stupid as the politicians and media would like to think we are.

[Michele]

What scares me is that supposedly educated people will avoid seeing the film simply on the word of a politicised (sp) media review.

A couple people previously in this thread have already determined that this movie is biased without even seeing it themselves.

A closed mind shows the mentality of it's owner.

Michelle - "Hmmm let's see. An opportunist who takes every chance he can to prey on the agony, suffering and exploitation of others." - So you have been watching george bush and sized him up properly. Kudo's.

I base my opinion on research and reputation. Both of which I have done on Michael (I hope more people die so I can make a buck) Moore. Because of the research I know that his attempt at a VERY ONE sided documentary is very biased. Now if he could produce a true unbiased documentary that didn't focus on exploiting the tragedies of people, and focused less on creative and bogus editing I'd think about it.

Again, he IS that which he condemns.

[DiznieB]

All films are the interpretation of a story by the producer. They all have an alterior motive - that is to tell the story the way they see it.

My take on this film is that obviously Michael Moore has a political agenda. He is one of the millions that feel very strongly that this administration is dangerous. But he is not going to change anyones mind with this film. I believe that 95% of the American public has decided that bush is either a lieing, incompetant baffoon or he is gods gift to America and they will vote accordingly no matter what. It is the 5% undecided that it may have an impact on, but I doubt it. Americans are not as stupid as the politicians and media would like to think we are.

I disagree.

You have to see this movie to understand it's impact. When people walked out of the theater, most were talking about the movie and the election. I heard NUMEROUS times that THEIR opinion has changed. That the movie HAS opened their eyes to see Bush for what he really is. That the movie will definately impact their decision. Only ONCE and only ONCE did I hear ONE person say (and yell) IT'S ALL PROPAGANDA!!!! Everyone else was stunned. Talking about it. Some were crying. I had never seen anything like this. Not just the movie but the effect it had on people. The people's faces as they walked out of the theater (as we waited in line to go in) and the ones we walked out with ... it's going to be a heck of a lot more then 5%.

As I said before. I don't vote. Up until this movie I have always said I like Bush. If I was a voter I would have voted for Bush and still wanted to vote for Bush UNTIL I saw this movie. I would not consider myself to be UNDECIDED and this movie HAS changed my view.

[GracieMae]

But Diz, with all due respect MM views do not constitute the truth, they are his jaded opinions. I have not nor will I see this film but I do know his opinions are not my opinions.

I'd take this film with a grain of salt in all seriousness.

[DiznieB]

But Diz, with all due respect MM views do not constitute the truth, they are his jaded opinions. I have not nor will I see this film but I do know his opinions are not my opinions.

I'd take this film with a grain of salt in all seriousness.

I went into this film wanting to keep an open mind. I went into this film saying that it is JUST HIS OPINIONS. For years I have silently supported Bush. This film ... wow.

This is why I remain neutral and do not even vote.

What really IS the truth?

[GracieMae]

While I realize Mr. Bush is far from perfect is someone as biased as Michael Moore going to be objective where he's concerned?

I'd love to know the truth but I don't believe it is to be found in the words of MM.

[Echo2]

While I realize Mr. Bush is far from perfect is someone as biased as Michael Moore going to be objective where he's concerned?

I'd love to know the truth but I don't believe it is to be found in the words of MM.

Because you believe that his views are biased. But half the country believes he is pretty close to the mark in his assessment of bush.

I find it hard to understand how reasonably intellegent people can look at all the lies, deception, back pedeling and corruption in this administration and deny that it is happening. The same people that wanted to impeach Clinton for boinking an aid don't seam to care that the American public and the Senate were lied to, that our foriegn relations is in the potty, that our jobs are being shipped oversees, our economy is in worse shape, and that we are sending our sons and daughters to die in a war that has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do wiith terrorism and everything to do with one mans personal agenda. And don't forget, while we have been busy chasing sadamn and screwing around in Iraq, the real war on terrorism is being denied the money and troops that we could have used to get bin ladan and his ilk.

[kingclick]

And I find it hard to understand how reasonably intellegent people can ignore all of the lies and deciet that Michael Moore pedals as truth.

Bush is a Moron.
Kerry is a Moron.

People are gonna choose the least ugly moron to them or neither of the two or none at all.

To vote for ANY candidate you have to IGNORE things about them. No one candidate is perfect. So based on individual priorities, people choose what to ignore and what to care about.

[Echo2]

[QUOTE=kinglozer]And I find it hard to understand how reasonably intellegent people can ignore all of the lies and deciet that Michael Moore pedals as truth.QUOTE]

I haven't seen the movie and have no idea what MM is saying (except I'm sure it is unfavorable to bush). So I don't know weather I believe it or not.

I do know the country is worse off than it was four years ago. Less jobs, worse economy, attacking and overthrowing a soverign nation that did not attack us, ignoring the real threat (terrorism), lieing to us about why we went to war, lieing to the sanate about getting money for this war, authorizing torture of prisoners under "special circumstances", curtailing our cival rights, giving special government contracts to friends and business connections. And the best part is this guy says god talks to him. Now, I know a lot of normal, grounded people who talk to god, but no normal grounded people who god actually talks back to. Religious fanatacism is not just for muslims. We have it here and it is in the white house.

[Mabel]

Diz, that is what I'm talking about. The man has admitted that he took creative license with this film. And yet people will walk out of the theatre thinking Bush is a monster, and it WILL affect their votes. Why don't we just do this for each election - some movie maker can make a film showing the candidate they are against as a big bad monster, and America will take it as truth.

I am NOT saying Bush is perfect. I'm not even saying I agree with him at all! That isn't the point. If people want to take this movie, and then research the points themselves and discover what's true and what isn't - that's cool. And smart! I have no problems with people using the film as a starting point. But to take it at face value is wrong.

[Echo2]

To take anything political on face value is wrong.

[Mabel]

The same people that wanted to impeach Clinton for boinking an aid don't seam to care that the American public and the Senate were lied to, that our foriegn relations is in the potty, that our jobs are being shipped oversees, our economy is in worse shape, and that we are sending our sons and daughters to die in a war that has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do wiith terrorism and everything to do with one mans personal agenda.
Actually the people who wanted to impeach Clinton wanted him out because of the same reasons - lies.

[Echo2]

I don't know of one single person who can say they never lied about their sex life. And I don't care who you are, your sex life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS! I could care less if bush boinked every person working for him. I do care if he sends my children off to war to die for a lie.

That is what is so silly about this whole thing. One man lies about who he boinks and everyome wants to impeach him. Another man lies about why we go to war and where the money for the war is coming from and everyone thinks it's just fine. Nothing wrong with it. He even tried to keep us from viewing the coffins of the dead soldiers coming home.

Too much secrecy and deception. It is wrong and I would vote against any candidate, republican or democrate that was that secretive and deceptive. (I have voted Rep in 4 of the last 8 elections)

[Mabel]

You like the word boink, don't you ;) LOL!

[Echo2]

Well, I didn't want to be crude. LOL

[kingclick]

I don't know of one single person who can say they never lied about their sex life. And I don't care who you are, your sex life is NONE OF MY BUSINESS! I could care less if bush boinked every person working for him.
I've never lied to anyone about my sex life. Now you know a person. However I haven't had anything worth lying about either. So go figure. I guess if I had low enough morals/values to cheat on my spouse, I would have low enough morals/values to lie about it. And then I guess my whole moral/value system could then be taken into question as well. Now IF it was just conjecture that I had cheated on my wife and never proven, then I may be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Echo2]

So when you were a teen you never let your friends believe that you were more experienced than you really were? Lieing about ones sex life is not limited to doing something wrong.

[Mabel]

It wasn't about WHAT he lied about. It was about the fact he lied while under oath. Could have been about anything.

[kingclick]

Lie about my "level of experience"?

Of course not. Why would I?

[Echo2]

It is a fairly prevalant male teenage thing to be deceptive about ones level of experience in the sexual area.

[GracieMae]

It wasn't about WHAT he lied about. It was about the fact he lied while under oath. Could have been about anything.

Exactally!

IMO a teenager lying about the ammount of sexual activity they have had and the leader of a country lying about being blown are two different things. Yes, both are lies but that teenager isn't under oath.

[Echo2]

So lieing to congress about a BJ isn't as bad as lieing to congress about a war? Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't think the BJ lie cost anyone their life.

And as far as I'm concerned, congress shouldn't have been asking him that question in the first place. IT'S NOBOBY's BUSINESS - accept maybe Hilary's.

[GracieMae]

Who know for sure what Bush has lied about? There is a lot of speculation but what are the facts?

We have the facts about what Clinton lied about and IMO it's way old news.

[Mabel]

Apples and oranges. You can't decide one lie is okay, and one lie is not. A president - no, ANYONE - under oath is REQUIRED to tell the truth. I'm not comparing Bush to Clinton. I'm trying to show you why one would find Clinton's lie impeach worthy.

[Echo2]

911 commision, hand picked by the shrub himself..... "find no apparant connection between al Quida and Iraq". But most people knew it before that came out. He rushed to war, couldn't even wait three months for the inspectors to finish or the rest of the world to come on board. He was in such a hurry to avenge his father and look tough. Three months..... could have saved hundreds of American lifes.

[GracieMae]

That's my question Mabs. Can anyone prove Brush lied? We have proof Clinton did.

[GracieMae]

Who are you refering to when you say shrub?

Ok, so I know. I just feel the president of our country deserves the respect of at least having his name used. I'd like to point out Clinton is no longer president before that arguement is used.

[Echo2]

He is NOT the elected president of the US. He is a faux president appointed by a branch of the government which by the way was partially appointed by his father. He will go down in history as being the only president to sit in the white house who was NOT either duly elected or inhereted the office through succesion (Other than George Washington).

He cheated his way into office. And if Gore had won the election in the same way george did, I doubt you would feel that Gore was freely and duly elected.

Just another example of "do it quickly, before they find out the truth". He couldn't wait for a recount because he was afraid he'd loose. Just as he wouldn't wait to go to war because he knew there were no WMD's.

There is just such an overwhelming amount of inappropriate decision making and secrecy and back room deals. Reagon is probubly rolling over in his grave at what this man has done to ther republican party. He is a disgrace.

[GracieMae]

As I recall the ballots were recounted. How could Bush have faked that?

What about the temper tantrum Gore had? Is that the kind of behaviour you would expect from someone who is compitent to run a country???

[Mabel]

I highly doubt that Bush had the final say in whether to continue the recount or not LOL. He'd have just as much say as Gore at that time.

[GracieMae]

Exactally. How much time was supposed to be devoted to recounting votes over and over again?

[Echo2]

I don't remember a temper tantrum. Please show me some pics or news items from a reputable paper that can prove that statement. I remember half the country being angry and insenced at the whole thing. It was a travesty. This from a country that pretends to export democracy. We have been a laughing stock to the world community since the day he took office.

They asked for 48 hours to re-count the vote and were not given it. Interesting that this would happen in the one state his brother is governer of. Interesting that the branch of government that made the decision was partially appointed by his father.

Just too many back room deals and secret alliances.

But heck, I am not going to change your mind about the guy, and you aren't foing to change my mind. So the whole debate is kind of pointless.

A lot of people didn't think Nixon was a crook either.

[Humdinger]

He is NOT the elected president of the US. He is a faux president appointed by a branch of the government which by the way was partially appointed by his father. He will go down in history as being the only president to sit in the white house who was NOT either duly elected or inhereted the office through succesion (Other than George Washington).

Are you fucking nuts? Are you a conspiriasy thinker? Last time I checked he WAS THE ELECTED president, just because the election didn't turn out the way you wanted it to doesn't mean it isn't valid. Get over yourself and exercise your right to vote this november, but I'm sure there will be some conspirasy then as well.

[Mabel]

Just too many back room deals and secret alliances.

But heck, I am not going to change your mind about the guy, and you aren't foing to change my mind. So the whole debate is kind of pointless.

A lot of people didn't think Nixon was a crook either.

FTR there were "back room deals" and "secret alliances" with every presidency. we have no CLUE what goes on behind the scenes, but read some of the presidents' biographies, and you'll see that there wasn't a single "innocent" one.
And I am not TRYING to change your mind, nor do you need to change mine, as I'm debating the whole situation, I'm not debating bush vs. clinton, or bush vs. anyone. In fact, I've never verbalized here how I even personally FEEL about bush. I've purposely argued in more of a devil's advocate way. For all you know, I can't stand the guy. But that isn't the point - the point is that Clinton lied, and you can't just excuse his away, and make Bush's supposed lie more "bad". A lie is a lie is a lie. If you can't trust Bush because of his "lies", how can you trust Clinton, who felt there was nothing wrong with lying while under oath? Who knows what else Clinton would feel a-okay lying about!

[Humdinger]

If you can't trust Bush because of his "lies", how can you trust Clinton, who felt there was nothing wrong with lying while under oath?

And for that matter, are you telling me Gore didn't know what was going on? Yeah go peddle those lies to someoen who gives a shit.

[Echo2]

I didn't vote for clinton, either time. I didn't like him and I'm not excusing his actions. I was merely stateing that a lie about ones sex life doesn't even come close to a lie that costs over 800 American lifes so far.

Yes, all politicians make back room deals. I worked for a congresswoman for 11 years. I know they are very crooked. But not all politicians do it so often, to so many. This guy can't turn around without telling a lie and it seems his cabinet is just as bad. He started out on the wrong side of right with the phoney election and he hasn't stopped to take a breath in 3 1/2 years.

I can't stand Gore (He's a weany in my oppinion). But I didn't like the way Bush weazeled his way into office and I don't like what he has done to our country since he got there.

[Mabel]

And I just plain don't see how Bush can be blamed for how he got into office. He had NO control over that. He had just as much control as Gore, until they officially made president elect.

[Humdinger]

I agree and if anything wouldn't Gore have more power then Bush since he WAS the VP?

[Def.I.Nition]

Okay I saw it!

There was about 150 people to see the 5:10pm showing on a Monday, that's just wild. The line for the 7:40pm showing was even longer, definitely a sell out. At the end of the movie the film recieved an ovation from the audience!

Let me say that it was brilliant! The best Michael Moore film yet. It deserves an Oscar. No wonder it won the Palm d'Or at Cannes.

Anyway, I think this film has the capacity to open a few eyes. It opened mine. I knew of the bin Laden/Saudi/Bush connection, but this put no doubt in my mind about the connection. I doubt there are many innacuracies in the film.

There is one point where Moore is interviewing Lila Lipscomb who lost her son in Iraq. She talks to a woman who has been protesting at the whitehouse for some 20 someodd years. The fact that the woman has been protesting that long is not pointed out in the film. But it is an important fact because a woman runs onto the scene declaring it a faked scene and "all set up." Well, I know the scene wasn't faked because the woman that Lila Lipscomb is telling her story to is a woman I met and videotaped while on my vacation to DC last November.

[mle30]

Even if you don't believe in the candidates, you should go out and fricken' vote!!! Holy cripes, how can people say it's a matter of respect for the country to not refer to G.W. Bush as Shrubya, but... what?... taking a dump all over the fundamental democratic principal of VOTING is A-OK?

Listen - if you want to be a voice against corruption, write something in! Vote for George Washington! Lincoln! Bush Sr! I don't care.

What's the use, you ask? Well, maybe it's my civic sensibilities, but what a piss-poor place would we be in if we all decided the broader responsibilities of citizenship could go F- themselves? Jury duty? Running for the board of Ed? PTA? Screw it.

Your little vote for Snoopy is too small a deal for the hassle of going to the ballot box? Sure, because the message you send by not voting does *so much more!* [sarcasm much?]. Anyone who chooses not to vote as their form of 'conscientious objection' to the corruption in politics is missing the point that their lack of voting IS NOT INTERPRETED OR ACTED UPON AS SUCH. All it does is lump you along with everyone else who didn't care enough to let their voice be heard. That means that they didn't care enough to NOT BE CONTROLLED! Isn't that more scary than any MOVIE???!!!!!!

Sweeping changes and reforms were never won by tidal apathy - they were won by people finding a way to say "no". But you have to make the effort to SAY it. And that means investing your time to put something on a ballot, for doG's sake.

[Mabel]

Even if you don't believe in the candidates, you should go out and fricken' vote!!! Holy cripes, how can people say it's a matter of respect for the country to not refer to G.W. Bush as Shrubya, but... what?... taking a dump all over the fundamental democratic principal of VOTING is A-OK?

Listen - if you want to be a voice against corruption, write something in! Vote for George Washington! Lincoln! Bush Sr! I don't care.

What's the use, you ask? Well, maybe it's my civic sensibilities, but what a piss-poor place would we be in if we all decided the broader responsibilities of citizenship could go F- themselves? Jury duty? Running for the board of Ed? PTA? Screw it.

Your little vote for Snoopy is too small a deal for the hassle of going to the ballot box? Sure, because the message you send by not voting does *so much more!* [sarcasm much?]. Anyone who chooses not to vote as their form of 'conscientious objection' to the corruption in politics is missing the point that their lack of voting IS NOT INTERPRETED OR ACTED UPON AS SUCH. All it does is lump you along with everyone else who didn't care enough to let their voice be heard. That means that they didn't care enough to NOT BE CONTROLLED! Isn't that more scary than any MOVIE???!!!!!!

Sweeping changes and reforms were never won by tidal apathy - they were won by people finding a way to say "no". But you have to make the effort to SAY it. And that means investing your time to put something on a ballot, for doG's sake.
I completely agree - minus the hostility LOL.

[mle30]

Ya gotta admit, there isn't a much more pertinent political topic than that of actually VOTING.

Not that the post could have been in any way deemed *hostile*...

:ivana:

[GracieMae]

DiznieB is a Jehovas Witenss. They don't vote because of their beliefs.

[Mabel]

I went into this film wanting to keep an open mind. I went into this film saying that it is JUST HIS OPINIONS. For years I have silently supported Bush. This film ... wow.

This is why I remain neutral and do not even vote.

What really IS the truth?

Ah, I didn't realize that Gracie. The quote above made it sound like she just would rather remain neutral, because she couldn't be sure who was the right person to vote for, as she never mentioned her religion as why she didn't vote.

However, it doesn't change my opinion. Obviously I wouldn't want anyone to go against their beliefs. But if the whole country went by those rules, we wouldn't have our freedoms any longer.

[mle30]

Mabel could have said practically the same exact thing for me. Here's what I found on JW and voting:

*********
Historically, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been forbidden to participate in politics. They interpret John 17:14 "because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world" to mean that God absolutely will not allow His followers to mix with "this world." They are to recognize Jehovah God only as their ruler, but not earthly governments. Participating in politics, and particularly voting, has been classified as a sin that makes one worthy of disfellowhipping. ( Pay Attention to Yourselves and All the Flock, 1977 p. 57-59.) A disfellowshipped Jehovah’s Witness is totally ostracized by his family and friends and considered as if he were dead.

*********

So... ammend my previous statements as to provide only enough for religious freedom, or if somehow your life was directly and imminently tied to the act of NOT voting. Those are the only freedoms I believe are more important than the founding democratic tennant of the US non-compulsory voting system.

[Humdinger]

Not to be cynical or anything, but ya'll know that "your" vote really doesn't count it is the electorial ones that do? And those that cast the electorial votes do NOT have to go with the majority of the states "regular" citizens votes right?

Please tell me you know this right?

[mle30]

Just like, if you look at the big picture, it's extraordinarily unlikely that anything I do will affect more than a handful of people, just for a brief time, and that in 100 years there won't be a trace of me left.

So why do it at all?

Because it matters. For that brief time I'm alive, before I'm brushed clean out of the stream of history, I'll have known I did the right thing by my fellow citizens. By my fellows, period.

After all, if you looked at everything from the big picture, wouldn't that be the only thing that got you out of bed in the morning?

[karaokeguy]

Ok, so I know. I just feel the president of our country deserves the respect of at least having his name used. I'd like to point out Clinton is no longer president before that arguement is used.

And did you feel the same way when Clinton WAS president? I seem to recall many on the right using the phrase "Slick Willy"...

[Mabel]

And did you feel the same way when Clinton WAS president? I seem to recall many on the right using the phrase "Slick Willy"...
I can promise you this - upon my honor, when a President is in office, I do NOT use negative nick names for them. Ever.

[GracieMae]

I can promise you this - upon my honor, when a President is in office, I do NOT use negative nick names for them. Ever.

Yup, as much as I disliked him, I refered to him as Mr. Clinton while he was in office.

[Beelzebub]

He spins but he makes some valid points. But it is better to seek the truth than declare it.

[kingclick]

Not to be cynical or anything, but ya'll know that "your" vote really doesn't count it is the electorial ones that do? And those that cast the electorial votes do NOT have to go with the majority of the states "regular" citizens votes right?

Please tell me you know this right?
Some states require that the electoral votes follow the popular votes. Therefore your vote does count. And yes in other states the electoral votes can contradict the popular votes, however that is a very very rare case.

[Echo2]

And yes in other states the electoral votes can contradict the popular votes, however that is a very very rare case.

Can you proove this statement? That it is rare for the electorial vote to contradict the popular vote? Also, what is your definition of "rare" percentage wise?

[kingclick]

While the state electors are "pledged" to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. In rare instances, an elector will defect and not vote for his or her party's candidate. Such "faithless" votes rarely change the outcome of the election and laws of some states prohibit electors from casting them.

From....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm

[kingclick]

There were seven instances of electoral faithlessness in the 13 presidential elections held between 1948 and 1996. Before 1948, there were only two instances, in 1796 and 1820.

[Echo2]

There were seven instances of electoral faithlessness in the 13 presidential elections held between 1948 and 1996. Before 1948, there were only two instances, in 1796 and 1820.

WOW! Do you know which states and which candidates where involved in these seven instances?

[Lady Thatcher]

When Braveheart came out, many folks were talking about how Mel Gibson was basing it off a true story, and that it was what happened to William Wallace. What's funny is that I went to see the movie with two guys, one of which was named Brad Bruce. Bruce is a decendent of the Bruces that are in the movie. When we walked out of the theather, Brad was furious. Livid. He wanted to track Mel Gibson down and beat the crap out of him. Bruce knew his ancestors to be noble, not back stabbers. Mel Gibson had taken a story, that was true, and fit it into a movie, off of his interpretations.

Every movie is this way. Even documentaries. A movie would have to be 8 hours long to even touch the ability to give both sides. You see a movie, and you see one interpretation of the truth. It's our responsibility to walk out of that movie and think "Okay, there is that side, now let me see what other sides are there?".

Michael Moore is no different. He is no different than anyone other person who makes a movie. I find it a rather bit ludicrious to peg him out as a sole survivor of wanting to make a buck by making a movie. Hell Mel Gibson just made a crap load off the death of your saviour. Talk about ironic.

Anyone who is walking in thinking they are seeing the movie to change their minds, is an idiot. Anyone who walks out thinking that the movie changed their minds, is an idiot. The person who walks in, takes what Moore has to say, and it prompts them to ask questions, well they're the geniuses.

I like Moore's movies because they do make me ask questions because they bring up points that I've never thought about before. Do I believe 100% what Moore has to say? Of course not, you would have to be an idiotic moron to do that. But I do find that if a person can walk in with an open mind, they are able to walk out with questions, and a prompting to find the answers. To me, that is what a movie should do.

I understand some folks refusal to see the movie because they do not wish to give MM money. That's called boycotting (Echo, look the word up please). Boycotting is a grand and wonderful thing, and I respect that in any person. However, when boycotting, make sure you are doing it on the basis that you don't want to give MM money, and not on the basis that you've already made up your minds that his movie is simply bullshit. Because the second you assume that it's just bullshit and that you'll get nothing out of it.. well that's when you cross over to being closed minded, and no one should be closed minded... it leads to ignorance. I would much rather know my "opponents" opinion, even if I think it's bullshit, than be ignorant of what they have to say. How can you fight against something you know nothing about?

[Michele]

When Braveheart came out, many folks were talking about how Mel Gibson was basing it off a true story, and that it was what happened to William Wallace. What's funny is that I went to see the movie with two guys, one of which was named Brad Bruce. Bruce is a decendent of the Bruces that are in the movie. When we walked out of the theather, Brad was furious. Livid. He wanted to track Mel Gibson down and beat the crap out of him. Bruce knew his ancestors to be noble, not back stabbers. Mel Gibson had taken a story, that was true, and fit it into a movie, off of his interpretations.

Every movie is this way. Even documentaries. A movie would have to be 8 hours long to even touch the ability to give both sides. You see a movie, and you see one interpretation of the truth. It's our responsibility to walk out of that movie and think "Okay, there is that side, now let me see what other sides are there?".

Michael Moore is no different. He is no different than anyone other person who makes a movie. I find it a rather bit ludicrious to peg him out as a sole survivor of wanting to make a buck by making a movie. Hell Mel Gibson just made a crap load off the death of your saviour. Talk about ironic.

Anyone who is walking in thinking they are seeing the movie to change their minds, is an idiot. Anyone who walks out thinking that the movie changed their minds, is an idiot. The person who walks in, takes what Moore has to say, and it prompts them to ask questions, well they're the geniuses.

I like Moore's movies because they do make me ask questions because they bring up points that I've never thought about before. Do I believe 100% what Moore has to say? Of course not, you would have to be an idiotic moron to do that. But I do find that if a person can walk in with an open mind, they are able to walk out with questions, and a prompting to find the answers. To me, that is what a movie should do.

I understand some folks refusal to see the movie because they do not wish to give MM money. That's called boycotting (Echo, look the word up please). Boycotting is a grand and wonderful thing, and I respect that in any person. However, when boycotting, make sure you are doing it on the basis that you don't want to give MM money, and not on the basis that you've already made up your minds that his movie is simply bullshit. Because the second you assume that it's just bullshit and that you'll get nothing out of it.. well that's when you cross over to being closed minded, and no one should be closed minded... it leads to ignorance. I would much rather know my "opponents" opinion, even if I think it's bullshit, than be ignorant of what they have to say. How can you fight against something you know nothing about?

Damn girl I've missed your posting! I completely disagree with everything you've said and haven't felt this "heated" since you "left." Thanks for the high blood pressure. ;)

You bring up some great points and I will address when my head isn't pounding.

[Lady Thatcher]

Damn girl I've missed your posting! I completely disagree with everything you've said and haven't felt this "heated" since you "left." Thanks for the high blood pressure. ;)

You bring up some great points and I will address when my head isn't pounding.

Well good, for a while there I thought I was going soft ;)

[karaokeguy]

I find a few things interesting about conservatives reaction to Moore's film....

Most of the "debunking" I've seen don't actually challenge the validity of the facts presented. They piss and moan about (rather minor) details, but not the facts themselves. Most of the "debunking" is made up of personal attacks against Moore. What comes to mind immediately are statement on a "debunking" website that attack Moore for the neighborhood he grew up in and that his kids attend private school. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

Another thing that comes to mind is that conservatives are up in arms about this movie and claim how horrible it is and theaters should be boycotted and wanting to use the FEC against theaters for showing a "political advertisement", and of course, the old "America haters" rhetoric. I don't seem to recall liberals making such an uproar when a number of these same conservatives accused Clinton of:

Working with drug smuggling
Killing Vince Foster because
A) he had an affair with Hillary
B) He knew too much about Whitewater
Killing political opponents
Rape

And more than I care to list. "The Clinton Chronicals" videos presented many of these.

[Michele]

Let's not forget that some Libbys are "up in arms" and "moaning and groaning" about MM's inaccuracy as well.

[Val]

I would happily view this film if there was a free showing in town, or if I could get in free. I simply don't care for Michael Moore personally and don't wish to put any money in his pocket.

[karaokeguy]

Let's not forget that some Libbys are "up in arms" and "moaning and groaning" about MM's inaccuracy as well.

There are canned pears complaining about the film? Actually, I know what you mean. I don't recall seeing any liberals complaining with anything near the bile and venom of a number of conservatives....