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.
(What's up with the links being inserted e.g. "remote" ?
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.
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
That only includes what is under FCC control and not cable or a DVD release.
Right wing radio stations....left wing film makers....what you lose on the swings, you make up on the roundabouts.
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?
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.
<points to the above>
Unsupported assertions do not a strong argument make....
Cycloptichorn
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.
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
Um where are the links to the opinion you just expresed Cyclop?
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.
Michael Moore writes scripts by wiping his ass. And he can kiss mine.
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.
Thank you. I'm here all week.
I think he intends on rubbing your face in it. Such erudite criticism -- haven't read anything like it since high school.
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"
Where are there any such edits? We've just had someone compare Bush to feces -- not it's really getting a bit wild.
