Findings on "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

10-25-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I appreciate your effort, but IMO this is just another weak attempt to discredit an entire movie full of valid points by nitpicking a few minor points. I realize you were limited to 5, but couldn't you have found better examples? I guess not. The Kopel article is more of the same but still adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

The funny thing is that you commit just as serious a violation as Moore when you misrepresent the claims he makes in the movie. Why can't you provide a direct quote from the movie? It's probably because Moore never made those claims and you needed to create a straw man to easilly tear down.

I realize that the movie is not completely accurate. That's obvious. It would be practically impossible to create such a movie and for Moore to claim this is dishonest. However, to claim that one shouldn't watch the movie or believe anything in it is equally dishonest and leads people to bury their head in the sand and dismiss reality.

I think the claim that Bush hired a company to get rid of as many Democratic voting blacks as possible is a big point in the movie. So is the 42% vacation time. Hell, all of them are pretty big, sans maybe the veterans one.

Are you not just dismissing him out of hand because he went and got some facts to try and pry the tinfoil hat off your head with?

tspikes51 · 10-25-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

The funny thing is that you commit just as serious a violation as Moore when you misrepresent the claims he makes in the movie. Why can't you provide a direct quote from the movie? It's probably because Moore never made those claims and you needed to create a straw man to easilly tear down.

Sure, why not, I'll provide DIRECT QUOTES. I AM WATCHING THE MOVIE AND TAKING EXACT QUOTES FROM MOORE'S MOUTH HERE.

In the order in which they are presented:
1) (Referring to the Florida scenario) "And that her state (Florida) has hired a company (showing a shot of a sign reading 'Data Base Technologies') that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin (showing a shot of black people)."

2) "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42 percent of the time.

3) "Yes, it helps to be the President's son, especially when you're being investigated by the Security Exchange Comission. In 1990, when Mr. Bush was director of Harken Energy, he recieved this memo from company lawyers, warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later, he sold 848,000 dollars worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of over 23 million dollars."

4) "He [Bush] supported closing veteran hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug cost for veterans."

5) "In the days following September 11th all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... Not even Ricky Martin was allowed to fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the bin Ladens... It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets, and nearly 2 dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

He sure did make those claims. The movie had not been released on video, and the movie wasn't in a theater in my area at the time I wrote it. I took notes when we watched a Chinese bootleg copy in class, and didn't have time to take quotes. As I said, I didn't care whether he was more right or more wrong. I just wanted to find the truth. Any more Moore disciples wanna try???

Oh, and by the way, did I ever say that everything in the movie was false or that nobody should watch it??? Read again. I say quite the opposite.

^Ice_Bat^ · 10-25-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Let me guess, you are a Bush supporter?

Because he seeks to find the truth instead of taking in all the lies? lol

You are a good man for taking the time to research tspikes. Great work.

tspikes51 · 10-25-2004, 08:53 PM

I have just decided to undertake a project to find the truth to every single word that Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11. It may take years to do it, but by God I will do it. Everybody deserves the truth, and I intend to give it to them. Wish me luck, and if anybody wants to help, and can be non-partisan whilst doing so, let me know.

maximusveritas · 10-25-2004, 10:56 PM

ok tspikes, i'm not going to beat a dead horse and point out all the huge differences between the quotes you just provided and the way you originally misrepresented them. I'm sure it's as obvious to you as it is to me.

I will, however, admit that I misread your original post. It seemed as though it was directed just at Moore supporters, so I assumed it was just the usual "moore lies" statement. Still, it appears as though you are approaching this with the idea of just finding mistakes that Moore made. Perhaps you should also point out the facts in the movie for those who refuse to believe anything in a Michael Moore movie.

host · 10-25-2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jconnolly

I think the claim that Bush hired a company to get rid of as many Democratic voting blacks as possible is a big point in the movie. So is the 42% vacation time. Hell, all of them are pretty big, sans maybe the veterans one.

Are you not just dismissing him out of hand because he went and got some facts to try and pry the tinfoil hat off your head with?

If the material that I have included in the "quote" boxes below is not Bush's
record, I invite you to make a link referenced rebuttal.

Here are some referenced points to reinforce the argument that Moore made
credible claims in his Fahrenheit 9/11 film with respect to Bush spending 42%
of his pre-9/11/2001 presidential term "on vacation".

This must be the report that Moore cited in Fahrenheit 9/11. It was filed
just 11 months after Bush declared himself the "war president" :
(Even though the administration is sensitive about the subject of the president's "time off", as you can see, in the 34 months after 9/11, Bush
did not change the consistancy of the percentage of his vacation time)

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27592-2002Sep2.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27592-2002Sep2.html</a>
Bush by the Numbers, as Told by a Diligent Scorekeeper

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, September 3, 2002; Page A15

The statistics Knoller assembles produce many revealing portraits of the Bush presidency:

.......Bush has spent a whopping total of 250 days of his presidency at Camp David (123 days), Kennebunkport (12) and his Texas ranch (115). That means Bush has spent 42 percent of his term so far at one of his three leisure destinations.

To date, the president has devoted far more time to golf (15 rounds) than to solo news conferences (six). The numbers also show that Bush, after holding three news conferences in his first four months, has had only three more in the last 15 months -- not counting the 37 Q&A sessions he has had with foreign leaders during his term.

Bush has raised $114.8 million this year at 48 GOP events, surpassing Clinton's record of $105 million in 2000 from 203 events. The Bush White House has challenged his tally only once, and Knoller countered with voluminous evidence.

"The judge's decision is final," he says. ..................

......During the Bush administration, which practices the none-of-your-business theory of public disclosure, the logs have become even more valuable. "They don't want to talk about their strategy themselves, but they reveal it by what they do," says the keeper of the stats.......

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm#more">http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-03-bush-vacation.htm#more</a>
08/03/2001 - Updated 12:02 PM ET

White House to move to Texas for a while

By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

And.....23 months after declaring himself a "war president" :

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15546-2003Aug2?language=printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15546-2003Aug2?language=printer</a>
Bush Aces Physical, Begins a Month at Ranch

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 3, 2003
..........A CBS News tally shows this is Bush's 26th presidential trip to Crawford. He has spent all or part of 166 days at the ranch or en route -- the equivalent of 51/2 months. When Bush's trips to Camp David and Kennebunkport, Maine, are added, according to the CBS figures, Bush has spent 250 full or partial days at his getaway spots -- 27 percent of his presidency so far.

The following report, filed 34 months after declaring himself a "war president" reinforces Moore's "on vacation 42% of Bush's presidency" :

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18516-2004Aug20.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18516-2004Aug20.html</a>
Just Don't Call It a Vacation

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, August 20, 2004; 11:09 AM

President Bush spent the day yesterday on his Texas ranch riding his mountain bike and watching the Olympics on TV. But don't call it a vacation......

......CBS Radio's Mark Knoller keeps meticulous tabs on Bush's every move and files this report for the cbsnews.com Web site:

"A CBS News tally shows that President Bush is now making his 38th visit to his Prairie Chapel ranch since taking office. Add up the number of full or partial days he has been there -- it comes out to 254.
<b>
"That's about 20 percent of his presidency. Add in his time at Camp David and the Bush family home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and the percentage more than doubles. </b>And the White House is self-conscious about it."

Knoller concludes: "Though it's definitely worth noting how much time Mr. Bush spends at his ranch -- it's unfair to say it's all vacation -- it's certainly a vacation atmosphere."

With his 44 day "streak", can Bush credibly attend to all his responsibilities?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132437,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132437,00.html</a>
Bush Spends Rare Full Day at White House
Wednesday, September 15, 2004

WASHINGTON — Wednesday finds President Bush doing a rare thing: spending a full day in the nation's capital. But he won't be around for long — he hits the road again the next day.

Aug. 2 was Bush's last full day in Washington, when he appeared in the Rose Garden to announce his support for intelligence reforms. Locked in a tight race for re-election with Democrat John Kerry (search), Bush is roaming the country instead.

And politics won't be far away even as Bush breaks his 44-day, outside-the-Beltway streak. He gets a chance to appeal to a key constituency at a White House concert and reception Wednesday in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month ..........
.........On Thursday, he heads for Minnesota and several more days of travel.

Bush visited a total of 21 states during the 44 days, including three stays at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and time at his family's home on the Maine coast..........
The number of Bush travel days has been in double digits every month since February. And he has spent just a handful of full days in Washington all summer — just 10 since Memorial Day............

Question for Bush supporters. Why do you exhibit more indignation towards
Michael Moore for highlighting these facts about your "war president" in his
film, than you do towards Bush for drawing this type of attention from the
news media? Is this really an acceptable tone for Bush to set for his presidency, <br>before and after 9/11? Can you just dismiss these reports as
biased and unfair press coverage? These reports come from reliable sources
and offer a core argument that Bush did not show an earnest effort as a
comparatively previously inexperienced new president, pre-9/11, to spend
the time necessary to master the intricacies and responsibilities of his office,
and more alarmingly, at least to me, has not shown an earnest effort to
live a life as the "war president" he declared himself to be. Is it unreasonable
to accuse Bush of spending too much time in political fund raising and
partisan campaign activities since 9/11, especially in view of the threats and
challenges of terrorism that he and Cheney have frequently described to us?
In his Hannity interview, Bush said that "because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once."

hammer4all · 10-26-2004, 12:33 AM

I'm sorry, but the lack of direct quotes in your essay doesn't help its credibility. For all your average reader knows, you could be making one straw man argument after another and from the looks of it, that's exactly what you're doing.

Quote:

Second, he probably based it on the fact that the NAACP filed a lawsuit claiming disenfranchisement. However, race couldn’t have been a factor in putting names on the list of because the people denied their voting rights, in many cases, did not match the race of the felon that DBT was targeting in the purge.

You are missing the whole point. Innocent people were purged because their names were the same as those of felons on the list. The fact that 49% of felons were black makes it a race issue because innocent blacks with the same name would be disproportionately purged. A good overview Florida’s 2000 purge lists can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida...al_Voting_File

Quote:

Michael most likely based his claim that the people improperly purged would have voted for Gore from a study conducted by the American Sociological Review, (American Sociological Review, 2003) that 68.9% of felons vote Democrat. Therefore Moore draws his conclusion from a weak combination of sources.

Why the hell do you even need to ask this question? Moore provides all of his sources for the movie on his website so there is no reason to question which he used. It is truly amazing to me you can try to debunk a movie without first consulting the movie's own specified sources!

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=16

Quote:

Moore also attacks the President by saying that, according to an article published in the Washington Post shortly before September 11, 2001, Bush spent 42% of his first eight months in office on vacation.

[insert someone else's opinion of Bush's vacation time here]

Moore merely cites a statistic given by the Washington Post. Shouldn't you be criticizing them for publishing this statistic and not Moore?

Quote:

According to Byron York, (York, 2002) an ensuing SEC investigation revealed that “In light of the facts uncovered, it would be difficult to establish that, even assuming Bush possessed material nonpublic information, he acted with…intent to defraud.” They also concluded that most of the information that would have indicated such a monumental loss was not revealed to Bush until after he sold the stock. Bush had sold the stock to a broker who contacted Bush with the intent to buy the stock, and Bush conferred with company personnel to ensure that the sale could be completed. Moore probably tells the audience that Bush evaded the SEC because Bush submitted some papers to them late. So, Bush neither took insider tips nor did he “dodge” the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Here's what Moore cites as evidence on his website:

Quote:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Bush was investigated by the S.E.C. The James Baker law partner who helped Bush beat the rap from the SEC was a man by the name of Robert Jordon, who, when George W. became president was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
• “A week before George W. Bush's 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Co., the firm's outside lawyers cautioned Bush and other directors against selling shares if they had significant negative information about the company's prospects. The sale came a few months before Harken reported significant losses, leading to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The June 15, 1990, letter from the Haynes and Boone law firm wasn't sent to the SEC by Bush's attorney Robert W. Jordan until Aug. 22, 1991, according to a letter by Jordan. That was one day after SEC staff members investigating the stock sale concluded there was insufficient evidence to recommend an enforcement action against Bush for insider trading.” Peter Behr, “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post, November 1, 2002.
• “President Bush has chosen as ambassador to Saudi Arabia a Dallas attorney who represented him against … allegations arising from his sale of stock in Harken Energy Co. 11 years ago.” G. Robert Hillman, “Bush Taps Dallas Attorney to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia,” The Dallas Morning News, July 21, 2001.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=18

Quote:

The film claims that Bush tried to close veteran hospitals, and that he attempted to double the cost of prescription drugs for veterans. If you only listen to those two facts, and don’t look any deeper into it, you will find that Moore is correct on both points. He supported closing Veterans Affairs hospitals, as outlined in his Department of Veteran’s Affairs’ CARES Decision (Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2004). However, this document also says that the hospitals being closed were in places where the veteran population was decreasing, VA facilities were under-utilized, and where veterans could be served by another hospital, which Moore failed to mention.

The important thing is he got his facts right. You can rationalize and debate Bush's reasoning ad infinitum, but it won't get you anywhere. Moore provides extensive sourcing for this claim on his web site allowing people to decide for themselves.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/...ndex.php?id=21

Locobot · 10-26-2004, 04:46 AM

Excellent rebuttal hammer4all, nice work.

SirSeymour · 10-26-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Sounds like we're back to objectivity here. Anyway, "factual" can mean a lot of things. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder.

I would take issue with this. It is my opinion that facts are facts. The interpretation of those facts is open to debate, but not the facts themselves. Hence the use of the term "fact". But then I am a pretty literal type of guy and admit to being pron to splitting hairs sometimes. Not sure English should have been my first language as I tend to like more detail than English naturally lends itself to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

There's the problem...to you, the term "documentary" confers credibility.

Freely admitted. I think a lot of American does the same thing. I have taken an unscientific poll of those I work with (about 30 in my office here) and the term lends credibility in and of itself to 2 out 3 I talked to. All of those I talked to were surprised to find, as was I, that propaganda is considered a form of documentary. Most here are highly interested in politics and educated above the average in America.

I realize that this does not in and of itself prove anything but I think it sort has to make you stop and think. If most misunderstand what a documentary is and is not, then cannot that be used to lend false credibility by a guy with the intelligence and motive of Moore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

It's not just Hollywood that qualifies some propaganda as worthy of the title "documentary," it is a standard idea in the study of cinema. Pehaps your personal ideas don't jibe with the standard school of thought? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but don't act surprised when F9/11 is described as a documentary because, well, it is.

Again agreed. You would be correct in this. But as I stated above, I think my thoughts are perhaps more in line with mainstream American thought. And no, I will not be surprised again but that does not mean I will agree or approve either.

MSD · 10-26-2004, 08:19 AM

If this thread keeps going the way it is now, we'll eventually have enough information to compile and publish. Keep up the good work and don't let it go downhill.

tspikes51 · 10-26-2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

I'm sorry, but the lack of direct quotes in your essay doesn't help its credibility. For all your average reader knows, you could be making one straw man argument after another and from the looks of it, that's exactly what you're doing.

First off, I quote a post I made earlier, which I made in response to somebody who actually said that I was making a straw man (yes, he actually said "straw man"):

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

Sure, why not, I'll provide DIRECT QUOTES. I AM WATCHING THE MOVIE AND TAKING EXACT QUOTES FROM MOORE'S MOUTH HERE.

In the order in which they are presented:
1) (Referring to the Florida scenario) "And that her state (Florida) has hired a company (showing a shot of a sign reading 'Data Base Technologies') that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin (showing a shot of black people)."

2) "In his first eight months in office before September 11th, George W. Bush was on vacation, according to the Washington Post, 42 percent of the time.

3) "Yes, it helps to be the President's son, especially when you're being investigated by the Security Exchange Comission. In 1990, when Mr. Bush was director of Harken Energy, he recieved this memo from company lawyers, warning directors not to sell stock if they had unfavorable information about the company. One week later, he sold 848,000 dollars worth of Harken stock. Two months later, Harken announced losses of over 23 million dollars."

4) "He [Bush] supported closing veteran hospitals. He tried to double the prescription drug cost for veterans."

5) "In the days following September 11th all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... Not even Ricky Martin was allowed to fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the bin Ladens... It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets, and nearly 2 dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country."

He sure did make those claims. The movie had not been released on video, and the movie wasn't in a theater in my area at the time I wrote it. I took notes when we watched a Chinese bootleg copy in class, and didn't have time to take quotes. As I said, I didn't care whether he was more right or more wrong. I just wanted to find the truth. Any more Moore disciples wanna try???

Oh, and by the way, did I ever say that everything in the movie was false or that nobody should watch it??? Read again. I say quite the opposite.

In other words, you were being an ass where assism doesn't belong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

You are missing the whole point. Innocent people were purged because their names were the same as those of felons on the list. The fact that 49% of felons were black makes it a race issue because innocent blacks with the same name would be disproportionately purged. A good overview Florida’s 2000 purge lists can be found here:

I said all of that stuff. Refer to the above ass statement. Here's the quote from my essay:

Quote:

However, DBT wrongly purged around 1,100 eligible voters who’s names either matched that of a convicted felon, felons convicted in other states that restored their civil rights after their sentence was served, or people whose crimes were only misdemeanors, but were shown by records to be felonies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

Moore merely cites a statistic given by the Washington Post. Shouldn't you be criticizing them for publishing this statistic and not Moore?

Yep. I said that Moore got his statistic right, and didn't criticize anybody for any statistic. I just pointed out that the way that this stat is used is deceptive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

The important thing is he got his facts right. You can rationalize and debate Bush's reasoning ad infinitum, but it won't get you anywhere. Moore provides extensive sourcing for this claim on his web site allowing people to decide for themselves.

I said that too. Multiple times. However, my point was he manipulated facts to decieve the audience into thinking something that's not true.

Sun Tzu · 10-27-2004, 01:30 AM

tspikes51 is it in the third link information is given about FLorida legislature ordering the executive branch to hire a privite company. My knowledge of the deep political structure is novice; so Im trying to expand it. Executive what? Executive branch- the Presidency or governor?

tspikes51 · 10-27-2004, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

tspikes51 is it in the third link information is given about FLorida legislature ordering the executive branch to hire a privite company. My knowledge of the deep political structure is novice; so Im trying to expand it. Executive what? Executive branch- the Presidency or governor?

Yes. That article will tell you pretty much anything that you want to know about the fiasco in Florida.

Governor- the President has almost nothing to do with the executive branches of individual states. The executive branch makes all of the appointments for various committees, departments, and such, and in this case, they hired a company to be a task force.

hammer4all · 10-28-2004, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

First off, I quote a post I made earlier, which I made in response to somebody who actually said that I was making a straw man (yes, he actually said "straw man"):

The point is the movie quotes should be in the essay, not used as an afterthought 40 posts later. When you don't use direct quotes, you're liable to put words in people's mouths that they either didn't or wouldn't say. For instance, you state outright in your intro that the movie claimed "Bush was on vacation 42% of the time in his first eight months of office," but that wasn't the movie's claim. It was a claim by the Washington Post and fully attributed as such.

Quote:

Yep. I said that Moore got his statistic right, and didn't criticize anybody for any statistic. I just pointed out that the way that this stat is used is deceptive.

Except that the way it was used wasn't deceptive. There is nothing deceptive about citing a statistic from the Washington Post and using it the way it was meant to be used. If you have a problem with the statistic, than you have a problem with the Washington Post, not Moore.

Quote:

I said that too. Multiple times. However, my point was he manipulated facts to decieve the audience into thinking something that's not true.

He presented facts that supported his opinions, and in tern got those opinions from the available facts. I think Moore has made every effort to make sure they were accurate going so far as to higher "three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker" as he has stated. You're welcome to disagree.

host · 10-28-2004, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

Yes. That article will tell you pretty much anything that you want to know about the fiasco in Florida.

Governor- the President has almost nothing to do with the executive branches of individual states. The executive branch makes all of the appointments for various committees, departments, and such, and in this case, they hired a company to be a task force.

There's a lot more to the story than that......

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041017/ap_on_el_pr/florida_felons_voting">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041017/ap_on_el_pr/florida_felons_voting</a>

<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20041030082215/http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=1">Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program - Salon.com's politics story of the year</a>

Quote:

.....More than 50,000 felons were released from Florida prisons last year. About
85 percent must apply to get clemency. A year ago, the court found that about
125,000 inmates who completed their terms between 1992 and 2001 -- out of as
many as 700,000 -- had not been properly notified of their right to clemency.
Gov. Bush can't call the appellate court's ruling judicial activism. The
court didn't make the law; the state did. Here is the wording: "The authorized
agent (of the state) shall assist the offender in completing these forms...
before the offender is discharged from supervision." The court "interpreted"
that to mean the state must "assist the offender." <a href="http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html">http://www.freelists.org/archives/lit-ideas/07-2004/msg00472.html</a>

Quote:

The excuses are scattered amid ruins of voter list plan

By HOWARD TROXLER, Times Columnist
Published July 15, 2004

My question is, did my friends in Gov. Jeb Bush's administration intentionally try to look so goofy over this list of 47,000 names of potential purgees from Florida's voter rolls?

Was there a sale on rubber red noses and floppy shoes down at the Clown Emporium? Was this a plot to keep us all laughing while Karl Rove sneaks into the basement and steals the voting machines?

No sir, no ma'am. They do not get to stand there week after week, all self-righteous, declaring that anybody who questions their list is a fool - they do not get to do it, and then, when the whole ridiculous thing collapses, blithely declare, "Never mind," and walk away whistling like it was ancient history <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/15/Columns/The_excuses_are_scatt.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/15/Columns/The_excuses_are_scatt.shtml</a>

Quote:

Florida is one of six states that permanently strip voting rights to felons for life unless they petition to have them restored. One election-law expert who usually represents Democrats said the release of the list will rekindle the debate over disenfranchising voters. <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml">http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/02/State/Felon_voters_list_mad.shtml</a>

Quote:

<h3>THE GREAT FLORIDA EX-CON GAME</3> How the 'felon' voter-purge was itself felonious
Harper's Magazine
Friday, March 1, 2002

In November the U.S. media, lost in patriotic reverie, dressed up the Florida recount as a victory for President Bush. But however one reads the ballots, Bush's win would certainly have been jeopardized had not some Floridians been barred from casting ballots at all. Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A portion of the list, which was compiled for Florida by DBT Online, can be seen for the first time here; DBT, a company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta, was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same service. If the hope was that DBT would enable Florida to exclude more voters, then the state appears to have spent its money wisely. <a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1">http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1</a>

Quote:

Phony felons. One of the outrages of 2000 was the creation of a list of "possible felons" who were knocked off Florida's voter rolls. Under Florida law, felons can't vote. Thanks to the work of Greg Palast, a left-of-center investigative writer, the public learned that the list of felons that the state gave to local election officials was defective. Local officials were supposed to do additional checking, but some were more diligent than others. Given that the list of "possible felons" was disproportionately from minority groups, minority voters had a much higher chance of being kicked off the rolls.

How many people were unfairly denied the right to vote under this program? A computer analysis by the Palm Beach Post in 2001 found that of the 19,398 potential voters knocked off the lists, more than 14,600 matched a felon by name, birth date, race and gender. That left 4,798 unaccounted for. Of the rest, the newspaper's analysis found that at least 1,100 eligible voters were "wrongly purged from the rolls." Bush was awarded Florida by a margin of 537 votes over Gore.

Most states do not permanently deny former felons the right to vote, and the few that still do should abandon a practice so often rooted in a racist past. More urgently, states and localities need to make sure that voters who were never felons don't get caught up in a voter purge. Fortunately, there are election officials in Florida wary of a new list of potential felons they recently received from the state. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53222-2004May24.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53222-2004May24.html</a>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch1.htm">http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch1.htm</a>
Impact of the Purge List
Source: Data collected by Rebecca Kraus, senior social scientist, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 2001.

Indeed, the persons who successfully appealed to have their names removed from the list provided to Miami-Dade County by the Florida Division of Elections are also disproportionately African American. One hundred fifty-five African Americans (47.4 percent of the total) successfully appealed in response to the June 1999 list, and 84 African Americans (59.2 percent of the total) successfully appealed in response to the January 2000 list. Hispanics accounted for approximately 22 percent of those who appealed in response to both lists. White Americans accounted for 30 percent of those who appealed in 1999 and 26.7 percent of those who appealed in 2000 (see table 1-4). Based on the experience in Miami-Dade County, the most populous county in the state, it appears as if African Americans were more likely than whites and Hispanics to be incorrectly placed on the convicted felons list.

CONCLUSION

The Voting Rights Act prohibits both intentional discrimination and “results” discrimination. It is within the jurisdictional province of the Justice Department to pursue and a court of competent jurisdiction to decide whether the facts prove or disprove illegal discrimination under either standard. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights does not adjudicate violations of the law. It does not hold trials or determine civil or criminal liability. It is clearly within the mandate of the Commission, however, to find facts that may be used subsequently as a basis for legislative or executive action designed to protect the voting rights of all eligible persons.

Accordingly, the Commission is duty bound to report, without equivocation, that the analysis presented here supports a disturbing impression that Florida’s reliance on a flawed voter exclusion list, combined with the state law placing the burden of removal from the list on the voter, had the result of denying African Americans the right to vote. This analysis also shows that the chance of being placed on this list in error is greater for African Americans. Similarly, the analysis shows a direct correlation between race and having one’s vote discounted as a spoiled ballot. In other words, an African American’s chance of having his or her vote rejected as a spoiled ballot was significantly greater than a white voter’s. Based on the evidence presented to the Commission, there is a strong basis for concluding that section 2 of the VRA was violated.

<a href="http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm">http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/dissent.htm</a>
VI. The Commission’s Analysis of the Felon List is Misleading

The report asserts that the use of a convicted felons list “has a disparate impact on African Americans.” “African Americans in Florida were more likely to find their names on the list than persons of other races.” Of course, because a higher proportion of blacks have been convicted of felonies in Florida, as elsewhere in the nation. But there is no evidence that the state targeted blacks in a discriminatory manner in constructing a purge list, or that the state made less of an effort to notify listed African Americans and to correct errors than it did with whites. The Commission did not hear from a single witness who was actually prevented from voting as a result of being erroneously identified as a felon. Furthermore, whites were twice as likely as blacks to be placed on the list erroneously, not the other way around.

The compilation of the purge list was part of an anti-fraud measure enacted by the Florida legislature in the wake of a Miami mayoral election in which ineligible voters cast ballots. The list for the 2000 election was over-inclusive, and some supervisors made no use of it. (The majority report did not bother to ask how many counties relied upon it.) On the other hand, according to the Palm Beach Post, more than 6,500 ineligible felons voted.

Based on extensive research, the Miami Herald concluded that the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it wrongly prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot. The Commission should have looked into allegations of voter fraud, not only with respect to ineligible felons, but allegations involving fraudulent absentee ballots in nursing homes, unregistered voters, and so forth. Across the country in a variety of jurisdictions, serious questions about voter fraud have been raised.

Lebell · 10-28-2004, 09:54 AM

When does the movie version of this thread come out?

Sun Tzu · 10-29-2004, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

Yes. That article will tell you pretty much anything that you want to know about the fiasco in Florida.

Governor- the President has almost nothing to do with the executive branches of individual states. The executive branch makes all of the appointments for various committees, departments, and such, and in this case, they hired a company to be a task force.

Im missing where the executive branch is being ordered by a state legislature.

If your refering to Jeb doing the hiring are you also suggesting the "company" he hired isnt funded by Republicans?

tecoyah · 10-29-2004, 03:46 AM

You guys make me so proud.....snif, snif

tspikes51 · 10-29-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammer4all

The point is the movie quotes should be in the essay, not used as an afterthought 40 posts later.

DAMMIT!!!!! YOU STILL DIDN'T READ THE POST!!!! I said quite clearly in that post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

The movie had not been released on video, and the movie wasn't in a theater in my area at the time I wrote it. I took notes when we watched a Chinese bootleg copy in class, and didn't have time to take quotes. As I said, I didn't care whether he was more right or more wrong.

I could not possibly had put quotes in the paper. If I were criticizing an essay you wrote, and you took the time to write something in response to clarify, I would take the time to read what you wrote. I am just asking for some common courtesy.

tspikes51 · 10-29-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Im missing where the executive branch is being ordered by a state legislature.

If your refering to Jeb doing the hiring are you also suggesting the "company" he hired isnt funded by Republicans?

When did I say anything about Republicans or Democrats, and why does that matter??? That would be a conspiracy theory, and doesn't hold much weight. Nobody denied anybody the right to vote based on political party.

hammer4all · 10-29-2004, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tspikes51

I could not possibly had put quotes in the paper. If I were criticizing an essay you wrote, and you took the time to write something in response to clarify, I would take the time to read what you wrote. I am just asking for some common courtesy.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have skimmed over that last part too quick...

Still, I think it's somewhat irresponsible to try and fact check a movie without having a copy or script in hand as a reference. Context and wording is rather important after all...

tspikes51 · 11-01-2004, 12:16 PM

Apology accepted. I didn't think of getting a script online...

10-25-2004, 08:53 PM	#44 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	I have just decided to undertake a project to find the truth to every single word that Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11. It may take years to do it, but by God I will do it. Everybody deserves the truth, and I intend to give it to them. Wish me luck, and if anybody wants to help, and can be non-partisan whilst doing so, let me know. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-27-2004, 01:30 AM	#52 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	tspikes51 is it in the third link information is given about FLorida legislature ordering the executive branch to hire a privite company. My knowledge of the deep political structure is novice; so Im trying to expand it. Executive what? Executive branch- the Presidency or governor? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

10-28-2004, 09:54 AM	#56 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	When does the movie version of this thread come out? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-29-2004, 03:46 AM	#58 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	You guys make me so proud.....snif, snif __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-01-2004, 12:16 PM	#62 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	Apology accepted. I didn't think of getting a script online... __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

10-25-2004, 10:56 PM	#45 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	ok tspikes, i'm not going to beat a dead horse and point out all the huge differences between the quotes you just provided and the way you originally misrepresented them. I'm sure it's as obvious to you as it is to me. I will, however, admit that I misread your original post. It seemed as though it was directed just at Moore supporters, so I assumed it was just the usual "moore lies" statement. Still, it appears as though you are approaching this with the idea of just finding mistakes that Moore made. Perhaps you should also point out the facts in the movie for those who refuse to believe anything in a Michael Moore movie.

10-26-2004, 04:46 AM	#48 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Excellent rebuttal hammer4all, nice work.

10-26-2004, 08:19 AM	#50 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If this thread keeps going the way it is now, we'll eventually have enough information to compile and publish. Keep up the good work and don't let it go downhill.