Michael Moore's Race-Baiting Debunked (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Here is a link to the most comprehensive debunking of Farenhiet 9/11 in existence.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Here is an excerpt from my recent research paper also debunking Moore's fiction-writing:

...Somehow in all of this, Michael Moore thinks the outrage of this story belongs with the one guy on the one channel who made the right call, at a time when it did not affect any voting. The conspiracy theory apparently contends that Ellis somehow psychically pressured the other networks into switching their projection to the correct conclusion well after the voting was done and that this somehow magically put Bush in office. The media dragged their feet in calling states for Bush (even ones that went for him immediately, by double digit leads) and called states for Gore when results were still within the margin of error. When the VNS numbers made it unavoidable to project Bush the winner around 2:00 a.m., the media called it for Bush. The only outrage here is that the media almost helped Gore steal the election.

And when Moore tries to race-bait the election into a scandal of color, he fails to provide any specifics, any evidence, facts, or anything but footage of angry, hysterical blacks standing before Al Gore playing the victim. The fact that not even one liberal Senator would support their collective rant should be a red flag about the credibility of the charges. Moore fails to inform us that there are far more poor white people in this country than poor blacks, or that voting irregularities tend to happen most in poor, under-funded districts regardless of the given district’s predominant color. He also fails to mention that Florida has a few routine electoral trouble spots, some black, some not. Palm Beach County, for instance, had the same glitches in 2000 that they later had in Florida’s gubernatorial race between Janet Reno and Jeb Bush. That wasn’t a conspiracy either.

Additionally, the various allegations of black disenfranchisement tended to hinge on the fact that felons were not allowed to vote, and that the vast majority of criminals in prison were black (actually, in 20 Florida counties, the purge lists were ignored entirely and all felons were allowed to vote illegally, further tightening the gap between the candidates illegitimately). Presumably, the argument would also have to contend that the predominance of blacks in prisons is also the fault of Republicans, but Caribbean blacks who come to this country (with the same race and same history of slavery) don’t have such large percentages of their population in prisons; they aren’t anywhere near as likely to get the death penalty as American blacks; they don’t perform abysmally in school; they do start small businesses and work hard to elevate themselves to a better position in life. What holds American blacks down is not race, or a history of slavery, or Republicans, or actually even economics. It is people like Michael Moore leading them down the path of professional victimhood for personal gain. Election 2000 was not a vast right wing conspiracy against blacks, but an issue of local funding and competent election management...

 

[Captain America]

Great post Aqua.

Hey, since you are in research mode, how about looking into the states that included the Gay Marriage referendums on the presidential ballots. I have heard this actually took place. Could it be true?

As well all know, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other and it has made many of us go hmmmmmmm.......

Since the rightwing branch of society, who usually oppose such a measure, typically vote republican, it's got some of us out here thinking that our fair and impartial elections have been somewhat manipulated. Much, in the same way, like many accuse Michael Moore of doing.

Let us know what you find out. Thanks and have a great weekend.

 

[aquapub]

Great post Aqua.

Hey, since you are in research mode, how about looking into the states that included the Gay Marriage referendums on the presidential ballots. I have heard this actually took place. Could it be true?

As well all know, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other and it has made many of us go hmmmmmmm.......

Since the rightwing branch of society, who usually oppose such a measure, typically vote republican, it's got some of us out here thinking that our fair and impartial elections have been somewhat manipulated. Much, in the same way, like many accuse Michael Moore of doing.

Let us know what you find out. Thanks and have a great weekend.

This post is incoherent. Please clarify.

 

[Mikkel]

This post is incoherent. Please clarify.

I believe what Captain America was referring to was the 2004 presidential election in which 11 states had proposed State Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (including my state, Ohio). All 11 states passed the amendment overwhelmingly. This, I believe, is one of Karl Rove's greatest triumphs as a campaign advisor. By putting these amendments on the ballots, they got their base to get out the vote for them, who would also vote for Bush in the process.

I'm not sure how C.A. is trying to compare this to the quoted text in the first post, but I believe he meant to point out how the voters were manipulated with this strategy. It was quite legal, but it was voter manipulation nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how 2004 compares to the upcoming midterm elections, since the amendments won't be on the ballot this time.

 

[Stinger]

I believe what Captain America was referring to was the 2004 presidential election in which 11 states had proposed State Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (including my state, Ohio). All 11 states passed the amendment overwhelmingly. This, I believe, is one of Karl Rove's greatest triumphs as a campaign advisor. By putting these amendments on the ballots, they got their base to get out the vote for them, who would also vote for Bush in the process.

Why on earth do to think there were all these people out there who were not going to vote but THEN they heard this amendment was on the ballot so they rushed down and voted? Why do you think there were a large numbers of people out there who thought that more important than who would be the next president?

I'm not sure how C.A. is trying to compare this to the quoted text in the first post, but I believe he meant to point out how the voters were manipulated with this strategy.

ROFL what an excuse, so all those people would voted for Bush were "manipulated" eh, but I guess all those who voted for Kerry of course were not "manipulate" by anything the Dems did.

That's about a lame as when the Dems after months of endless debates and press conferences and inteview when they lose say "Well we just didn't get our message out".

It was quite legal, but it was voter manipulation nonetheless.

And I guess it's not when Democrats get amendments or initiatives on ballots.

It will be interesting to see how 2004 compares to the upcoming midterm elections, since the amendments won't be on the ballot this time.

I bet not one Republican comes out to vote. I can see them sitting in thier homes

"Martha are we going to the polls to vote for Senator Higgenbottom, we like him so much"

"No Harry there isn't a gay marriage ban amendment on the ballot so we're not voting"

 

[aquapub]

I believe what Captain America was referring to was the 2004 presidential election in which 11 states had proposed State Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage (including my state, Ohio). All 11 states passed the amendment overwhelmingly. This, I believe, is one of Karl Rove's greatest triumphs as a campaign advisor. By putting these amendments on the ballots, they got their base to get out the vote for them, who would also vote for Bush in the process.

I'm not sure how C.A. is trying to compare this to the quoted text in the first post, but I believe he meant to point out how the voters were manipulated with this strategy. It was quite legal, but it was voter manipulation nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how 2004 compares to the upcoming midterm elections, since the amendments won't be on the ballot this time.

I remember polls on Fox, MSNBC and CNN during the campaign that year leaving me with my jaw hanging open because every one I saw showed people against gay marriage by 60-70%!

But what that tells me isn't that evangelicals put Bush in office. It tells me that mainstream America opposes gay marriage. Liberals released talking points shortly after the election explaining this loss as a triumph for bigotry. Every liberal I know tries to explain it away with that now. I think it's convenient that they have a sixth national butt kicking and have yet another way to avoid admitting that middle America doesn't agree with them.

Beyond all this, none of the gay marriage stuff has anything to do with the Left's self-serving race-baiting of the black community into a bunch of paranoid bigots.

 

[aquapub]

It will be interesting to see how 2004 compares to the upcoming midterm elections, since the amendments won't be on the ballot this time.

If that's how you are calculating it, you will probably get biased results. Gas prices, "scandals," and war are taking their toll on Republican support.

 

[Mikkel]

I've recieved a few responses to my post as if I had attacked someone, or something. This was not my intention... I was clarifying CA's argument (sort of), and was analyzing voter turnout in the 2004 election.

Stinger-

"ROFL what an excuse, so all those people would voted for Bush were "manipulated" eh, but I guess all those who voted for Kerry of course were not "manipulate" by anything the Dems did.

That's about a lame as when the Dems after months of endless debates and press conferences and inteview when they lose say "Well we just didn't get our message out"."

Don't assume that simply because I pointed out that it was manipulation of the electorate, I'm arguing that it was an invalid or illegal strategy. Nor would I contend that Democrats don't use similar tactics to their advantage. In fact, I hope they do find something as effective as the 2004 campaign to get out the vote. That's what campaigning is all about. I'm not taking sides in this one, I'm just trying to explain what happened. While you may have your little chuckle over the scenario where people are sitting at home because there isn't a gay marriage amendment on the ballot, it's important to remember that, at best, about half of the country doesn't vote for president. When something as personal as gay marriage comes to the table, it really can bring more voters to the polls. It doesn't take much to tip the scales.

Aquapub-
"But what that tells me isn't that evangelicals put Bush in office. It tells me that mainstream America opposes gay marriage. Liberals released talking points shortly after the election explaining this loss as a triumph for bigotry. Every liberal I know tries to explain it away with that now. I think it's convenient that they have a sixth national butt kicking and have yet another way to avoid admitting that middle America doesn't agree with them."


You're absolutely right... mainstream america is not ready for gay marriage. You heard it from a liberal's mouth. That doesn't mean I don't think they'll be ready in another 20 years, however. I am not trying to argue that this was a 'triumph for bigotry,' merely that it was a successful get out the vote campaign centered on the issue of gay marriage. However you do raise a good point when you say:

"If that's how you are calculating it, you will probably get biased results. Gas prices, "scandals," and war are taking their toll on Republican support."

I would suggest that the best way to measure whether my theory is correct, is not to measure how people vote, but to measure voter turnout in more conservative districts. If they are proportional to the voter turnout in liberal districts, compared to the overall voter turnout in the 2004 election, I would agree with you that any change in actual voting would be a result of your aforementioned issues. If the proportional turnout is smaller, however, I would contend that there was something drawing conservative voters to the polls, more than simply because of the fact 2004 was a presidential race.

Again, I'm not trying to argue that mainstream america is this or that, or that the democrats were robbed, or that Bush really shouldn't have won. This isn't an issue of partisanship, it's an issue of social science. There are enough conservatives and liberals in this country that if you got them all out to vote (considering our usual voter turnout), anyone could easily win any election. What I'm trying to explain is what gets them out to vote. If anyone has any better theories that don't simply rag on a candidate or bolster another and have reasonable evidence to support their theory, by all means share them. But before you say 'liberals are always arguing this or that', actually listen to what I'm saying, rather than listening to what you think I'm saying, simply because I'm liberal.

 

[Captain America]

Perhaps we should add to the ballots, the next presidential election, a referendum titled, "Should marijuana be decriminalized?"

That will bring the liberals, who typically vote democrat, (when they are not too stoned to vote :mrgreen: ,) out in droves.

Are you cool with that Aquapub?

 

[cnredd]

Perhaps we should add to the ballots, the next presidential election, a referendum titled, "Should marijuana be decriminalized?"

That will bring the liberals, who typically vote democrat, (when they are not too stoned to vote :mrgreen: ,) out in droves.

Are you cool with that Aquapub?

You think so?...

Look at what's been going on the country the last 5 years...

It's very clear the Liberals are not into marijuana...

They are into crack...:2wave:

 

[Mikkel]

Perhaps we should add to the ballots, the next presidential election, a referendum titled, "Should marijuana be decriminalized?"

That will bring the liberals, who typically vote democrat, (when they are not too stoned to vote :mrgreen: ,) out in droves.

Are you cool with that Aquapub?

That could just as easily backfire and bring out conservatives who adamantly oppose decriminalization to vote against such measures. A strategy that could also be just as risky, but potentially more successful, would be a measure to raise mandatory minimums for marijuana and other drug related crimes. This would definitely draw out a liberal crowd, while conservatives would likely not see it as 'a big deal' in comparison to decriminalization, and would therefore stay home. The risk in this, of course, would be- what if such a proposal were approved?

 

[Mikkel]

to briefly add on to my last post... It occurs to me that many battleground states are in the midwest. Perhaps laws regarding Meth could influence the electorate. The only problem here is that Meth is generally considered a 'bad drug' by both parties, and it would therefore be harder to predict how it would influence an election. Ok, I've finished my train of thought. :smile:

 

[George_Washington]

About Mr. Moore...I find it to be hypcocritical that he's so concerned about people being killed by guns when far more people are killed each year from obesity and heart disease. Obviously, Mr. Moore hasn't exercised or eaten a piece of fruit in over 20 years. It's just disgusting to see someone be that over weight. I feel sorry for people like that but still, glutony to that extent is unnerving. There are millions and millions of starving children in the world that would love to eat like those people do. There's just no reason why somebody has to be that overweight. Mr. Moore needs to spend some time in a third world country and maybe then he would be more responsible with food.

 

[Mikkel]

About Mr. Moore...I find it to be hypcocritical that he's so concerned about people being killed by guns when far more people are killed each year from obesity and heart disease. Obviously, Mr. Moore hasn't exercised or eaten a piece of fruit in over 20 years. It's just disgusting to see someone be that over weight. I feel sorry for people like that but still, glutony to that extent is unnerving. There are millions and millions of starving children in the world that would love to eat like those people do. There's just no reason why somebody has to be that overweight. Mr. Moore needs to spend some time in a third world country and maybe then he would be more responsible with food.

I understand your point, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that he's being 'hypocritical' simply because he's fat. He can be hypocritical in many other ways (just like everyone else on the planet), however. However amusing the thought of Michael Moore's intake of food being enough to feed a 3rd world country, I wouldn't say this is a very accurate assessment of his politics. I do get where you're coming from, though. I'll just be sure not to befriend too many fat people with guns.

 

[talloulou]

My biggest problem with Moore is that at heart it seems he is an independent. He knows there are problems with the left and the right. Yet he is too cowardly to put his talent to work trying to change the system. He is one of those who has given up and believes a vote for an independent is a wasted vote so he continuously blasts away at the right trying to win something for the democrats. Yet he has enough of a following that he could use his voice to go after both parties and really wake people up.

 

[debate_junkie]

My biggest problem with Moore is that at heart it seems he is an independent. He knows there are problems with the left and the right. Yet he is too cowardly to put his talent to work trying to change the system. He is one of those who has given up and believes a vote for an independent is a wasted vote so he continuously blasts away at the right trying to win something for the democrats. Yet he has enough of a following that he could use his voice to go after both parties and really wake people up.

That could be true, if alot of voters in this country couldn't be equated to sheep. (note I said..ALOT.. and not ALL... before any panties get into a bunch) They see a name, Kennedy, they see a party, Republican, and immediately vote for said name or party, because god forbid could we think outside of the box. The single biggest detriment to voting, aside of staying home on election day, is PARTY LINE VOTING.. because as we can clearly see now, the party lines are becoming blurred. Reps used to call the Dem's the tax and spend.... Well Reps now are the Cut taxes and STILL spend.

As a registered Republican, I have no problems voting for a Democrat who I believe could do the job better. Abortion is not a hot button issue for me, gay marriage is not a hot button issue for me. The intrusiveness of the government through taxation and subsequent spending of taxes IS a hot button issue for me. The 2 party lock on the elections process IS a hot button issue for me. Party endorseement of ONE candidate before a primary election IS a hot button issue for me.

Michael Moore, and what he says or does, is no different than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. So why the fuss? They are COMMENTATORS with political motives and agenda's. Should it be taken at face value? Probably not, until one does their OWN research on the subject.

I don't really see the need to get bent when it comes to Michael Moore. Because in the end, it would be up to me to decipher how true or false his claims are, right?

 

[aquapub]

Perhaps we should add to the ballots, the next presidential election, a referendum titled, "Should marijuana be decriminalized?"

That will bring the liberals, who typically vote democrat, (when they are not too stoned to vote :mrgreen: ,) out in droves.

Are you cool with that Aquapub?

I am fine with anything being put to the people for a vote. I certainly prefer it to rule by an oligarchy of federal judges.