1
   

Equal time and Fahrenheit 9/11

 
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:08 am
Fox: "If Bush and/or the GOP put out their own information to counter the mistruths in the movie, will that be considered political advertisement subject to campaign finance laws? "

Bush doesn't need to. He already had FOX "News" doing it for him all day, every day.

Doesn't feel right when it's coming from "the other side", does it!

Will those of you who object to this Moore creation actually go to see it ?

And will you allow for the possibility, however remote you feel it may be, that there is atually some truth to what he presents ?

Because, as I see it, if any of what he is supposedly saying is true, then we ALL, as Americans, need to take a careful look at what's really going on.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:09 am
(What's up with the links being inserted e.g. "remote" ?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 11:33 am
Those are links to the A2K shop in an effort to at least pay a portion of the cost to operate it.

So Moore may influence the election -- maybe like "Wag the Dog" and "Primary Colors?" Get real.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:03 pm
Excerpted:
Quote:
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC''s agenda for today''s meeting, the agency''s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.


Whole article from "The Hill"
http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:16 pm
That only includes what is under FCC control and not cable or a DVD release.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:37 pm
Right wing radio stations....left wing film makers....what you lose on the swings, you make up on the roundabouts.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 12:46 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
You can put any 'documentary' Moore has had anything to do with against any more objective source, and the distortions and misrepresentations are glaring. Bowling for Columbine was maybe the worst he has ever done. Nevertheless, there are those who want to believe the garbage he spews out and will carefully avoid comparing it to any alternate information.


And what part of that movie was "garbage"? The part where K-Mart decided to stop selling guns and ammo to any yahoo who happened? I think you may be overlooking the forest, while you are staring at a couple trees with that assessment. Maybe he bends the truth towards his viewpoint, but how is that different than politicians using every possible marketing and public relations trick in the book to make themselves look better?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:02 pm
I don't have time to go through all the commentary that's out there Kicky and I doubt you are inclined to do that either. But I have made the comparisons side by side. In my opinion, Moore comes up seriously lacking in accuracy or objectivity even when all the artistic and/or editorial license in the world is included.

In don't expect F9-11 to be any different.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:03 pm
<points to the above>

Unsupported assertions do not a strong argument make....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 01:50 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
<points to the above>

Unsupported assertions do not a strong argument make....

Cycloptichorn


The assertions do not need to be repaeted ad nauseum. They have been stated, restated, over-stated and thoroughly stated here on A2K.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:03 pm
Actually, they DO need to be repeated. I could make any sort of claim at all, and always respond with 'it's in the A2K archives, look it up yourself.' But the burden of proof is on the person constructing the argument, not the person reading it.

If you don't feel that way, fine. But your arguments will continue to be weak. I'm sure your response will be, 'I could care less how strong you think my arguments are,' but that's a cop-out.

Some posters on here always link to their sources, and take the time to construct valid and logically sound arguments with supporting evidence. Some do not. Those who do not are supporting weak arguments. This is fine with me; but it certainly doesn't lend credibility to anyone's position.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:12 pm
Um where are the links to the opinion you just expresed Cyclop?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 02:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Um where are the links to the opinion you just expresed Cyclop?

Well, you could start here.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:25 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Excerpted:
Quote:
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC''s agenda for today''s meeting, the agency''s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.


Whole article from "The Hill"
http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx


Since cjhsa has made it clear that the film in question is not a documentary, this opinion is entirely irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:52 pm
Michael Moore writes scripts by wiping his ass. And he can kiss mine.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 03:54 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Michael Moore writes scripts by wiping his ass. And he can kiss mine.


I disagree, but I love the way you said that. Blunt, and to the point. Gotta love it.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 04:02 pm
Thank you. I'm here all week.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 04:27 pm
I think he intends on rubbing your face in it. Such erudite criticism -- haven't read anything like it since high school.
0 Replies
 
tony2481
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 04:39 pm
I think it is funny that Michael Moore cuts and pastes statements to say something totally different than what was said. If I was to say on tape:
"I like dogs, and I hate the way some mistreat them."

You could cut the tape up and edit it so that I then say

"I hate dogs, and i mistreat them"

They are still my words, just "in a different light"
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jun, 2004 05:46 pm
Where are there any such edits? We've just had someone compare Bush to feces -- not it's really getting a bit wild.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2022 at 07:18:25