• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Moore to make sequel to 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Source: The independant

Michael Moore is not taking George Bush's election victory lying down. The guerrilla film-maker is planning a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11, the feature-length documentary he hoped would sway American voters in the recent presidential election. The sequel, to be called Fahrenheit 9/11½, will be timed to coincide with the next election and will revisit the same issues as the previous documentary, which lambasted Mr Bush's presidency, the response to the 11 September attacks and the war in Iraq.

"We want to get the cameras rolling now and have it ready in two [to] three years," he told the industry paper Daily Variety. "Fifty-one per cent of the American people lacked information [in this election], and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
I like Mike. I've met Mike. But Moore is completely wrong in his assertion that 51% of the voting public "lacks information." If only it were that easy. The real problem is much more complex. The fact is many people had a great deal of information. Much of it wrong. It isn't that the American voter is uninformed. It is that they are mis-informed. For example several studies were done showing that depending on which network you watched you were likely to have dramatically different views regarding the same situation. Two studies actually noted that you were more likely to have a more accurate view of the facts if you watched Comedy Centeral's "The Daily Show" to get your news then if you watched a cable network news program. With all due respect to Jon Stewart and his fine staff, that's just sad.:confused:
 

bfeverish

New member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's a study done after the election that illustrates the different beliefs of Bush and Kerry supporters.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf


Our media is a huge problem. 6 corporations own 80% of all media. That's why it's important fight back against the consolidation of media on all fronts possible. Democracy relies on a true and free media.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Our media is a huge problem. 6 corporations own 80% of all media. That's why it's important fight back against the consolidation of media on all fronts possible. Democracy relies on a true and free media.
Absolutely!! That is why I believe that the interenet will elect the next President - not the "Mainstream" media.

Quoteing from the pdf...
"Despite an abundance of evidence that the world public opinion has opposed the US going to war with Iraq, only 31% of the Bush supporters are aware this is the case, and only 9% are aware that Kerry is a more popular canidate than Bush in world public opinion."
What they failed to realize is that 80% of Bush supporters could give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Therefore, they do not listen. If we listened to public opinion in WWII then half of them would be speaking German.

This starts out as a very interesting study until they get into the analysis. It is a very biased and can be summed up with: they think Bush supporters are lemmings and do not have a mind of their own. They follow it up with saying that the war on terror is a major factor in the reason why there is a huge Bush following. This obviously was before the election. The major reason he was re-elected was because of morals. Not the War on Terror. Which, interestingly enough, was not in thier polls which relied on "Hispanic ethnicity" as stated on the last page.

Why would a poll state that it was blanced on "race, Hispanic ethnicity"?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
"What they failed to realize is that 80% of Bush supporters could give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Therefore, they do not listen. If we listened to public opinion in WWII then half of them would be speaking German."

I keep seeing and hearing more and more comments of this nature. To begin with public opinion in the late 30's and early 40's were decidely against Germany. I believe we did follow the course, to some degree, of public opinion. But I'm not sure that had anything to do or not to do with anyone speaking or not speaking German. Hilter and the Nazi's were awful miserable excusses for human beings and for the most part everyone was in agreement on that. Which is why we joined in the effort to defeat them.

Second there seems to be this rallying cry to some effect that echos "We're Americans. We do what we want. Not what someone in France, Germany or any other country trys to tells us to do." Well that's all well and good. I'm all for not letting some other country "dictate" our policy to us. But it seems lately, at times, we let that attitude overide common sense. Sometimes what's in their best interest IS in our best interest and visa versa.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
This starts out as a very interesting study until they get into the analysis. It is a very biased and can be summed up with: they think Bush supporters are lemmings and do not have a mind of their own. They follow it up with saying that the war on terror is a major factor in the reason why there is a huge Bush following. This obviously was before the election. The major reason he was re-elected was because of morals. Not the War on Terror. Which, interestingly enough, was not in thier polls which relied on "Hispanic ethnicity" as stated on the last page.

Why would a poll state that it was blanced on "race, Hispanic ethnicity"?

I must be misreading this or just plain missing it. I can't seem to locate the "Hispanic ethnicity" section you're quoting. What page and paragraph is it located?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The very last page - 17 I believe. Last sentence in first paragraph.

I may very well have been misreading it.
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"Second there seems to be this rallying cry to some effect that echos "We're Americans. We do what we want. Not what someone in France, Germany or any other country trys to tells us to do." Well that's all well and good. I'm all for not letting some other country "dictate" our policy to us. But it seems lately, at times, we let that attitude overide common sense. Sometimes what's in their best interest IS in our best interest and visa versa."

I agree with that. It's just that it can be numbing when we are inundated with statements about what the world thinks of us. The truth is that many of those other countries are just as split on the descision about Iraq. It's not all negative.

June 2003
What the world thinks of the US - 11,000 participants
CBC world poll
Same poll with graphs : BBC

It would be interesting to have a true comparitive study this year. There are polls out there from newspapers that site a differnet claim, but I have not found one of this magnitude recently.

I believe that Bush is doing a good thing. History will tell us that some day.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
"The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, a polling, social science, and market research firm in Menlo Park, California, with a randomly selected sample of its large-scale nationwide research panel. This panel is itself randomly selected from the national population of households having telephones and subsequently provided internet access for the completion of surveys (and thus is not limited to those who already have internet access). The distribution of the sample in the web-enabled panel closely tracks the distribution of United States Census counts for the US population on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity,geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc."
I'm guessing this is what you were speaking to? All this says is that the data collected by the poll is representative of the US population as noted in the US census. And that no group i.e. age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc is given more of a voice then another.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Thank you for the correction, I must be high on Jelly bellys.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
As you noted this poll is out of date. It was compiled prior to the world learning that Iraq didn't have and wasn't actively seeking WMD's. I haven't seen any polls done lately that contain anywhere near the scope of this poll. But basic opinion polls clearly state the rest of the world is looking at us in a less favorable light all the time.

I must say some of the countries that seemed to have a such dislike for us even a year or so ago don't seem to mind taking our hand outs.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
But seriously, I hope he doesn't have another bitching woman on for half the movie. Sure I felt bad for her son, but did I have to be reminded about it 25 times? Give me the facts, damnit!
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
The major reason he was re-elected was because of morals. Not the War on Terror.
Actually , while only 22% of voters sited moral values as the biggest issue, if you take terrorism (19%) and Iraq (15%), these two combined trumped moral values. 86% of Bush voters sited terrorism as the biggest issue. 80% of Kerry voters sited jobs/economy as the biggest issue.

This raises an interesting dichotomy. Blue state voters (coastal, urban, ethnically diverse) who are most at risk from acts of terrorism voted on economic issues; while red state voters (inland, rural, ethnically homogenous) who are more likely to be the victim of down-sizing then terrorism, voted on moral issues and fear of terrorism. Do the red states know something the blue states don't? Were they trying to protect the blue states from themselves? Or is it that, as the PIPA report suggests, they believe things that simply aren't true...
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I'll go with the believe things that simply aren't true. I believe someone posted a survey about that earlier. I'll have to find it.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
heyjoeo said:
I'll go with the believe things that simply aren't true. I believe someone posted a survey about that earlier. I'll have to find it.
Sorry, Red State Voter, and I'm sure you're probably never going to admit it. But Heyjoeo has hit it out of the park. I truely and honestly believe that the mis-information spewed by Fox and right wing talk radio has convinced these people of so many falsehoods and that in fact is why Bush won. The survey Heyjoeo speaks of is not a stand alone survey either. There's quite a few out there and, by in large, have the same conclusions.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I talked to a friend last night that was going to vote for Kerry, but changed his mind in the last minute.

He does not watch FOX NEWS or listen to talk radio.

Kerry's requirement of a "global commitment" before defending ourselves was the key. I wonder how many other folks this helped to change?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
As you noted this poll is out of date. It was compiled prior to the world learning that Iraq didn't have and wasn't actively seeking WMD's.
Actually, this poll was conducted from September 3 to October 18, 2004. Quite timely, I'd say.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This poll was the reference in Pacridge post:

June 2003
What the world thinks of the US - 11,000 participants
CBC world poll
Same poll with graphs : BBC

The poll you are refering is about the US perception of how the world thinks of us.
This poll above is how the world actually thinks of us and is out of date. Another poll like the above, would be a better indication.

The cyberpresse.ca poll noted in the pipa poll is French which could account for a possibility of bias. Plus, it was about the presidential election not about how the world thinks of us in general.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
Actually, this poll was conducted from September 3 to October 18, 2004. Quite timely, I'd say.
The poll I'm speaking to in that post was done in 2003, it concerned what the worlds thinks of us. I didn't think it was timely in response to the post I was replying.

Then the poll you're noting was conducted to show the varrying perceptions of Bush supporters and Kerry supporters. It basically say's, in very basic terms, Bush voter's don't have their facts very straight. And my point was how could you get your facts right if the sources you're depending on for news and facts are feeding you a line of crap.
 
Last edited:

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
Kerry's requirement of a "global commitment" before defending ourselves was the key. I wonder how many other folks this helped to change?
The is the "global test" canard that was repeated incessantly by Bush/Cheney (in order to distract from an abysmal performance in the debates) and parroted by the supposedly "liberal" media.

First, here's Bush's caricature of what Kerry said:

"He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals."

And here's what Kerry actually said:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?"

Where in this does Kerry say we need to check with Paris before defending ourselves? The fallacy in the "global test" argument is that it assumes that we were in fact defending ourselves from an "iminent threat" when we invaded Iraq. Not a single justification for the war presented by the Bush administration has proven true, leaving them with the fatuous "he was a bad man."

Yes, he was a bad man, who had no WMD, and no workable programs even to develop WMD, let alone "nukular" weapons. (And who we supported during his worst atrocities.) He was a dime-store Stalin hobbled and caged by a decade of sanctions. Had the weapons inspectors been allowed to continue their efforts, the world would have learned this. But Bush needed to wag the dog to distract from his failing domestic policies. Hence we rushed to war without a "plan to win the peace," without the aid of our allies, thus leaving our troops and our taxpayers footing 90% of the bill. A "global commitment" would have not only saved money, but American blood.

That there are people who changed their mind about Kerry on this just proves you don't have to watch Fox to be misinformed.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
That there are people who changed their mind about Kerry on this just proves you don't have to watch Fox to be misinformed.
Nope! But it don't hurt to have an enitre "NEWS" network helping you spew your spin. And what exactly is spin? Oh yeah, it's lies that what it is, complete lies.

During this last election I can't remember how many times I heard a reporter ask: Do you think that just because their better at the game, at the spin? I heard it, at one time or another, on every network. And what is the game? The game is: which party can convince a large % of people a greater % of their lies. Right now the GOP's winning by about 1.5%, or in a landslide mandate if you listen to their spin. In a couple of years, maybe, the Dems will be able to convince a greater % to believe their spin. And we the, average person, sit back and take it.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
bfeverish said:
Here's a study done after the election that illustrates the different beliefs of Bush and Kerry supporters.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf


Our media is a huge problem. 6 corporations own 80% of all media. That's why it's important fight back against the consolidation of media on all fronts possible. Democracy relies on a true and free media.
I couldn't agree more. I think our national media, especially the sort thats broadcast on national tv networks is the lowest of the low. If you aren't blinded by the latest chevorlet ad campaign, or the millieu of other commercials, than you're going to be horrified of what the news caster has to say. A murder took place in _____, An carjacking today at _____, etc, etc.,... I just find it crass, and poor representation of our society. I mean if you just watched NBC/FOX/ABC/XYZ all the time, you'd think the world was populated with criminals and murderers. Not only that, but you wouldn't have heard of France, unless you had accidentally discovered it was a country when you were attending secondary school. Not that I'm partial to France, but you know we act like we are the center of attention all the time. As if there were no politics to be involved in, and as if there were no other nations except for the one's that we sent troops to to secure new territory for budding capitalist markets, such as the cell phone industry. Man I bet Cingular can't wait till we get those Iraqui's under control!! Well, I've said enough to make a few righty-whitey's angstfull. Peace. Out.

Whoops... this got posted under the wrong thread. It's supposed to complement someone's gripe about the media. No idea how that happend.
 
Last edited:

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vauge said:
June 2003
What the world thinks of the US - 11,000 participants
CBC world poll
Same poll with graphs : BBC

It would be interesting to have a true comparitive study this year. There are polls out there from newspapers that site a differnet claim, but I have not found one of this magnitude recently.

I believe that Bush is doing a good thing. History will tell us that some day.
Interesting poll. Interesting that the two countries in Asia chosen are SOuth Korea and Indonesia. The former is about split in its feelings about the United States (the split being mostly generational) and the later is Islamic and mostly anti-American. Other pro-American countries in the region (Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam) were ignored by the poll.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is true that President Bush had FOX News and talk radio backing him but Kerry Had MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The NY Times, The LA Times, Michael Moores movie so I would say the odds would have been in favor of Kerry.......

That said Kerry was a flawed candidate from the start......He made outrageous statements flip flopping back and forth on the issues.......He had terrible picture photos that showed he did not connect with the common man, but worse of all he used a very questionable military and war record to back up his candidacy....I can still see him coming out on the stage at the democratic convention with that ridiculous salute saying he was reporting for duty...........

The Swiftboat Vets for the truth shot him out of the saddle......Them guys were great and he had no answer for them............
 
Top Bottom