Lets vote, for president

Who would you vote for?

  • Bush

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Kerry

    Votes: 46 79.3%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
Can you give examples of slander in the movie, though? Are can you just be general about it? I understand that something can be misrepresented by being edited, but the converse is also true, i.e. just because something is edited it isn't necessarily misrepresentative. Do you disagree? I think that all anyone wanted you to do after you stated that the movie is slanderous is to say something like, "scene X is slanderous because it makes it seem like Y, but in reality it's Z." I haven't seen you do that yet (correct me if I'm wrong), and that's why the whole thing blew up.
OK if it must be done:

Example one:
"President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm."

Misrepresentation? Some people think so, others don't.

Example 2:
In his new movie, ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? film-maker Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests ?have given? $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests, helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals, even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in the movie, ?who you gonna like? Who?s your Daddy??


But a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore?s arithmetic?not to mention his logic. Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger?s book, ?House of Bush, House of Saud.? Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990?s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country?s military and National Guard. What?s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president?s father, George H.W. Bush.

Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this ?connection.? The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn?t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998?five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm?s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president?s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. ?The figure is inaccurate and misleading,? said Ullman. ?The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.?

Is that better? If you would like to read more http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/
just a good a source as Moore's website.
YES! Thank you for doing that. That was all I, for one, wanted you to do. I don't even really care about the whole thing. I haven't seen the movie, and I don't really plan on seeing it, so I'm not basing my vote off of it anyway. I just wanted you to do what you just did -- support your claims. By the way, I think that this makes the discussion more interesting.
a close race it is! Very exciting!

According to the latest opinion polls, it seems like Bush is in the lead at the moment. However, it is a very close race between Kerry and Bush.

Bush has 13-16% more advantage than Kerry according to polls conducted by CNN, US Today and Gallup.
The GOP Convent also is a factor that made Bush popular again no?

Is it common for parties in the U.S. to become popular right after a convent, because of large-scale publicity etc?

Did Kerry also become more popular when the Democrats had their convent in July earlier this year?

It is going to be an interesting "race" for Presidency...I am definately following it on TV on 2nd Nov...from Denmark. :)
Latest polls this morning(9/17) showed an even race. Gallup had Bush up by about 4%- just over the 3% margin of error. The LA times has bush winning the electoral college by 30.
bush only gained 2 points from his convention, kerry gained none... so they were very underachieving by many standards....

I watched bush say something that I found quite amusing: he said something like "you know, democracy is on the way" (about Iraq), and, I swear, it was visible that he was asking himself something like: "why wont they accept freedom? we are giving them democracy, they can't not want it" he seemed stunned that some people didn't want democracy... that said, I feel a little sorry for satan now, cause he seems confused. :D
I got the poll wrong. Gallup show double digits, but CNN and USA Today show a much tighter race. State by state projections show a narrow Bush lead.

By the way "confused" seem normal for Dubya. It seems to get him out of looking like a duplicitous purveyor of greed and death.
By the way "confused" seem normal for Dubya. It seems to get him out of looking like a duplicitous purveyor of greed and death.

...maayybee... but this time it looked more realistic.... either he had polished his acting skills, or he was honestly confused.
This is interesting as well, a list of Bush's accomplishments....

*I spent the U.S. surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy.

*I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy!).

*I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

*I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

*In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).

*After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

*In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

*I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

*I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.

*I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president, since the advent of TV.

*I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

*I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

*I set the all-time record for most ! people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any other person in the history of mankind.

*I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

*I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

*I am the first president in US history to have virtually all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

*I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any
market in any country in the history of the world.

*I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Ronnie was tough to beat, but I did it!!).

*I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

*I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

*I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.

*I withdrew from the United Nations World Court of Law.

*The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).

*I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)

*I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

*I am the first US president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

*I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned virtually every single economic category heading straight down.

*All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

*All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

*Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
Kerry needs to hire Satori!

Zogby's has the race very close (about 3%)
But Kerry would still lose the Electoral college. I don't think voters are paying attention?
Which opinion polls most reliable??

Which opinion polls are really most reliable? Are there any?
This question is brought up because Gallup, Pew Research Center and CBS/New York Times have different results by their analyses....weird. :?
For example, I read in the newspaper that Bush is leading so far, but comparing the opinion polls from the above-mentiobed three places, there are different reusults from the same period.
The biggest difference was the one between Gallup and Pew Research:
Gallup says: BUsh 55% Kerry 42%
Pew Res.: Bush 46% Kerry 46%

Opinion polls are never 100% reliable, as some institutes of course asks a certain segment instead of the whole picture, people can lie, the institutes are biased and many other factors....

Any comments? What is your source for information about polls??
I generally don't listen to them, because of what you have just said. :) I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. I guess it's just us humans doing that "we have to know now!" thing that we do, you know what I mean? Basically all it is is gossip.
A lot has do with what question they ask (if the election were held today, who would you vote for? vs. who do you intend to vote for in November?) , and who they ask (Registered voters, likely voters...). They may also weigh your vote due to your demographic characteristics (Republicans are more reliable than Dems, so you multiply each democratic response by .81).
sabro said:
Kerry needs to hire Satori!

Thanks, Sabro! He sure needs to hire someone, doesn't he? He's had the worst P.R. throughout his entire campaign, IMO. And that's scary when there is so much riding on this particular election. :souka:

Lina Inverse said:
That are some very valid points you brought up there, Satori! :cool:

Thanks, Lina!! :)
Go Nader!!!!! :D

Nah, I vote for Bush. Of course, that doesn't really matter, considering I turn 18 a month after elections...-sigh-
"America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up." O.Wilde

This thread has been viewed 7616 times.