 |
| |
|
|
Verto
|
|
For convenience, here are the two bits from Spinsanity I posted before, criticizing his book Stupid White Men.
quote:
Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals.
The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds. |
quote:
In a discussion of Pentagon spending, he refers to the "$250 billion the Pentagon plans to spend in 2001 to build 2800 new Joint Strike Fighter planes" and states that "the proposed increase in monies for the Pentagon over the next four years is $1.6 trillion." To back this up, he refers to the Web site of the peace activist group Council for a Livable World. CLW's own analysis of the 2001 budget, however, shows that $250 billion is the total multiyear cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program, not the amount spent in one year. $1.6 trillion, meanwhile, was the total amount of money requested by the Pentagon at the time for 2001-2005. It covers five years, not four, and is a total budget request, not a "proposed increase" over previously requested budget levels. It shouldn't even take this much research, however, to determine that out of the total defense budget request of $305.4 billion in 2001, $250 billion was never intended to go toward one type of plane, nor that an increase of $400 billion per year in military spending was never proposed. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
repeated claims from Moore that he is an independant are now being proven false. He is registered as a Democrat in NYC despite helping Nader in 2000. |
Based on his voting for nader I would call him independant. Registering as a democrat is just a technicality.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by livid imp
Secondly, when a Moore critic puts out a book or a radio show, etc. you don't see Moore calling for the censorship of their works the way the American right did for F911. To me, this is the most disturbing thing I've seen the right do since killing abortion doctors.
I find it supremely hypocritical for any American to support censorship just because they don't like the message. If you think the message is wrong, then make your rebuttal, and then let the people decide who has the more sound argument. |
I have no advocated censoring this film, nor have I seen evidence of anyone trying to do so. Yes, some contacted their local theater owners asking them to boycott F911, but that is not censorship.
I just believe Moore's films are too biased, too 'loose' with the facts, too creative in it's editing, to be classified by a documentary, and I wish the media would not categorize it as that. It gives the impression that Moore's works are factually accurate and at least somewhat objective, when they are clearly not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-06-2004 05:22
Seeing as how the American right didn't call for censorship of F911, this statement makes no sense.
.
|